G.R. No. L-5482, May 5, 1952
Tranquilino Rovero, petitioner, vs. Rafael Amparo as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch III, The Republic of the Philippines and The Sheriff of the City of Manila, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Tranquilino Rovero arrived at Makati Air Port from Bangkok on April 25, 1947. He declared a Chinese vase valued at P15. Customs officials, upon examination, found the vase had a false bottom containing 259 pieces of jewelry, which were appraised at P23,736. Rovero admitted owning the jewelry, having bought them in Bangkok, and that he concealed them to avoid declaration and payment of duties. The jewelry was seized. Rovero was prosecuted and found guilty of violating customs laws. In a forfeiture proceeding (Identification Case No. 555), the Commissioner of Customs declared the seizure proper and, in lieu of forfeiture under Section 1365 of the Revised Administrative Code, imposed a fine equal to three times the appraised value, with the jewelry deliverable to Rovero upon payment of duties and the fine. Rovero appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila, which affirmed the decision. His further appeal to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-3281) was denied, and the decision became final on June 28, 1951.
After the Supreme Court decision, Rovero petitioned for a reappraisal of the jewelry. The Collector of Customs, by order of the Commissioner, created a committee which reappraised the jewelry at P9,880. The Secretary of Finance authorized setting aside the original appraisement and collecting the fine and duties based on the reappraised value. Rovero then paid the fine based on the reappraised value (P9,880) and received the jewelry.
The Solicitor-General moved for execution of the final court decision based on the original appraisal. Rovero claimed the judgment was satisfied by his payment based on the reappraised value. Judge Amparo ordered execution, finding the full judgment amount had not been paid, and denied Rovero’s motions for reconsideration. Rovero filed the present petition for certiorari and/or prohibition.

ISSUE

Whether the Commissioner of Customs and the Secretary of Finance, after a final court decision affirming a forfeiture and imposing a fine based on an original appraisement, have the authority to order a reappraisement of the seized goods and accept payment of the fine based on the reduced reappraised value, thereby compromising or modifying the final judgment.

RULING

No. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit. The Supreme Court held:
1. When the Commissioner of Customs orders seizure, has goods appraised, and imposes a fine based on that appraisal, and the importer appeals to the Court of First Instance, the amount of the appraisal is necessarily involved in the appeal. Affirmance of the decision gives legal sanction to the Commissioner’s actions, including the appraisal amount on which the fine is based.
2. Once the court decision becomes final, neither the Secretary of Finance nor the Commissioner of Customs may reappraise the goods to reduce the fine.
3. These officials have no authority to remit fines or forfeitures after the courts, in final decisions, have sanctioned them.
4. The jurisdiction of Customs officials over such administrative cases ends upon appeal to the courts and the rendition of final judgments. Thereafter, their function is to carry out the terms of the final court decisions.
5. The power of the Commissioner of Customs under Section 1369 of the Revised Administrative Code to compromise any case or proceeding arising under the customs laws does not extend to cases already appealed to and finally decided by the courts.
6. The supervision and control over judicial proceedings given to the Commissioner by Section 1368 does not extend to modifying final court decisions by accepting anything different or less than what is awarded to the Government.
The Commissioner is an agent and trustee of the Government, not a private party, and lacks authority to accept less than the judgment award without express authorization from the Government or law. The Government acquired a vested right to the fine based on the original appraisal through the final judgment. The motion for reconsideration was denied.