GR L L 25434; (July 1975) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-25434 July 25, 1975
HONORABLE ARSENIO N. ROLDAN, JR., in his capacity as Acting Commissioner, Philippine Fisheries Commission, and THE PHILIPPINE NAVY, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE FRANCISCO ARCA, as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch 1) and MORABE, DE GUZMAN & COMPANY, respondents.
FACTS
The Philippine Fisheries Commission, through the Philippine Navy, seized fishing vessels Tony Lex III and Tony Lex VI on August 5 or 6, 1965, for illegal fishing with dynamite. The vessels were found with dynamite and fish caught using explosives. Criminal charges were subsequently filed against the crew members in the Court of First Instance of Palawan, and the court issued orders for the vessels to be held in custody as instruments and evidence of the crime. Meanwhile, the vessel owner, Morabe, De Guzman & Company, filed a separate civil case (Civil Case No. 62799) in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Fisheries Commissioner, seeking recovery of the vessels. The company alleged the seizures were unlawful and that a prior administrative compromise for other violations had settled the matter. The Manila court, presided by Judge Francisco Arca, granted the company’s application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, ordering the release of the vessels upon posting a bond.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, thereby interfering with the custody orders issued by the Court of First Instance of Palawan in the pending criminal cases.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the orders of the respondent Judge. The legal logic is anchored on the principle of judicial comity and the precedence of criminal jurisdiction over property involved in a crime. The fishing vessels were seized as instruments of the crime of illegal fishing with dynamite, and criminal informations were duly filed in the Court of First Instance of Palawan. That court properly issued orders directing the Philippine Navy to hold the vessels in custody. The respondent Manila court, by issuing a mandatory injunction for the vessels’ release, effectively interfered with the Palawan court’s authority to preserve the vessels as evidence and to potentially order their forfeiture. Such action constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The pendency of the criminal cases rendered the civil action for recovery premature. Furthermore, the alleged administrative compromise did not extinguish the criminal liability or nullify the lawful seizure, as the compromise pertained to prior violations, not the instant offense for which the vessels were apprehended. The vessels, being used in the commission of a crime, were lawfully detained under the applicable fisheries laws and the Revised Tariff and Customs Code.