Golay<Imghel & Bey as \"\ Manzla O vs. « y" Civil Casb No, et al.

DECISION

This is a petition seeking the review of the decision on appeal of the respondent Commissioner of Custems in Jeizure Identification No. 1149, It wes eviginally filed with the Court of First Instence of Manile and this case wes remended to this Court in pursvente to Section 22 ef Republic Act No. 1125 for se appears thet on Jenuary 25, 1982 2 shipment, consisting ef two hundred twenty (220) packets ef mar- caseite stones, consigned to the Philippine National Bank fer the acceunt of C. ©, Abella, errived in the Manila Internétienal Airpert. The shipment was seized fer alleged violation ef Republic Act No. 650, A copy ef the notice ef selrure hearing wes furnished te G. , Abella, Another copy ef said ne- house.

In the seisure hearing, C. C. Abella disclained interest in the shipment in question. Aad in a decie sien dated Nobember 22, 1952, the Collecter ef Customs ordered and decreed the ferfeiture ef the 220 packets of marcassite stones fer alleged violation ef Republic

DEC TS ION - MANILA

GIVIL CASE NO. 22722 Act Me, 850, A copy ef this decision was likewise furnished te C. ©. Abella and another cepy was posted en the bulletin beard ef the Customshouse.

The respondent Ceamissioner ef Customs, as tp- peal heving been made, reviewed the case and in 2 de- cision on appeal dated January 12, 1953 affirmed the decision ef the Collector ef Customs, in pursuance te Section & of Executive Grder Ne. @®l-A, the Soard of Tax Appeals goety areprie reviewed the decision en appeal and effirmed the same on Jan- wary 19, 1963.

On April 1, 1993, petitioner Gelay-Buchel & Cie, filed a petition with the Beard ef Tex Appeals preying thet the cace be remanded te the Collecter ef Customs for re-investigetion and reheering en the ground that it was not netified ef the seizure proceedings. The petition wes denied er June &, 1953, And on June 2%, 1953, the Board of Tex Appeals, acting upon petitiener*s motion fer recensiderstion, reselved te suspend the ef- fect ef its decision of June 3, 1953 and directed the respondent Commissioner ef Customs te order the Collec- tee of Customs for the Pert of Manile te reepen the case fox the purpese ef heering the evidence snd argunents that may be offered or presented by the petitioner er the Philippine Netionel Bank.

in the rehearing, evidence te the effect thet there was a mistake in the shipment wae presented, and the pe- titioner effered te reship the 220 packets ef wercas- site stenes in question te the port ef origia.

223 “az

DECISION =< MANILA

GIViL CASE NO. 22721 e3« In 3 decision dated Februsry 4, 1954 rendered after the rehearing, the Cellecter of Customs effirned his decision ef November 22, 1952.

On February 18, 1954, the petitioner appealed the ¢degision ef the Collecter ef Customs dated Feb- wuery 4, 1954 which was affirmed by the respondent on March 31, 1954, On April 14, 1954, the petitioner filed a notice ef éppesl with the respondent pursuant to Sections 1333 and 1304 of the Revised Administrative Code, nd on May 16, 1954 it filed its petition for review with the Court of First Instance of Manila, The questions raised by the parties voll down into twe salient issues which are as follows:

1, Whether or not this Court hes juris- diction to try the case at bar, 2, Whether or not the 220 packets of marcaszite —— in question are sud - te feréeiture for alleged vielatien o public Act Wo. 650, Relative te the first issue of whether or not this Court has jurisdiction to try this case, the res- pendent Commissioner of Gustems maintains that no ap- , peal from the decision of the Cellector of Customs dated November 27, 1952 having been made pursuant to Seetion 1380 of the Revised Administrative Code, said decision has elready become final and executecry, end, therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction te try this cease, on the other head, the petitioner srques that net heving been notified of the initial seizure proceedings and of the decision of November 22, 1992, it could not thereby 224 wha be beund by said decision, While it {a true thet neo written notise of 4 desire to have the decision of the Cellecter of Cus- toms dated November 22, 1962 reviewed by the respon- dent was filed in pursuance te jection 1360 ef the Revised Adminietrative Code, yet, we deliewe that seid decision hed net become fina] and executery. We note thet ne ene appeered before the Collector ef Custons within 10 days efter the seizure ef the shipment in question to lay claia on the 220 packets of marcassite stenes. If no owner or egent appears before the Col- lester ef Customs within 10 days after the seizure of the geeds, the said official, efter declaring a forfeiture, shall tyenenit the recerds ef the case te the Counie~ sioner ef Custoas ter epprepriate action. ‘hatever ap- propriate action the Commissioner mey take on the pare- mises constitutes « review ef the decision ef the Col- Lester of Customs. The Commissioner aay affirm, sedify or reverse the decision of the Collector, [his finds authority and sanction ia Sectien 138) ef the Revised Administrative Code which prevides:

