Concept: Doctrine of Prior Resort
Facts:
·
The Commissioner of Customs and
the Collector of Customs in their exhaustive and scholarly petition for
certiorari, filed on February 11, 1971, was on the jurisdictional issue. It
sought to nullify and set aside order of respondent Judge Pedro C. Navarro
dated January 4, 1971, issuing a writ of preliminary injunction as prayed for
by private respondents Juanito S. Flores and Asiatic Incorporated the importers
of 1,350 cartons of fresh fruits, restraining petitioners from proceeding with
the auction sale of such perishable goods. Classified as non-essential consumer
commodities, they were banned by Central Bank Circulars Nos. 289, 294 and 295
as prohibited importation or importation contrary to law and thus made subject
to forfeiture proceedings by petitioner Collector of Customs pursuant to the
relevant sections of the Tariff and Customs Code.
·
In a detailed and specific
fashion, petitioners pointed out how violative was the assumption of
jurisdiction by respondent Judge over an incident of a pending seizure and
forfeiture proceeding which, as held in a number of decisions, was a matter
falling within the exclusive competence of the customs authorities. The
persuasive character of the petition is thus evident, resulting in this Court
issuing on February 15, 1971 a resolution requiring respondents to file an
answer and at the same time issuing a writ of preliminary injunction as prayed
for by petitioners to prevent the challenged order of respondent Judge from
being implemented. Instead of preparing an answer, they just submitted a
manifestation stating that "after an intensive and serious study of the
merit of the case, the respondents have decided to abandon its interest in the
case.
Issue: W/ON Custom has Jurisdiction
Held: Yes. risdiction of the customs authorities is exclusive was made
clear in Pacis v. Averia, decided in 1966. This
Court, speaking through Justice J. P. Bengzon, realistically observed:
"This original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, when exercised
in an action for recovery of personal property which is a subject of a
forfeiture proceeding in the Bureau of Customs, tends to encroach upon, and to
render futile, the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs in seizure and
forfeiture proceedings." The court "should yield to
the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs."
The controlling principle was set
forth anew in Ponce Enrile v. Vinuya, decided in
1971. Thus: "The prevailing doctrine is that the exclusive jurisdiction in
seizure and forfeiture cases vested in the Collector of Customs precludes a
court of first instance from assuming cognizance over such a matter.
Source and Full text case: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/may1977/gr_33146_1977.html
No comments:
Post a Comment