[ G.R. No. L-19180. October 31, 1963 ]

[ G.R. No. L-19180. October 31, 1963 ]

[ G.R. No. L-19180. October 31, 1963 ]

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL., PETITIONERS AND APPELLEES VS. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF MANILA, RESPONDENT AND APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

The National Development Company which is engaged in the shipping business under the name of "Philippine National Lines" is the owner of steamship "S.S. Doña Nati" whose local agent in Manila is A. V. Rocha. On August 4, 1960, the Collector of Customs sent a notice to C. F. Sharp & Company as alleged operator of the vessel informing it that said vessel was apprehended and found to have committed a violation of the customs laws and regulations and that it carried an unmanifested cargo consisting of one RCA Victor TV set 21" in violation of Section 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code. Inserted in said notice is a note of the following tenor: "The above article was being carried away by Dr. Basilio de Leon y Mendez, official doctor of M/S 'Doña Nati' who readily admitted ownership of the same." C. F. Sharp & Company was given 48 hours to show cause why no administrative fine should be imposed upon it for said violation.

C. F. Sharp & Company, not being the agent or operator

of the vessel, referred the notice to A. V. Rocha, the

agent and operator thereof, who on August 8, 1960, answered the notice stating, among other things, that the

television set referred to therein was not a cargo of the

vessel and, therefore, was not required by law to be manifested. Rocha stated further: "If this explanation is not

sufficient, we request that this case be set for investigation

and hearing in order to enable the vessel to be informed

of the evidence against it to sustain the charge and to

present evidence in its defense."

The Collector of Customs replied to Rocha on August

9, 1960 stating that the television set in question was

a cargo on board the vessel and that he does not find his

explanation satisfactorily enough to exempt the vessel

from liability for violating Section 2521 of the Tariff and

Customs Code. In said letter, the collector imposed a

fine of P5,000.00 on the vessel and ordered payment thereof

within 48 hours with a threat that he will deny clearance

to said vessel and will issue a warrant of seizure and

detention against it if the fine is not paid.

And considering that the Collector of Customs has exceeded his jurisdiction or committed a grave abuse of

discretion in imposing the fine of P5,000.00 on the vessel

without the benefit of an investigation or hearing as

requested by A. V. Rocha, the National Development Company, as owner of the vessel, as well as A. V. Rocha,

as agent and operator thereof, filed the instant special

civil action of certiorari with preliminary injunction before the Court of First Instance of Manila against the

official abovementioned. The court, finding the petition

for injunction sufficient in form and substance, issued

ex parte the writ prayed for upon the filing of a bond

in the amount of P5,000.00.

Respondent set up the following special defenses: (1)

the court a quo has no jurisdiction to act on matters

arising from violations of the Customs Law, but the

Court of Tax Appeals; (2) assuming that it has, petitioners have not exhausted all available administrative

remedies, one of which is to appeal to the Commissioner

of Customs; (3) the requirements of administrative due

process have already been complied with and that the

written notice given by respondent to petitioner Rocha

clearly specified the nature of the violation complained

of and that the defense set up by Rocha constitutes merely

a legal issue which does not require further investigation;

and (4) the investigation conducted by the customs authorities showed that the television set in question was

unloaded by the ship's doctor without going thru the

customhouse as required by law and was not declared

either in the ship's manifest or in the crew declaration

list.

On the basis of the stipulation of facts submitted by

the parties, the court a quo rendered decision setting

aside the ruling of respondent which imposes a fine of

P5,000.00 on the vessel Doña Nati payable within 48 hours

from receipt. The court stated that said ruling appears

to be unjust and arbitrary because the party affected

has not been accorded the investigation it requested from

the Collector of Customs.

Respondent interposed the present appeal.

When the customs authorities found that the vessel

Dona Nati carried on board an unmanifested cargo consisting of one RCA Victor TV set 21" in violation of

Section 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code, respondent

sent a written notice to C. F. Sharp & Company, believing it to be the operator or agent of the vessel, and

the latter referred the notice to A. V. Rocha, the real

operator of the vessel, for such step as he may deem

necessary to take, the latter answered the letter stating

that the television set was not cargo and so was not

required by law to be manifested, and he added to his

answer the following: "If this explanation is not sufficient,

we request that this case be set for investigation and

hearing in order to enable the vessel to be informed of

the evidence against it to sustain the charge and to present

evidence in its defense." Respondent, however, replied to

this letter saying that said television was a cargo within

the meaning of the law and so he does not find his explanation satisfactory and then and there imposed on the

vessel a fine of P5,000.00. Respondent even went further.

He ordered that said fine be paid within 48 hours from

receipt with a threat that the vessel would be denied clearance and a warrant of seizure would be issued if the

fine will not be paid. Considering this to be a grave

abuse of discretion, petitioners commenced the present

action for certiorari before the court a quo.

We find this action proper for it really appears that

petitioner Rocha was not given an opportunity to prove

that the television set complained of is not a cargo that

needs to be manifested as required by Section 2521 of

the Tariff and Customs Code. Under said section, in

order that an imported article or merchandise may be

considered a cargo that should be manifested it is first

necessary that it be so established for the reason that

there are other effects that a vessel may carry that are

excluded from the requirement of the law, among which are the personal effects of the members of the crew. The

fact that the set in question was claimed by the customs

authorities not to be within the exception does not automatically make the vessel liable. It is still necessary

that the vessel, its owner or operator, be given a chance

to show otherwise. This is precisely what petitioner

Rocha has requested in his letter. Not only was he denied

this chance, but respondent collector immediately imposed

upon the vessel the huge fine of P 5,000.00. This is a

denial of the elementary rule of due process.

True it is that the proceedings before the Collector of

Customs insofar as the determination of any act or irregularity that may involve a violation of any customs

law or regulation is concerned, or of any act arising under

the Tariff and Customs Code, are not judicial in character,

but merely administrative, where the rules of procedure

are generally disregarded, but even in the administrative

proceedings due process should be observed because that

is a right enshrined in our Constitution. The right to

due process is not merely statutory. It is a constitutional

right. Indeed, our Constitution provides that "No person

shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due

process of law", which clause epitomizes the principle of

justice which hears before it condemns, which proceeds

upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. That

this principle applies with equal force to administrative

proceedings was well elaborated upon by this Court in

the Ang Tibay case as follows:

* * * The fact, however, that the Court of Industrial Relations may be said to be free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements does not mean that it can, in justifiable cases coming before it, entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character.

* * * There are cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character. The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to support its decision. Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be substantial. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision. The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it." (Ang Tibay, et al. vs. The Court of Industrial Relations, et al., 40 Off. Gaz., No. 11, 7th Sup. p. 29).

There is, therefore, no point in the contention that the

court a quo has no jurisdiction over the present case

because what is here involved is not whether the imposition of the fine by the Collector of Customs on the

operator of the ship is correct or not but whether he

acted properly in imposing said fine without first giving

the operator an opportunity to be heard. Here we said

that he acted improvidently and so the action taken against

him is in accordance with Rule 67 of our Rules of Court.

Another point raised is that petitioners have brought

this action prematurely for they have not yet exhausted

all the administrative remedies available to them, one

of which is to appeal the ruling to the Commissioner of

Customs. This may be true, but such step we do not

consider a plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law as would prevent petitioners from

taking the present action, for it is undisputed that respondent collector has acted in utter disregard of the

principle of due process.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed. No

costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes,

J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal,

JJ., concur.