GR 28235; (January, 1971) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28235. January 30, 1971.
JOSE G. LOPEZ, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, REPARATIONS COMMISSION, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND/OR ANY OF THEIR AUTHORIZED AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Petitioner Jose G. Lopez entered into a conditional contract of purchase and sale with the Reparations Commission for the M/V JOLO LEMA, with title remaining with the Commission until full payment. After securing a fishing license, Lopez contracted Tomas Velasco to manage the vessel solely for legal fishing. However, on September 19, 1966, customs authorities in Davao seized the vessel for smuggling Indonesian copra and coffee beans, violating the Tariff and Customs Code, and instituted Seizure Identification Proceeding No. 25/66.
Anticipating contract rescission, Lopez filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition with injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila on November 10, 1966, against the Commissioner of Customs and others, seeking to declare the seizure proceedings void and to regain custody of the vessel. The Reparations Commission subsequently notified Lopez of the contract’s rescission due to the vessel’s use for smuggling, payment defaults, and insurance violations, treating the government’s custody as repossession. The lower court, citing Pacis v. Averia, denied the injunction and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, prompting Lopez’s direct appeal to the Supreme Court on pure questions of law.
ISSUE
The main issues are: (1) whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to interfere with the seizure proceeding pending before the Commissioner of Customs; and (2) whether the Reparations Commission could unilaterally rescind the conditional contract of sale.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. On jurisdiction, the Court reiterated the doctrine from Pacis v. Averia that the Tariff and Customs Code vests exclusive original jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture cases in the Collector of Customs, with appeals to the Commissioner of Customs and then to the Court of Tax Appeals. Regular courts of first instance are expressly excluded from this hierarchy and thus have no jurisdiction to interfere through injunctive relief. This preserves the specialized and summary nature of customs proceedings.
On the rescission issue, the Court ruled that a judicial action for rescission was unnecessary. The contract contained a valid facultative resolutory condition, explicitly granting the Reparations Commission the option to rescind upon the vendee’s failure to comply with terms, such as using the vessel for an illicit purpose like smuggling. The forfeiture of payments as rentals was upheld pursuant to this contractual stipulation, which the parties had freely agreed upon. Therefore, the Commission’s unilateral rescission by notice was legally effective. The order appealed from was affirmed.