G.R. No. L-24037 April 27, 1967
ALBERTO DE JOYA, as Commissioner of Customs and MATIAS ANTOLIN, as Collector of Customs for the North Harbor, petitioners, vs. HON. GREGORIO T. LANTIN, as Presiding Judge, Branch VII, Court of First Instance of Manila and FRANCINDY COMMERCIAL, respondents.

FACTS

Francindy Commercial purchased 90 bales of assorted textiles and rags from Ernerose Commercial, which had imported and entered the goods through the Port of Cebu. The goods were shipped to Manila in two batches. When the goods were about to leave the customs premises in Manila, Customs authorities held them for verification and found them to be different from the declaration in the cargo manifest. Francindy Commercial demanded release, asserting it was a purchaser in good faith, that the transaction was a local purchase not subject to customs examination, and that the goods came from a coastwise port. On October 26, 1964, Francindy Commercial filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Manila to compel the Customs authorities to release the goods. Subsequently, on November 12, 1964, the Customs Collector issued a warrant of seizure and detention, docketed as Seizure Identification No. 8422. The Customs authorities moved to dismiss the petition in the Court of First Instance for lack of jurisdiction, but the court instead issued a preventive and mandatory injunction. The Customs authorities then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Bureau of Customs has jurisdiction to seize the goods and institute forfeiture proceedings against them.
2. Whether the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to entertain the petition for mandamus to compel the Customs authorities to release the goods.

RULING

1. Yes, the Bureau of Customs has jurisdiction. The goods are imported articles entered at the Port of Cebu. If found to have been released irregularly from Customs custody, they are subject to seizure and forfeiture under Section 2530(m) of the Tariff and Customs Code (Republic Act 1957). The Bureau of Customs has the power to collect revenues, prevent smuggling, and enforce customs laws under Section 602 of Republic Act 1957. The seizure was effected on October 6, 1964, prior to the court petition, for the purpose of verifying payment of duties and taxes.
2. No, the Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture proceedings is vested exclusively in the Bureau of Customs and, on appeal, the Court of Tax Appeals, pursuant to Republic Acts 1937 and 1125. These laws are special and later enactments compared to the general Judiciary Act. Allowing recourse to the Court of First Instance would render ineffective the power of the Customs authorities and deprive the Court of Tax Appeals of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, citing Pacis vs. Averia, affirmed that the Court of First Instance must yield to the jurisdiction of the Customs authorities.
The Supreme Court rendered judgment dismissing for lack of jurisdiction the petition filed by Francindy Commercial in the Court of First Instance of Manila and making permanent the preliminary injunction issued by the Supreme Court against the respondents. No costs.