G.R. No. L-27350 May 11, 1978
WIL WILHEMSEN, INC., doing business under the name and style of Barber Lines and COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. TOMAS BALUYUT, doing business under the name and style of Derham Bonded Warehouse, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

The plaintiffs-appellants, shipping companies, owned or leased empty cargo vans used to transport goods. After unloading these vans at the Manila port, they were left at the pier area. To alleviate cargo congestion, the Bureau of Customs issued a memorandum on April 20, 1964, ordering the removal of empty vans within ten days, authorizing their transfer to bonded warehouses if not removed, and making owners liable for storage charges. Pursuant to this and a subsequent Customs Administrative Order, the defendant-appellee, operator of Derham Bonded Warehouse, applied for and was authorized to transfer overstaying empty vans from the pier to his warehouse. He subsequently took possession of the appellants’ vans.
The appellants filed separate replevin suits to recover their empty cargo vans without paying storage fees. They argued that the vans were “cargoes” and thus subject to a different customs regulation, Memorandum Order No. 130-63, which required written notice to owners before any charges could accrue. They contended that since no such written notice was given by the warehouse operator, they should not be liable for any storage fees. The trial court dismissed their complaints and ordered them to pay the accrued storage, handling, and transfer charges, plus attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the plaintiffs-appellants are liable to pay storage fees to the defendant-appellee for their empty cargo vans stored in his bonded warehouse, and which customs regulation properly governs the imposition of such charges.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, ruling the appellants liable for the storage fees. The legal logic centered on determining the applicable customs regulation. The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that their empty vans constituted “cargo” under Memorandum Order No. 130-63. It held that based on commercial usage and the appellants’ own admission, empty cargo vans are not goods intended for disposal but are equipment or facilities used by carriers for the protection and transport of actual cargo. Therefore, they are not the “cargoes” contemplated by that order.
The Court found Customs Administrative Order No. 22-64, specifically designed to address port congestion from empty sea vans, to be the applicable and special law. This order required removal within ten days and authorized bonded warehouses to transfer and store overstaying vans, with charges borne by the owners. It did not contain a requirement for the warehouseman to provide prior written notice to the van owners; it only required an inventory report to the Collector of Customs for posting. Applying the principle that a special statute prevails over a general one, the Court held that the warehouse operator had complied with the directives of the applicable administrative order. Consequently, the appellants, as owners/agents of the vans, were legally obligated to pay the accrued storage and related charges for the period the vans were in the appellee’s custody.