G.R. No. L-22988 June 30, 1969
FERMIN SARE, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Fermin Sare imported nine separate shipments of various merchandise from Hongkong into the Philippines between October 1954 and March 1955. The shipments arrived aboard different vessels and were declared under specific customs entries. Seizure identification proceedings were instituted by the respondent Commissioner of Customs for lack of the Central Bank Release Certificates required under Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. Petitioner secured the release of the merchandise by posting bonds totaling P78,311.57. Subsequently, the respondent rendered judgments in the forfeiture proceedings, ordering the confiscation of the bonds and the joint and several payment of their amounts by petitioner and the sureties. The Court of Tax Appeals affirmed these judgments.

ISSUE

1. Whether the forfeiture of the merchandise (or bonds) is authorized despite Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 not expressly prescribing such penalty.
2. Whether the merchandise can be considered “of prohibited importation” or imported “contrary to law” under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code to justify forfeiture.
3. Whether Central Bank Circular No. 133 repealed Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, thereby rendering the forfeiture ineffectual.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, ruling against the petitioner on all issues.
1. On the authority to decree forfeiture: The forfeiture is authorized under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code, which explicitly prescribes forfeiture for “any merchandise of prohibited importation or exportation, the importation or exportation of which is effected or attempted contrary to law.” The seizure proceedings were instituted for violation of Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 in relation to this specific statutory provision.
2. On the nature of the importation: Goods imported without the required Central Bank release certificates under Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 are considered “merchandise of prohibited importation” or merchandise whose “importation… is effected… contrary to law” as contemplated under Section 1363(f). This interpretation is well-settled in jurisprudence, including Pascual vs. Commissioner of Customs and Commissioner of Customs vs. Serree Investment Co.
3. On the alleged repeal by Circular No. 133: The Court rejected the theory that Circular No. 133 repealed Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, noting that paragraph 6 of Circular No. 133 effectively reiterated the requirement of a release certificate. This ruling was consistent with prior and subsequent cases, including a previous case involving the same petitioner (Sare v. Aseron).
The petition was found devoid of merit, and the appealed decision was affirmed with costs against the petitioner.