CUSTOMS PROCEEDINGS

This covers Sections 1100 to 1150 of the CMTA

There are two types of proceedings under the CMTA provisions, and these are the:

1. Administrative Proceedings; and

2. Judicial Proceedings

What is meant by Administrative Proceedings?

Administrative proceedings are legal processes that don't involve a judge. Usually, they're
carried out by a government body, such as the Bureau of Customs.

It is usually adjudicatory. The said proceeding may also be called agency adjudication.

Adjudication - the legal process by which an arbiter or judge reviews evidence and
argumentation including legal reasoning set forth by opposing parties or litigants to come to a
decision which determines rights and obligations between the parties involved.

In general, the form and manner of conducting a hearing, investigation or inquiry in an

administrative agency of the government as distinguished from the judicial processes of the
regular courts.

Concept of due process

The essence of due process is that a party be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to
submit any evidence he may have in support of his defense. (Shoemart, Inc. vs. NLRC, 225
SCRA 320)

What is the quantum of evidence required in an administrative proceeding?

Only substantial evidence. Substantial evidence does not necessarily import preponderance of
evidence, as is required in ordinary civil cases.

In criminal proceedings the quantum of evidence required is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

ADMINISTRATIVE BODY/AGENCY 

An administrative body/agency is any government authority, other than a court and a legislature,
that affects the state and its citizens through rule-making, adjudication, and implementation. Its
functions are primarily executive but it exercises some form of legislative and judicial powers. 

In the Administrative Code, an agency is defined to include:

 1. any government unit authorized by law to make rules, issue licenses, grant rights or
privileges, and adjudicate cases;
2. research institutions with respect to licensing functions;
3. government corporations with respect to functions regulating private right, privileges,
occupation or business;
4. Officials in the exercise of disciplinary power as provided by law.

The administrative agencies act as a mechanism that provides expertise and organizational
capability for the three branches of government.

An administrative agency may be created by:

 
a. Executive order; as in EO 100, s. 1986 that created PIA.
b. Legislation; as in RA 10844 that created DICT.
c. Constitutional provision; as in Art. 9 that created CSC, COMELEC and COA.

An agency is wholly within the power of the law that created it, that prescribes its powers and
functions. It may also be abolished in the same manner it is created if such abolition is justified
by the law.

Types of Administrative Agency

The administrative agencies are classified into:

 Agencies set up to function in situations wherein the government is offering some

gratuity, grant, or special privilege; such as PVAO, NARRA, etc.
 Agencies set up to function in situations wherein the government is seeking to carry on
certain government functions; such as BIR, BI, CSC, COMELEC, BSP, etc.
 Agencies set up to function in situations wherein the government is performing some
business service for the public; such as PHILPOST, PNR, MWSS, CAAP, CAB, etc.
 Agencies set up to function in situations wherein the government is seeking to regulate
industry, business, or private individuals; such as FDA, PhilFIDA, SEC, MTRCB, PRC,
IPOPHL, etc.
 Agencies set up to function in situations wherein the government is seeking to adjust
individual controversies because of some strong social policy involved; such as BALA,
BLR, BWSC, ECC, PCW, etc.

Powers and Functions of Administrative Agency

The powers and functions of administrative agency are defined in the Constitution, the laws or
both. 

The powers of an administrative agency are: 

1. Quasi-legislative power or Power of subordinate Legislation  - the authority to adopt

rules and regulations intended to better carry out the policy; the function of rule-making. 
 2. Quasi-judicial power or Power of adjudication - the authority to hear and decide on cases
in the performance of duty and to enforce its decisions according to the law; the function
of adjudication. 
3. Incidental power - the authority necessary to effectively carry out the above express
powers; the use of enabling, directing, dispensing, examining and prosecuting functions.
It is often referred to as the determinative power. 

The scopes of such powers are: 

1. Expressly granted by the legislation and those necessarily implied in the exercise thereof.
2. Deprived of quasi-judicial powers unless it is expressly granted.
3. Liberally interpreted by legislation to enable the accomplishment of assigned duties in
accordance with the legislative purpose.

It is considered unconstitutional for an administrative agency to act outside of its scope.

Administrative Rule-Making (Quasi-legislative power)

Rule-making is the function of administrative agencies to promulgate rules and regulations to

carry out the general provisions of a law into effect. It may also be referred to as subordinate
legislation.

