G.R. No. L-11019; November 28, 1958
QUE PO LAY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On January 26, 1951, customs agents seized 329 pieces of gold bars and 174 pieces of U.S. monetary instruments (total value P271,895.02) from an export shipment. The items were found concealed in 50 bundles of salted dried fish covered by an export entry filed by Chua Siy on behalf of Que Po Lay, consigned to Hongkong. The articles were not declared in the export entry nor covered by a Central Bank export license. The Collector of Customs initiated seizure proceedings (S. Iden. No. 1010). Notice of the hearing was served on Atty. Prudencio de Guzman, counsel for Que Po Lay. Neither the counsel nor Que Po Lay appeared at the hearing, leading to a default declaration. On August 10, 1951, the Collector of Customs rendered a decision ordering the forfeiture of the articles to the government, which was affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs on September 6, 1951. Que Po Lay was also criminally charged. In related criminal cases, the Supreme Court acquitted him regarding the gold bars and reversed his conviction on other charges, finding the applicable Central Bank circular lacked legal effect due to non-publication. Subsequent attempts by Que Po Lay to recover the articles through motions, petitions for reconsideration, and a petition for certiorari and mandamus were denied, with courts and officials citing the finality of the forfeiture decision. On March 24, 1956, Que Po Lay filed the present action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover the confiscated articles, arguing the forfeiture decision was null for lack of jurisdiction and notice. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

1. Is the decision of the Collector of Customs, affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs in Seizure Identification No. 1010, valid and legal?
2. Are the notices given to plaintiff’s counsel of the hearing and the decision sufficient to satisfy the requirement of due process?

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal order, ruling against the appellant.
1. The forfeiture decision is valid and legal. There was sufficient justification for the seizure as the articles were not declared and were concealed in an attempt to export them without a required license. An error in the seizure report’s designation of the specific legal section violated was deemed immaterial, as the description of the facts constituting the violation controlled. The decision had long become final and conclusive.
2. The notices satisfied due process. Notice of the seizure hearing was duly served on Que Po Lay’s counsel of record, Atty. Prudencio de Guzman. This constituted notice to Que Po Lay himself. The requirement of due process was therefore met.
The Court held that the final and conclusive forfeiture decision barred the present action for recovery.