T Shfeon Evangelista, et al. vs. The Cohnissi Oner of Custoi-18, et al.

DECISION -

C. T. A. CASE NO . 999 - 2 t . s . n . p . 000018 & 000b20 , Customs Record; also pp . 1 & 2 , Notion for Reconsideration of Decision dated August 5, 1958, pp . 000036-000037, Customs Record). After an examination of t he i mportation, and payment of duties and t axes in the sum of ?493 .05 by the petitioner under Informal Entry No. 588812 (p. 000036 , and 000021 Customs Re co~d~ a portion of the impor- tation consisting of :

(1) Ohe (1) box piano

(2) Three (3) leather shoes (pieces)

(3) Six (6 ) pieces 3 yards rayon cloth

(4) Thirteen (13) pieces pad locks

(5) Tvrenty five (25) cartons selected biscuits

(6) 'I'-v.renty five (25) cartons cream- crackers

(7) Tv1ent_y (20) cartons Black Nagic

Candy

.

(8) Fifteen (15) cartons Milk Chocolate

(9) Fifteen (15) cartons !·mole Nut

(10) Twelve (12) loof Tuber Candy

(11) Ten (10) cartons ~~Iilady Candy

(12) Five ( ~ ) cartons Pickles

(13) Three (3) cartons Sand\viches Spread

(14) 'fhree (3) cartons Del Nonte Catsup

(15) }ifteen (15) cartons Kitkat Chocolate (p . 000036 , Customs Record) - \vas released to the petitioner and the remainder was held by the customs authorities for forfeiture pro- ceedings .

DissatisfiE;d with the quantity of the goods released, petitioner aslmd for a hearing wherein he presented evidence that the goods were not intended for commercial purposes , but only for personal use . After the hearing , the Collector of Customs of· J.IIanila , in a decision dated August 5, _1958, authorized ...

a par-tial release of t he seized goods, to wit:

I

/

DECISION

C& T.A. CASE NO. 999 - 3 - Thirty nine (39) tins of cream crackers

(Jacobs) ·

Thirty nine (39) tins Selected Biscuits

(Jacobs~

Ten (10) cartons of chocolate (Black . 1·1agic) .

Three (3) cartons of Milk Chocolate Five (5) cartons of Kitkat Chocolate Three (3) cartons of Whole Buts (Chocolate) Two (2) cartons of Milady Candy Two (2) cartons of Del Nonte Pickles One (1) carton of Del Honte Catsup (p . 000036, Customs Record) The remainder of the goods were declared forfeited for violation of Section 1 (c) of Republic Act No . 1410, in relation to Section .3 of the same Act. On Septemb~r 5, 1958, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration (pp. 00033- 000037, Customs Record), which was denied by the Collector of Customs of Hanila in an Orde~ dated September 15, 1958 (pp. 000038- 000039, Customs Record ).

On September 19, 1958, the petitioner, through his counsel , filed a viTitten waiver of his right to appeal from the decision (p . 000041 , Customs Record).

Due to

the importance of this Haiver in the disposition of this case, and for ready reference, the same is repro- duced below in full:

September 19, 1958 The Collector .of Customs lvlanila S i r:

R~ : Seizure Iden. No. 5714 · In coruLection with your order dated September 15, 1958, '\•Thich '\•las received by the undersigned on September 19, 1958, please be informed that the claimant in the above- cited case is waiving his right to appeal from your decision promulgated on August 5, 1958, and as such, it is res- pectfully requested that said decision be considered as final and executory to effect the immediate release of the articles spe- cifically ordered therein to be released to the claimant.

DECISION -

C. T.A. CASE NO . 999 - lt - Hoping for your kind and generous atten- tion on the matter , I am Very respectfully yours , (Sgd . ) DIOSCORO G. PINEDA

Counsel for Claimant

San Fernando , Pampanga Three days after the filing of the foregoing waiver , that is, -on September 22, 1958, petitioner thtough another la~~er , Atty. Juan T. David , filed a petition (p. 000042 , Customs Record) , manifesting that he was "abiding with that portion of the decision which author- izes the release to him of the ar:ticles enumerated there- in 11 'and that he \-las "appealing against that portion which decrees the forfeiture of a portion of the seized mer- chandise . "

He asked for the ii1illlediate release of the goods .