An administrative agency must promulgate administrative/implementing rules and regulations in

harmony with the law and not in violation of the authority conferred on the agency.

An administrative agency shall publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and regulations as
well as provide an opportunity to interested parties to submit their views regarding the adoption
of any rule.

The promulgation of implementing rules and regulations may be interrupted or set aside by the
judicial department if there is an error of law, a grave abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction or
grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with either the letter or the spirit of a legislative
enactment.

The implementing rules and regulations are also subject to amendment or repeal by the agencies
that promulgated them, or by the legislature.

Administrative Adjudication (Quasi-judicial power)

Administrative adjudication is the function of administrative agencies to conduct hearings and

decide on cases in the duty of carrying out a law.

An administrative agency must have jurisdiction to give validity to its determinations/decisions

as a quasi-judicial body or tribunal. Such jurisdiction is limited and dependent entirely on the
source of its authority, which is either from the statutes or the Constitution. 
An administrative agency is normally granted the authority to promulgate its own proceeding
(rules of procedures), provided they do not violate fundamental rights and the Constitution. Such
rules of procedures shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

An administrative proceedings is not required to adapt formal court rules that govern purely
judicial proceedings. However, it is essential for any proceeding to observe due process. 

The decision rendered by an administrative agency in a case shall be in writing and shall clearly
state the facts and legal basis. The agency shall decide each case within 30 days following its
submission.

The decision of the agency is final and executory after the receipt of copy of such decision by the
party who lost the case. However, an administrative appeal or judicial review may be perfected
before the finality of the decision.

An administrative agency shall publish and make available for public inspection all decisions or
final orders in the adjudication of contested cases.

Determinative Functions (Incidental Powers)

The incidental or determinative functions of administrative agency are:

1. Licensing - the function to permit or allow something which the law undertakes to
regulate. It is simply the issuance of license. It is also referred to as the enabling function.
2. Directing - the function to determine, assess, valuate and classify for corrective purposes
and compliance with the law.
3. Dispensing - the function to exempt one from or relax a general prohibition, or to relieve
one from an affirmative duty.
4. Examining - the function to require the attendance of witnesses or the production of
books, papers, documents and other pertinent data, upon request of any party before or
during a hearing. It is simply the issuance of subpoena. It is also referred to as the
'investigatory function'.
5. Prosecuting - the power to apply compulsion or force against person or property to
effectuate a legal purpose without a judicial warrant to authorize such action. It is more
often referred to as the 'summary function'.  

Administrative Law 

Administrative law is defined as a branch of public law which fixes the organization of
government, determines competence of the administrative authorities who execute the law, and
indicates the individual remedies for violations of his rights.

The sources/kinds of administrative laws are:

a. Statutes setting up administrative agencies.

b. Rules and regulations or orders of such administrative authorities promulgated pursuant to the
purposes for which they were created.

c. Determinations, decisions and orders of such administrative authorities made in the settlement
of controversies arising in their particular fields.

d. Body of doctrines and decisions dealing with the creation, operation and effect of
determinations and regulations of such administrative authorities.

Subpoena

If the government employee or official, or the requested witness, who is neither the witness of
the adverse party nor a hostile witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or
refuses without just cause to make the relevant books, documents, or other things under his
control available for copying, authentication, and eventual production in court, the requesting
party may avail himself of the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum or ducestecum under
Rule 21 Of the Rules Of Court. The rules governing the issuance of subpoena to the witness in
this cases shall be the same as when taking his deposition except that the taking of a judicial
affidavit shall be understood to be ex parte.

BUREAU OF CUSTOMS

The Bureau of Customs is one of the administrative agencies under the executive department of
the Philippine government. In the present set-up, it is the Bureau of Customs that has exclusive
original jurisdiction over forfeiture proceedings. The word "exclusive" means that there is no
other agency of the government that has original jurisdiction over forfeiture proceedings. Verily,
the handling of forfeiture cases is not a shared jurisdiction of two or more agencies.

However, the judicial branch of the government acquires jurisdiction over forfeiture cases in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Particularly, it is the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) that has
jurisdiction on appeal. What is exclusive to the Bureau of Customs is its original jurisdiction
over of the said cases

The Bureau of Customs can issue a subpoena.

