GR 90660 61; (January, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 90660-61; January 21, 1991
UTE PATEROK, petitioner-appellant, vs. BUREAU OF CUSTOMS and HON. SALVADOR N. MISON, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Petitioner Ute Paterok imported two used automobiles, including a Mercedes Benz 450 SLC, from Germany in March 1986. While one car was released, the Mercedes Benz was detained. In December 1987, she received a notice of seizure proceedings from the Manila International Container Port. However, in April 1988, she belatedly discovered that a separate forfeiture case had already been decided against the vehicle by the District Collector of Customs on December 16, 1986. The only notice for that proceeding was a bulletin board posting on November 13, 1986. Paterok’s motion for new trial was denied, with the Collector ruling that her failure to appear despite the posted notice warranted default and that forfeiture was mandatory under Batas Pambansa Blg. 73, as the car’s engine exceeded 2800 cubic centimeters. The Bureau of Customs Commissioner affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
Whether the forfeiture of the Mercedes Benz was validly effected despite procedural defects in notice and whether the mandatory forfeiture under B.P. Blg. 73 was correctly applied to an imported vehicle.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the forfeiture proceeding was procedurally flawed. Posting notice on a bulletin board is insufficient when the owner is known, as was the case here. Paterok was a known consignee with prior transactions with the Bureau, and her address was ascertainable from records. This failure to provide proper notice violated procedural due process. However, the Court ultimately upheld the denial of the petition on substantive grounds. It found that B.P. Blg. 73, which promotes energy conservation, mandates forfeiture only for vehicles manufactured or assembled in violation of its engine displacement limits. Since Paterok’s vehicle was imported, not domestically manufactured or assembled in violation, the law’s forfeiture clause did not apply. Instead, under Section 2609 of the Tariff and Customs Code, the vehicle, being contraband of commercial value capable of legitimate use, should not be forfeited but may be sold under restrictions, re-exported, or released upon engine replacement to comply with the displacement limit. Thus, while the Bureau’s procedure was defective, the correct legal disposition was not forfeiture but another administrative remedy.