G.R. No. L-65418 September 25, 1989
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF MANILA, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HEIRS OF BIENVENIDO FERRER and HEIRS OF EDUARDO BRAVO, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a garnishment of 33 cases of textiles, consigned to Cotabato Palay & Corn Producers, Inc., which were in the custody of the Collector of Customs of Manila. The textiles were later transferred to a bonded warehouse, with the sheriff directing the warehouseman not to release them without his written authorization. However, on December 28, 1963, the textiles were released using delivery permits accompanied by a note purportedly from the sheriff. An investigation later revealed this note was a forgery. The judgment creditors, Bienvenido Ferrer and Eduardo Bravo, moved to compel the Collector of Customs and the sheriff to pay the value of the misdelivered goods. The trial court denied the motion, holding the Collector was not liable under the Tariff and Customs Code and that the forgery was a fortuitous event. The Intermediate Appellate Court reversed, finding liability due to the negligence of a customs employee acting as storekeeper in the bonded warehouse.
The Supreme Court, in a decision dated June 18, 1985, affirmed the Appellate Court’s decision, citing the controlling case of Lung Chea Kung Kee & Co. vs. Aldanese, which held a Collector of Customs officially liable for misdelivery by a subordinate. The Court denied the Collector’s motions for reconsideration, and the judgment became final. In executing the judgment, a question arose as to whether the liability was official (chargeable against government funds) or personal (chargeable against the Collector’s own assets). Private respondents filed an urgent omnibus petition seeking clarification and a declaration of the Collector’s personal liability.

ISSUE

Whether the liability of the Collector of Customs for the misdelivery, as affirmed by the Supreme Court’s final judgment, is official or personal in nature.

RULING

The Supreme Court clarified that the liability is personal. The Court explained that its final judgment, which applied the doctrine from Lung Chea Kung Kee & Co. vs. Aldanese, must be read in conjunction with the subsequent and related case of American Express Co., Inc. vs. Natividad. In American Express, the Court explicitly distinguished between official and personal liability, holding that a Collector of Customs is personally liable for misdelivery of goods, with the government not being liable for the negligent acts of its officials in the performance of their ordinary functions. The Court reasoned that the fund in the Collector’s custody is a public fund for government obligations, not for satisfying judgments against the official personally. Therefore, when the Court in its 1985 decision cited Lung and affirmed the Collector’s liability, it inherently adopted the established jurisprudential principle that such liability is personal, as clarified in American Express. The Court declared former Collector of Customs Jose T. Viduya personally liable for the amount in the writ of execution. The motion to cite for contempt was denied.