GR 45237; (October, 1936) (Digest)
G.R. No. 45237 ; October 28, 1936
MARIANO MOLO, petitioner, vs. A. L. YATCO, Collector of Internal Revenue, ANGEL S. GAMBOA and JOSE V. CABRERA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Mariano Molo’s documents and papers were seized by a special agent of the Anti-Usury Board pursuant to a search warrant issued by the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal for an alleged violation of the Usury Law. After investigation, the Board found insufficient evidence and dismissed the case. Molo requested the return of his documents. However, upon examination, the Board discovered Molo might have engaged in the money lending business without paying the required privilege taxes. The Collector of Internal Revenue was notified, assessed taxes, and sought to retain the documents for potential criminal proceedings. Molo filed a petition for mandamus to compel the respondents to return his documents.
ISSUE
Whether a writ of mandamus may be issued to compel the respondents (the Collector of Internal Revenue and the Anti-Usury Board agents) to return the seized documents to the petitioner.
RULING
No. The petition for mandamus is denied. The Supreme Court held that the documents were seized under the authority of the CFI of Rizal, and legal custody remained with that court through its agent, the Anti-Usury Board. The Board, having completed its investigation, was duty-bound to return the documents to the issuing court, not to retain them for another agency. The Collector of Internal Revenue could not lawfully seize or retain the documents without the court’s authority. Therefore, the proper remedy for the petitioner is to apply to the CFI of Rizal for the return of his documents. Mandamus does not lie against the respondents, as they are not the entities with legal custody. The Court dismissed the petition without prejudice to Molo’s right to seek relief from the CFI.
AI Generated by Armztrong.