G.R. No. L-8351, L-8364, L-8365 June 30, 1955
ROGACIANO MILLAREZ, as Acting Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila, petitioner, vs. The Honorable Judge RAFAEL AMPARO, of the Court of First Instance of Manila and SERREE INVESTMENTS COMPANY, respondents. / ROGACIANO MILLAREZ, as Acting Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila and EDILBERTO DAVID, as Commissioner of Customs, petitioners, vs. The Honorable Judge RAFAEL AMPARO, of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and LIM HU, conducting business under the name EASTERN SEA TRADING, respondents. / ROGACIANO MILLAREZ, as Acting Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila and EDILBERTO DAVID, as Commissioner of Customs, petitioners, vs. The Honorable Judge RAFAEL AMPARO, of the Court of First Instance of Manila and FRUCTUOSO NEPOMUCENO, respondents.

FACTS

In September 1954, three civil cases for mandamus and certiorari were filed in the Manila Court of First Instance by Serree Investments Co., Lim Hu, and Fructuoso Nepomuceno against the Collector of Customs for Manila and the Commissioner of Customs. The importers sought to compel the delivery of 368 packages of garlic that the customs officers had seized and impounded. The seizure was due to the importers’ alleged failure to present release certificates from the Central Bank, in violation of the Bank’s Circular No. 45. The respondent judge, upon ex parte petition, issued writs of preliminary mandatory injunction in each case, ordering the release of the garlic under bond. The customs authorities’ motions to dissolve these writs failed. Consequently, the customs authorities instituted these three special civil actions before the Supreme Court to revoke the writs and to enjoin their enforcement. The petitioners argued that the respondent judge lacked and/or exceeded his jurisdiction and abused his discretion because: (1) the judge interfered with a shipment in custodia legis, seized under lawful authority; (2) the Court of First Instance had lost its appellate jurisdiction over customs cases upon the creation of the Court of Tax Appeals by Republic Act No. 1125 ; and (3) the writs were improvidently issued due to non-compliance with the Rules and the importers’ failure to show a clear legal right. The Supreme Court issued preliminary writs of injunction to prevent the delivery of the garlic and later granted the petitioners’ request to sell the perishable merchandise. The respondents, in their answer, contended that Central Bank Circular No. 45 was contrary to law, that the seizure was unauthorized as the goods were not “merchandise of prohibited importation” under the invoked law, and that Republic Act No. 1125 did not preclude the Manila court from taking cognizance of the mandamus and certiorari proceedings. The Central Bank intervened to defend the validity of its Circular No. 45.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction to entertain the complaints for mandamus and certiorari and to issue the writs of preliminary mandatory injunction against the customs authorities’ seizure of the garlic shipments.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge had no authority to entertain the complaints. Republic Act No. 1125 , effective June 16, 1954, granted the Court of Tax Appeals exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review decisions of the Commissioner of Customs involving the “seizure, detention or release of property affected… or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other law administered by the Bureau of Customs.” This provision necessarily removed the power of the Manila Court of First Instance to “review” decisions of customs authorities in any case of seizure under the Revised Administrative Code. The complaints, although labeled as mandamus and certiorari, were in reality petitions to review the actuations of the customs authorities, a matter now exclusively within the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals. Furthermore, since the petitioners had an adequate remedy by appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals, neither certiorari nor mandamus was available. Therefore, the complaints lacked merit, and the issuance of the preliminary mandatory injunctions was clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court annulled the challenged writs and made permanent the preliminary writs of injunction it had previously issued. The Court found it unnecessary to rule on the validity of Central Bank Circular No. 45 or whether it prohibited the importation of garlic, as the jurisdictional issue was sufficient to dispose of the cases. Costs were imposed on the respondent importers.