'l'his petition 1.vas ~denied by the Colle.ctor of Customs in his order , dated September 26, 1958 (pp . OOOOlt3- 0000ltlt, Customs Record) .

On October 2, 1958 , petitioner , again through his lawyer filed an appeal with the respondent Commissioner of Customs (pp. OOOOlt5- 000046 , Customs Record) .

Acting

on thi s appeal, the Chief Legal Officer , Law Division, of the Bureau of Customs, i n an indorsement dated March 16, 1959, forwarded the records of Seizure Identifica- tion No. 5714 to the Commissioner of Customs , stating among others:

"Inasmuch as the aforesaid decision of this Office dated August 5, 1958, has already become final and executory and res adjudicata, this Office believes that appeal therefrom does not lie .

The letter of Atty . Juan T. David is nevertheless for- warded to that Office , this Office treating 8

DECISION -

C. T. A. CASE NO . 999 - 5 - the same as an appeal from September 26 , 1958, not as the decision on the merits case." (P . 000048, Customs its Order dated an appeal from of the seizure

Record )

On January 12, 1960, the herein respondent ren- dered a deci sion affirming in toto the decision of the Collector of Customs , dated January 5, 1958:t and the Order , dated September 26 , 1958 (pp . 000052- 000067 , Customs Record) .

On January 26 , 1960, petitioner filed his motion for reconsi.deration of the afore- mentioned decision of the respondent (pp. 000069- 000076 , Customs Record ) which was denied in an order dated January 4, 1961 (pp . 000091- 000096 , CUstoms Re.cord) . On January 24, 1961, the present petition f or review was filed with this Court.

Basi cally, there al'e :QnJ_:y tvm issues to be re- solved in this case ,. namely : (1) :~ether or not the v7aiver of the right to appeal , filed on September 19, 1958, had the effect of rendering the decision of the Collector of Customs , dated Aueust 5, 1958 , final and conclusive ; and , (2 ) in the negative , whet~er or not the petitioner is entitled to the release of the goods in question.

The first issue , being jurisdictional and there- fore prejudid.al , ,-,.rill be taken up f irst. On thj_s question, the ans\ver is in the affirmative . The waiver 'l.vas filed by an attorney of record of the petitioner, Atty. Dioscoro G. Pineda. It vTas expressed in clear and unequivocal terms . It asked

DECISION -

C. T.A. CASE NO . 999 - 6 - that the decision of the Collector of Customs, promul- gated on August 5, 1958, be declared final and execu- tory, in order to eff ect t he j.mmedia te release of the articles specifically ordered therein to be released . They were released to and duly accepted by petitioner . The act of the agent is the act of the principal . But even granting for the sake of argument that the filing of the waiver by Atty. Pineda was unauthorized , the acceptance by the petitioner of the goods released pursuant to the said waiver is a ratification ofsid waiver , and has rendered the waiver valid and binding upon petitioner.

Having accepted the benefits of the waiver by accepting the goods , he cannot now be allowed to dispute the validity of said waiver , and consequent- , ly the conclusiveness of the decision of the Collector of Customs , dated August 5, 1958, by asserting that said waiver was withdrawn with the filing of the sub- \ sequent appeal by Atty. David.

Having elected to ask for execution, he is deemed to have abandoned his appeal .

One , .. ;rho complains of a judgment , must be con- sistent in his conduct with reference to it. If he recognizes its validity, he will not be heard to say ' that it is errone.ous .

If he vras dissatisfied -vri th the decree in his favor , he had the option to have it reviewed in a proper proceeding , or to enforce it and receive its benefits; but he cannot pursue both courses , since one is inconsistent with the other .

(Rafael

Verches v. Elena Rios , 48 Phil . 16; Desbarats v;;

DECISION -

C. T.A. CASE NO. 999 - 7 - Devera , 46 O. G. 4936. )

The decision of the Collector of Customs of Manila, dated August 5, 1958, having become final in consequence of .petitioner ' s ·waiver, petitioner can no longer appeal fro~ that decision to t he Commissioner of Customs , and much less to this Courto Having reached the conclusion that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant appeal, vie :find it Jllll1.ecessary to pass upon the other issue \ as to the legality of the forfeitur e of the goods / subject of the forfeiture proceeding in Customs Case No.

~IT1EREFORE , the herein petition for review is here by dismissed , wi ~costs against petitioner.

I CONCUR :

ROHAN !·1. UHAL I

Associate Judge