GR L 43810; (September, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 43810 September 26, 1989
TOMAS CHIA, Owner-Manager of the Sony Merchandising (Phil.) and TOM’S ELECTRONICS, petitioner, vs. THE ACTING COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, HON. ALFREDO T. FRANCISCO, and GENER SULA ASAC, respondents.
FACTS
Acting on a verified report from a confidential informant regarding a smuggling syndicate engaged in “shipside” activities, the Deputy Director of the Regional Anti-Smuggling Action Center requested the Collector of Customs to issue warrants of seizure and detention. The report alleged that illegally imported electronic and electrical equipment, evading customs duties, were stored in petitioner Tomas Chia’s stores, “Tom’s Electronics” and “Sony Merchandising (Phil.)” in Quiapo, Manila. After evaluation, Collector of Customs Alfredo Francisco issued Warrants of Seizure and Detention Nos. 14925 and 14925-A, directing the seizure of various described electronic articles for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code.
On April 25, 1976, a composite team from the Anti-Smuggling Action Center, assisted by customs and Manila police, raided the petitioner’s stores based on these warrants and confiscated assorted electronic equipment. The seized goods were turned over to the Bureau of Customs. A hearing on the forfeiture was commenced by the customs hearing officer. Petitioner Chia then filed this special civil action, seeking to nullify the warrants as unconstitutional general warrants, recover the confiscated goods, and obtain damages, thereby bypassing the ongoing administrative forfeiture proceedings.
ISSUE
Whether the warrants of seizure and detention issued by the Collector of Customs are unconstitutional general warrants, and whether the petitioner’s direct recourse to the Supreme Court via certiorari is proper.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The warrants issued were not general warrants. Under the 1973 Constitution, the Collector of Customs was explicitly authorized as a “responsible officer” to determine probable cause and issue such warrants for enforcing customs laws. The warrants in question sufficiently identified the specific stores to be searched (“Tom’s Electronics” and “Sony Merchandising”) and described the categories of articles to be seized (e.g., cassette tape recorders, portable TV sets), specifying the violated provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code. This satisfied the constitutional requirement for particularity.
Crucially, the Court ruled that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Upon the seizure, the Bureau of Customs acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the goods and the forfeiture case. The proper recourse for an aggrieved party is to appeal the Collector’s decision to the Commissioner of Customs, then to the Court of Tax Appeals, and finally to the Supreme Court. By seeking judicial intervention directly to halt the administrative proceedings, the petitioner’s action was premature. The Court lifted the preliminary injunction it had previously issued, thereby allowing the customs forfeiture proceedings to continue.