The customs officials and other employees of the Bureau of Customs can issue a subpoena
ducestecum or ad testificandum under the provisions of Section 1505 of the Customs
Modernization and Tariff Act. However, they cannot declare a defiant person in contempt.

The power to declare in contempt is statutory in character. Since this specific power is not
conferred by the tariff and customs laws upon the customs bureau, it cannot, therefore, declare
the disobedient person in contempt. However, it is advisable for customs personnel to whom a
subpoena is issued by the Bureau of Customs to obey the same in order to evade a possible
administrative liability that he may encounter. The compulsory process can only be issued after a
hearing by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Thus, a separate action or petition for indirect contempt should be filed first in court by the
Bureau of Customs because, as the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Dumarpa vs. Dimaporo,
177 SCRA 478, the power to punish contempt is inherently judicial, it may be exercised only if
expressly conferred by law, and when administrative body is engaged in the performance of its
quasi-judicial powers.

Customs officers should therefore take note of Section 6, Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court,
which states that:

"When the contempt consists in the refusal or omission to do an act which is yet in the power of
respondent to perform, he may be imprisoned by order of the court concerned until he performs
it. "(Italics supplied)

Customs Law – is the statutory and regulatory provisions concerning the importation and
exportation of goods, the administration and enforcement of which are specifically charged to the
Customs, and any regulations made by the Bureau of Customs under the statutory power. It
includes not only the provisions of the TCCP and regulations pursuant thereto, but all other laws
and regulations, which are subject to enforcement by the Bureau of Customs or otherwise under
its jurisdiction.

Customs Law generally includes provision concerning:

The structure and organization of Customs Administrations and their functions, powers and
responsibilities, as well as the rights and obligations of the persons concerned;

The various customs procedures, together with the conditions and formalities relating to their
application;
The factors relating to the application of import and export duties, taxes, fees, and other charges;
and

The nature and legal consequences of Customs offenses, and the ways and means of appeal. 

What is meant by “Exhaustion of Administrative Remedy?”

In the case of Paat vs. CA, 77 SCAD 726, the Supreme Court had said that “This court in a long
line of cases has consistently held that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the
court, it is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all the means of administrative
processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be
resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a
matter that comes within his jurisdiction then such remedy should be exhausted first before
court’s judicial power can be sought.

Exceptions to the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

While it is true that in the availability of administrative remedies, no relief to the courts can be
had without an exhaustion of said remedies, in cases where the controverted act is patently illegal
or was performed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or where there are instances
indicating the urgency of judicial intervention, the aggrieved party can go directly to court.

In the case of National Development Company v. Collector of Customs, 9 SCRA 429, the
exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required where the appeal to the administrative
superior is not a plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, as where it is
undisputed that respondent officer has acted in utter disregard of the principle of due process.

What is the effect of the non-observance of the rule on exhaustion?

The premature invocation of court’s intervention is fatal to one’s cause of action. Accordingly,
absent any finding of waiver or estoppel, the case is susceptible of dismissal for lack of cause of
action. (Paat vs. CA)

In the case of Chia vs. Acting Collector of Customs, G.R. No. L-43810, Sept. 26, 1989, 177
SCRA 755, the court said: A party dissatisfied with the decision of the Collector may appeal to
the Commissioner of Customs, whose decision is appealable to the Court of Tax Appeals in the
manner and within the period prescribed by law and regulations. The decision of the CTA may
be elevated to the Supreme Court for review. Since petitioner did not exhaust his administrative
remedies, his recourse to this court is premature if for no other reason, the petition is dismissible
on that score. This is in relation also to the case of Collector of Customs vs. Torres, et al., 45
SCRA 272.

Basis of the rule: the underlying principle of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies
rests on the presumption that the administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass
upon a matter, will decide the same correctly (Union Bank of the Phils. V. CA, 94 SCAD 381).

The Supreme Court, in the case of Province of Zamboanga Del Norte v. CA, 135 SCAD 654
said: “before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the courts, it is a precondition that he
avail himself of all administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the
administrative machinery can be resorted to by giving the administrative officer every
opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy must be
exhausted first before the court’s power of judicial review can be sought. The premature resort to
the court is fatal to one’s cause of action. Accordingly, absent any finding of waiver or estoppels,
the case may be dismissed for lack of cause of action”.

