Asian Terminal Inc.

vs Bautista
G.R. No. 166901, Oct. 27, 2006, Callejo, Sr.
FACTS:
Section 1, Republic Act (RA) No. 8506, which took effect on February 22, 1998, provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to
import, cause the importation of, register, cause the registration of, use or operate any vehicle with its steering wheel right hand side
thereof in any highway, street or road, whether private or public, or at the national or local x x x.
Noel Tabuelog, Ernesto de Jesus, and other defendants are duly-licensed importers of vehicles. Sometime in April and May 1998, they
imported 72 secondhand right-hand drive buses from Japan. When the shipment arrived at the SouthHarbor, Port of Manila, the
District Collector of Customs impounded the vehicles and ordered them stored at the warehouse of the Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI), a
customs-bonded warehouse under the custody of the Aviation and Cargo Regional Division. Conformably with Section 2607 of the
Tariff and Customs Code, the District Collector of Customs issued Warrants of Distraint [3] against the shipment and set the sale at
public auction.
The defendant importers filed a complaint with the RTC of Paranaque City, against the Secretary of Finance, Customs Commissioner,
and the Chief Executive of the Societe Generale de Surillee, for replevin with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary and
mandatory injunction and damages. They averred, inter alia, that in accordance with the opinion of the Assistant Director of the
Customs Legal Service and the Office of the Legal Affairs of the Department of Finance, the importation of right-hand drive vehicles
are not prohibited under RA No. 8506 provided that conversion kits are included in the imported vehicles.
The RTC granted the application for a writ of replevin on a bond of P12,000,000.00 in favor of defendants therein (Sec. of Finance,
Customs Commissioner and Chief Executive of Societe Generale de Surillee)
The defendants, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed an Omnibus Motion [13], seeking the reconsideration of the RTC Order
granting plaintiffs plea for a writ of replevin. It likewise prayed that the writ of replevin issued by the court be quashed on the ground
that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the vehicles subject of seizure and detention before the Bureau of Customs.
The OSG declared that the Bureau of Customs, which had custody of the vehicles through ATI, had exclusive jurisdiction over said
vehicles and on the issues of the seizure and detention thereof. ATI filed a motion for the court to allow the vehicles to remain in its
warehouse,
Thereafter, ATI filed a Third-Party Claim [15] over the shipment, alleging that it had a lien over the vehicles for accumulated and unpaid
storage and arrastre charges, and wharfage dues.
Before the court could resolve the motions, plaintiff importers filed a Motion/Notice to Dismiss/Withdraw Complaint [18] against the
officials of the Bureau of Customs and Department of Finance, on the ground that said defendants had agreed to the implementation
of the writ of replevin issued by the court on condition that plaintiffs pay the taxes, dues, and other charges on the importation
amounting to P7,528,635.00 to the government and that plaintiffs had paid the said amount.
ATI filed a Motion for Intervention and for Admission of its Complaint-in-Intervention, alleging that it had a lien on the vehicles to the
extent ofP13,820,150.93, representing accumulated storage and arrastre charges and wharfage dues.
RTC issued its Order dismissing the Complaint-in-Intervention.
CA denied the Petition for Certiorari filed by ATI under Rule 65.
ISSUE:
1.
2.

WON the RTC has jurisdiction to try the case? No

RULING:
1. Section 602 of the TCC provides that the Bureau of Customs shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over seized and forfeited cars. It is
tasked to enforce tariff, and supervise and control customs law and all other laws, rules and regulations relating to the tariff and
customs administration; and to supervise and control all import and export cargoes, loaded or stored in piers, terminal facilities,
including container yards and freight stations, for the protection of government revenues. Under Section 2301 of the TCC, the
Collector of Customs is empowered to make a seizure of cargoes and issue a receipt for the detention thereof:
SEC. 2301. Warrant for Detention of Property-Cash Bond. Upon making any seizure, the Collector shall
issue a warrant for the detention of the property; and if the owner or importer desires to secure the release
of the property for legitimate use, the Collector shall, with the approval of the Commissioner of
Customs, surrender it upon the filing of a cash bond, in an amount to be fixed by him x x x
Section 2530 of the TCC enumerates the properties subject of seizure and forfeiture:
Section 2530. Property Subject of Forfeiture Under Tariff and Customs Laws. Any vehicle, vessel or aircraft,
cargo, article and objects shall, under the following conditions be subject to forfeiture:
xxxx
(f) Any article the importation or exportation of which is effected or attempted contrary to law, or any
article of prohibited importation or exportation, and all other articles which, in the opinion of the Collector, have
been used, are or were entered to be used as instruments in the importation or exportation of the former.
Moreover, as the Court ruled in Jao v. Court of Appeals,[34] Regional Trial Courts are devoid of any competence to pass upon
the validity or regularity of seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the Bureau of Customs and to enjoin or
otherwise interfere with these proceedings. It is the Collector of Customs, sitting in seizure and forfeiture
proceedings, who has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions touching on the seizure and forfeiture
of dutiable goods.
Thus, the RTC had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition for replevin by respondents herein, issue the writ of replevin and
order its enforcement. The Collector of Customs had already seized the vehicles and set the sale thereof at public auction. The RTC
should have dismissed the petition for replevin at the outset. By granting the plea of respondents (plaintiffs below) for the seizure of
the vehicles and the transfer of custody to the court, the RTC acted without jurisdiction over the action and the vehicles subject
matter thereof. It bears stressing that the forfeiture of seized goods in the Bureau of Customs is a proceeding against the goods and
not against the owner. It is in the nature of a proceeding in rem, i.e., directed against the res or imported articles and entails a
determination of the legality of their importation. In this proceeding, it is, in legal contemplation, the property itself which commits
the violation and is treated as the offender, without reference whatsoever to the character or conduct of the owner.

In fine, the initial orders of the RTC granting the issuance of the writ of replevin and its implementation are void. [37] While it is true that
the District Collector of Customs allowed the release of the vehicles and the transfer thereof to the custody of the RTC upon the
payment by the private respondents of the required taxes, duties and charges, he did not thereby lose jurisdiction over the vehicles;
neither did it vest jurisdiction on the RTC to take cognizance of and assume jurisdiction over the petition for replevin. As very well
explained by the Office of the Solicitor General, the District Collector of Customs agreed to transfer the vehicles to the custody of the
RTC since the latter had ordered the arrest of those who would obstruct the implementation of the writ. The District Collector of
Customs had yet to resolve whether to order the vehicles forfeited in favor of the government, in light of the opinion of the Secretary
of Justice that, under RA No. 8506, the importation was illegal.
2. The RTC cannot be faulted for dismissing petitioners complaint-in-intervention. Considering that it had no jurisdiction over
respondents action and over the shipment subject of the complaint, all proceedings before it would be void. [38] The RTC had no
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint-in-intervention and act thereon except to dismiss the same.