“SEC. 1361. Proceedings in case of pre- Alay Fe fy cen be found or . before the col- of customs te cl .e or gen Ry which in custome after faxing” the "te be be er waking a deciaration et rage te ae the cese aty require, shall ferthewith trans- mit ail the S in the cause to the Conniss ioner, ’y appropriete action shell be in the prenises,* ihe transmittal of the papers of the cause to the Commissiener of Custeus and the review by said dficial ef 225 tn

DECISION ~ MANILA

CIVIL CASE NO. 22721 the decision of the Collector ef Customs under and by virtue ef Section 1381 ef the Revised Aduinistra- tive Cede dees not necessitate the filing ef an appeal.

Section 1200 ef the Revised Administrative Code upen which the respondent Coauissfoner ef Customs pre- digates his contention that the decision ef the Cel- lector ef Customs dated Nowember 22, 1952 has become final and executory dees not apply te the cese at bar, Zt contemplates end presupposes 4 knova owner whe was netified ef the seizure preceedings and whe was ag- grieved by the decision of the Collecter ef Customs, Mow, the decision ef the Collector of Custeus dated November 22, 1952 having been reviewed by the respondent pursuant to Section 1381 ef the Revised Ad- ministrative Code, which in turn was reviewed gotyu pre- pedo by the defunct Board of Tax Appeals, we held and se rule thet the saze had net es yet become final and executery. This being se, the corellary fact that the instant ceee was pending on June 30, 1953, the expiry date ef Republic Act Me. 650 follows, With respect te the iseue ef whether er net the packets of marcassite stones in question are subject te forfeiture for alleged vielation ef Republic Act Me. 650, petitioner Gelay-Buchel & Cie. contends that this case, heving been pending on June BW, 1953, hes abated, Te buttress its contention, it cites (merican cases and the opinion ef the Undersecretary ef Justice. (Qpinton Ne. 136, Series 1951.) However, the reepéndent Conunis~ siener of Customs maintains thet the decision ef the “2.

* 226

DECISION = MANILA

CIVIL GASE MO, 22721 6 Collector of Custows having become final and executery before the expiration of Aepublic Act Mo. 650, this case. net abated, We fully concur with the contention of the peti- tiener that with the «apizration of Republic Act No. 6, this case hes abated, "because it is well settled that if a statute giving 4 specisl remedy is repealed with- eut @ saving clause in favor of pending suits, all suits must stop where the repeal finds then"{state of South Carolina v. Peter GC, Guillard, 2 L. id. 937, 939). We agree with the opinion rendered by the Under- Secretary of Justice thet ali forfeiture proceddings pending on June 30, 1993 involving Aepublic Act No, 650 abated and quote the opinion hereunder:

i i :

:

:

a5 5 the fer forfeiture be cscanaanee with ata by virtue of te letter law.*

WHEREFORE, the “decision on appeal” ef the res- pondent Commissioner ef Customs is hereby reversed, Subject te the condition thet the two hundred tuenty

(220) packets ef marcassite stenes in question be reshipped by the petitioner te the port ef origin under statutory and administrative regulations exist- ing et the tine ef their reshipment st the pert of banila, we decree their release te the petitioner Geley~Buchel & Cie. Without preneuncement as te costs.

O NAGLE

Presiding Judge