Purpose of the rule: The Administrative process is intended to provide less expensive and more
speedy solutions to dispute.

Some of the Exceptions to the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:

 1. Where it plainly appears that the administrative remedy would be of no value and
fruitless, the party seeking judicial relief does not have to complete administrative
procedures before resorting to courts;
2. When there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency claiming the benefit of
the doctrine;
3. When no administrative action is possible because the question involved is purely a legal
question;
4. When the administrative action for which relief is sought is patently illegal amounting to
lack of jurisdiction;
5. When there is unreasonable delay or official inaction;
6. When there is an irreparable damage to injury or threat thereof unless resort to the court
is immediately made;
7. When the doctrine of qualified political agency applies;
8. In extreme cases, where there is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law;
9. In land cases, the doctrine applies only to lands of public domain. The rule is inapplicable
to private lands, not even to those acquired  by the Government for resale to individuals;
10. When there are special reasons or circumstances demanding immediate action;
11. Where the law does not make administrative remedy a condition precedent to judicial
resort;
12. Where the observance of the exhaustion requirement would result in the nullification of
the claim being asserted;
13. When there is nothing left to be done but to go to court;
14. When the question involve is essentially judicial; and
15. When due process is clearly violated.

What is “Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction”?

This doctrine does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve controversy
the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.
(Factoran, Jr. vs. CA, 117 SCAD 188; Roxas & Co., Inc. vs. CA, 117 SCAD 589).

The CMTA under Section 201(j) specifically empowers the Bureau of Customs “to exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction over forfeiture cases.

Clearly then, the question of seizure and forfeiture is for the Collector of Customs to determine
in the first instance and then the Commissioner of Customs. This is a field where the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction controls. Thereafter an appeal may be taken to the Court of Tax Appeals. A
Regional Trial Court is thus devoid of competence to act on the matter.

Case: 

Facts: M/V Floria, a vessel of Philippine registry, was hired to transport beans from
Singapore to India. The vessel was allegedly hijacked at sea and found its way to Bataan. It
is also alleged that said beans are now with the list Co. and fake documents were used  to
show that the beans were imported from Japan. The Collector of Customs seized the M/V
Floria and its cargo. The owner of M/V Floria filed a complaint in the RTC to obtain
possession of the vessel and the beans. Does the RTC have jurisdiction over the case?

Decision: The RTC has no jurisdiction. The Collector of Customs sitting in seizure and
forfeiture proceedings has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions
touching on the seizure and forfeiture of dutiable goods. The RTC has no jurisdiction to
pass upon the validity or regularity of the seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by
the Bureau of Customs. (Commissioner of Customs v. Makasiar, 177 SCRA 27, 33-34
{1989} citing Pacis v. Averia, 18 SCRA 907 {1966}).

As initially discussed in Section 602 (g) of the TCCP, specifically empowers the Bureau of
Customs “to exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture cases under the
tariff and customs laws.”
Therefore, the question of seizure and forfeiture is for the Collector of Customs to determine in
the first instance and then the Commissioner of Customs. This is a field where the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction controls. Thereafter an appeal may be taken to the Court of Tax Appeals. A
court of first instance (now Regional Trial Court) is thus devoid of competence to act on the
matter.

In the case of Ponce Enrile v. Vinuya, 37 SCRA 381, the court held that “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 (now RTC) from assuming cognizance over such
matter. And according to the same case, it is a settled rule that the Bureau of Customs acquires
exclusive jurisdiction over imported goods, for the purposes of enforcement of the customs laws,
from the moment the goods are actually in its possession or control, even if no warrant of seizure
or detention had previously been issued by the Collector of Customs in connection with seizure
and forfeiture proceedings. 

According to the SC, in the case of Collector of Customs v. Torres, 45 SCRA 273, “From the
time seizure had been effected, the Bureau of Customs had acquired jurisdiction over the goods
for the purpose of enforcement of the tariff and customs laws, to the exclusion of the regular
courts.

