G.R. No. L-65418 June 18, 1985
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF MANILA, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HEIRS OF BIENVENIDO FERRER and HEIRS OF EDUARDO BRAVO, respondents.

FACTS

In an execution pending appeal, plaintiffs Bienvenido Ferrer and Eduardo Bravo garnished 33 cases of textiles consigned to the defendant Cotabato Palay & Corn Producers, Inc., which were in the custody of the Collector of Customs of Manila. The goods were later transferred to a bonded warehouse, with the sheriff directing the warehouseman not to release them without his written authorization. However, on December 28, 1963, the textiles were released using delivery permits with a customs broker, purportedly accompanied by clearance from the sheriff and the shipping agent.
Nearly five years later, after the judgment in favor of Bravo and Ferrer was affirmed, the Collector, unaware of the release, requested the sheriff to release the goods. The warehouseman revealed the prior release. An investigation found the sheriff’s note on the delivery permits was a forgery, and criminal charges were filed against suspects, with no customs employee implicated. The garnishers moved to compel the Collector and the sheriff to pay the invoice value of the textiles, but the trial court denied the motion, absolving the Collector of liability under the Tariff and Customs Code and citing the forgery as a fortuitous event.

ISSUE

Whether the Collector of Customs of Manila is liable for the misdelivery of the garnished cargo from the bonded warehouse.

RULING

Yes, the Collector of Customs is liable. The legal logic is anchored on specific provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code. Section 1907 mandates that withdrawal from a bonded warehouse must be authorized by the proper person. Section 3511 explicitly states that a Collector shall not be personally liable for official rulings, except for a misdelivery of articles. The Court emphasized that misdelivery is an exception to the general immunity because such losses can be avoided with proper precautions by customs authorities.
The Collector argued that the forgery was a fortuitous event and that the storekeeper’s alleged negligence in not verifying the sheriff’s signature was a factual issue. While factual findings of the Appellate Court are generally binding, the legal principle of strict liability for misdelivery controls. The Court cited the precedent in Lang Chea Kung Kee & Co. vs. Aldanese, which held a Collector officially liable for a subordinate’s misdelivery even without the Collector’s knowledge or consent. This rule protects shippers and consignees, as actions against subordinate employees may be futile. Thus, the Collector’s liability is statutory and absolute for the misdelivery, irrespective of the absence of personal fault or the involvement of forgery. The judgment of the Intermediate Appellate Court holding the Collector liable was affirmed.