G.R. No. L-9527; August 22, 1957
Republic of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Pio Pedrosa and Alfredo V. Jacinto, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The case originated from the seizure of 259 pieces of jewelry illegally imported by Tranquilino Rovero. The Commissioner of Customs, in a 1947 decision, ordered the forfeiture of the jewelry but waived forfeiture upon payment of a fine equal to three times the appraised value of P23,736. This decision was affirmed by the Court of First Instance of Manila in 1949 and subsequently by the Supreme Court in a final decision (G.R. No. L-3281) on June 28, 1951. After the Supreme Court’s affirmation, the defendant Alfredo V. Jacinto, then Commissioner of Customs, upon Rovero’s request, ordered a reappraisal of the jewelry. The reappraisal reduced the value to P9,880. The defendant Pio Pedrosa, then Secretary of Finance, approved this new appraisement. Consequently, Rovero recovered the jewelry by paying a fine based on the reduced value (three times P9,880, or P29,640), plus taxes and duties, totaling P38,303.55. The original liability based on the affirmed decision was P107,787.49. A writ of execution for the balance of P69,483.94 was issued against Rovero, but only P550.03 was collected from the levy and sale of his properties, leaving an unpaid balance of P68,933.91. The Republic filed a complaint to recover this amount from appellees Pedrosa and Jacinto, alleging their acts caused the government’s loss.

ISSUE

Whether the defendants-appellees, Pio Pedrosa and Alfredo V. Jacinto, are liable to the Republic for the amount of P68,933.91, representing the unpaid balance of Tranquilino Rovero’s original liability, due to their acts of ordering and approving the reappraisal of the seized jewelry after the finality of the Supreme Court’s decision.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision dismissing the complaint. The Court held that for the Republic to recover damages, it must prove that the alleged misconduct of the appellees was the proximate cause of the government’s failure to fully collect Rovero’s original liability. The Government failed to present evidence that, at the time of the reappraisal, Rovero had sufficient property to cover his full liability under the original appraisal. The subsequent execution against Rovero’s properties yielded only P550.03, and there was no charge or proof that Rovero disposed of his assets in the interim due to the appellees’ acts. Therefore, if Rovero never had the means to pay the deficiency, the loss would have occurred regardless of the reappraisal. The appellees did not become guarantors of Rovero’s solvency by authorizing the reappraisal. Furthermore, the Government did not prove it could have obtained more than the original appraised value of P23,736 from a forced sale of the jewelry. Since Rovero paid P38,303.55 to redeem them under the reappraisal, the government suffered no loss from the jewelry’s return. While the Court reaffirmed that administrative officials have no power to remit fines or forfeitures after courts have sanctioned them in final decisions, in this case, absent proof of conspiracy or that the appellees’ acts were the proximate cause of the alleged loss, they cannot be held liable. The judgment appealed from was affirmed, with no costs.