G.R. No. L-8414. February 28, 1957.
MANGHARAM B. HEMMANI, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE EXPORT CONTROL COMMITTEE, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

On August 28, 1952, petitioner Mangharam B. Hemmani requested permission from the Export Control Committee to ship his 1949 Hudson Sedan to Osaka, Japan, “to be used in connection with his business thereat.” The Committee approved the request on the same day, on condition that petitioner post a bond equal to the car’s value (P4,500) to guarantee its return to the Philippines within six months. Petitioner posted the required surety bond on August 29, 1952, and shipped the car to Japan. He failed to return the car within the stipulated period and was granted two extensions, the last until March 1, 1954, but still failed to re-export it. On February 24, 1954, petitioner’s counsel requested cancellation of the bond, alleging it was impracticable and expensive to return the dilapidated car. The Committee denied the request but reduced the liability under the bond to P2,250.00, accounting for depreciation. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, arguing the Committee had no jurisdiction to impose the penalty and that it was an excessive fine, was denied. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of First Instance of Manila, which dismissed it. Petitioner appealed, raising the issues below.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner’s car is a personal effect and therefore not subject to statutory or regulatory prohibition against exportation.
2. Whether the bringing out of the car constituted exportation.
3. Whether the Export Control Committee acted without jurisdiction in requiring the bond and ordering its forfeiture.
4. Whether the petition for certiorari was properly denied.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, ruling against the petitioner on all issues.
1. The car is not a “personal effect” but “transportation equipment” subject to export control. The term “personal effects” is restricted to tangible property that attends the person, not property used for business. The car was intended for use in petitioner’s business in Japan, as stated in his request and extension pleas.
2. The act of shipping the car to Japan constituted exportation under Republic Act No. 613 and the related Executive Orders.
3. The Export Control Committee had jurisdiction to require the bond and order its forfeiture. Section 6 of Executive Order No. 453 authorized the Committee to require bonds to insure the return of exported articles. Furthermore, Section 4 of Republic Act No. 613 provides for confiscation and forfeiture of goods exported in violation of the Act. Since the car could not be confiscated as it was outside the country, the forfeiture of the bond for its equivalent value was justified. Even assuming arguendo a lack of express authorization, the Republic, through its agencies, has the inherent capacity to enter into contracts and take bonds when not prohibited by law.
4. The petition for certiorari was correctly denied as the Committee acted within its jurisdiction and there was no grave abuse of discretion. The penalty, reduced to P2,250, was not excessive as it represented the depreciated value of the car and was a consequence of petitioner’s failure to comply with his contractual obligation under the bond. The Court cited a analogous case (Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Collector of Internal Revenue) where a party was held to a guaranty it voluntarily gave to secure a government interest.