G.R. No. L-35027 September 10, 1973
HONORABLE CESAR VIRATA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HONORABLE BENJAMIN H. AQUINO, Presiding Judge Court of First Instance, Pasig, Rizal, JUANITO P. TINSAY, and GREGORIO C. GUIDO, etc., respondents.

FACTS

A shipment of assorted foodstuffs, consigned as a donation to the religious corporation “Los Hijos del Dios Vivo y Omnipotente” (Los Hijos), arrived at the Port of Manila. Los Hijos’ application for a tax exemption certificate was denied, prompting it to sue and later offer to pay the corresponding duties and taxes. The Court of First Instance of Manila ordered the release of the goods upon such payment. Meanwhile, respondent Juanito P. Tinsay filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against Los Hijos, seeking a declaration of the validity of a general power of attorney allegedly executed in his favor, authorizing him to take delivery of the goods. He alleged the power of attorney was arbitrarily revoked. The respondent judge issued a restraining order and, later, an ex parte writ of attachment over the goods, which were still in the custody of the Bureau of Customs.
The petitioners, public officials representing the Bureau of Customs, challenged the writ via a special civil action for certiorari, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction. While the petition was pending, the respondent judge lifted the writ upon Los Hijos’ filing of a counterbond, citing the perishable nature of the goods. The petitioners then moved to dismiss the petition as moot, but Tinsay opposed, contesting the judge’s authority to lift the writ and the adequacy of the bond.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Rizal had the authority to issue a writ of attachment over goods under the custody of the Bureau of Customs for the collection of unpaid duties and taxes.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the writ of attachment was void and of no effect. The legal logic is anchored on the superior lien and right of custody held by the government over imported goods until duties, taxes, and other charges are paid. Under the Tariff and Customs Code, the Bureau of Customs has a possessory lien on the goods for the satisfaction of customs obligations. This lien and the government’s right to virtual custody are paramount. Any attachment levied by a sheriff upon such goods constitutes an impermissible interference with this statutory lien and the Bureau’s custody, which is held for the benefit of the government’s revenue collection. The Collector of Customs cannot be compelled to act as a bailee for the benefit of private litigants, as this duty is incompatible with his primary obligation to hold the goods for the government.
Consequently, the trial court acted without jurisdiction in issuing the writ of attachment against property under exclusive customs custody. The subsequent lifting of the writ by the trial court did not render the petition moot, as the fundamental question of jurisdiction remained. The Supreme Court made permanent its injunction against the enforcement of the void writ and lifted its injunction on the petitioners, allowing the Bureau of Customs to proceed in accordance with law. The Court emphasized that its ruling did not touch upon the merits of the underlying dispute between the private parties.