It is a settled rule, that the Bureau of Customs acquires exclusive jurisdiction over imported
goods, for the purposes of enforcement of the customs laws, from the moment the goods are
actually in its possession or control, even if no warrant of seizure or detention had previously
been issued by the Collector of Customs in connection with seizure and forfeiture proceedings.
(Republic v. Court of First Instance of Manila, 213 SCRA 222) 

But, the SC said that a WSD is essentially a condition sine qua non, before any seizure
proceeding can be formally initiated. Section 2301 of the TCCP, as amended, is clear that the
Collector should issue a WSD upon making a seizure. Likewise, under Section 2303 of the same
code provides that the Collector shall give the owner or importer of the property or his agent a
written notice of the seizure and shall give him an opportunity to be heard in reference to the
delinquency which was the occasion of such seizure.” Said written notice of seizure undoubtedly
comprises a WSD. (New Frontier Sugar Corporation v. Commissioner of Customs, CTA
Case No. 5347, June 19, 1998.)

There is no question that the RTCs 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.

The Collector of Customs sitting in seizure and forfeiture proceedings has exclusive jurisdiction
to hear and determine all questions touching on the seizure and forfeiture of dutiable goods. (Jao
v. CA, G.R. No. 104604, October 6, 1995, 64 SCAD 788)

Please see the cases of:

1. Republic vs. Court of First Instance of Manila, 213 SCRA 222;

2. Jao vs. CA, G.R. No. 104604, Oct. 6, 1995, 64 SCAD 788;
3. Collector of Customs vs. Villaluz, June 18, 1976, 71 SCRA 356.

According to the case of Collector of Customs vs. Torres, 45 SCRA 273, the SC held that
“From the time seizure had been effected the Bureau of Customs had acquired jurisdiction over
the goods for the purpose of enforcement of the tariff and customs laws, to the exclusion of the
regular courts.

Is the issuance of a Warrant of Seizure and Detention (WSD) essential to the validity of a
seizure proceeding?

In the case of New Frontier Sugar Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs (CTA Case
no. 5347, June 19, 1998), the CTA ruled that “a WSD is essentially a conditio sine qua non,
before any seizure proceeding can be formally initiated. Sections 2301 of the TCCP, as amended,
is explicit enough in that it requires the Collector to issue WSD upon making any seizure.
Likewise, Section 2303 of the same code provides that the “Collector shall give the owner or
importer of the property or his agent a written notice of the seizure and shall give him an
opportunity to be heard in reference to the delinquency which was the occasion of such seizure.”
Said written notice of seizure undoubtedly comprises a WSD.

Conditio sine qua non means an indispensable condition.

Latin for "without which it could not be," an indispensable action or condition.

Instance where Regular Court has Jurisdiction

The Bureau of Customs has the exclusive original jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture cases.
In the instant case, however, it has been established that the subject shipment was lost while the
hearing on said seizure and detention of the subject shipment pending resolution, and quite
obviously. Said loss happened while subject shipment is under the custody of the defendants-
appellants. Thus, the present case does not delve on the seizure and detention of the subject
shipment but the recovery of the lost shipment or in effect damages which is within the
jurisdiction of the trial court as provided by Section 19 of BP 129. (Taiwan Products Trade
and Display Center v. Bureau of Customs).

Collector of Customs, authorized to issue Warrants

Not only may the goods be seized without search and seizure warrant under Section 2536 of the
TCCP, when they (the goods) are openly offered for sale or kept in storage in a store as in this
case, but the fact is that petitioner’s stores were searched upon warrants of search and detention
issued by the Collector of Customs, who under the Constitution was a responsible officer
authorized by law to issue them. (Chia v. Acting Collector of Customs)

Case:  

Facts : Sometime in September 1990, a shipment of 150 packages of imported goods and
personal effects arrived and was unloaded at the Port of Manila. After the amount of P15,887.00
was paid by the consignee as customs duties, internal revenue taxes, fees and other charges, the
packages were released from the Customhouse. As the packages were being transported from the
Customs area to their destination, the truck carrying them was intercepted at T.M. Kalaw St.,
Ermita, Manila by agents of Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB). In a formal
communication, the EIIB informed the Collector of Customs that the packages were released
from the customs zone without proper appraisal to the damage of the Government and requested
for the issuance of necessary warrant of seizure. A seizure proceeding (S.I. No. 796) was then
instituted and the Collector of Customs issued a warrant of seizure and detention. 

During the progress of the search and seizure and while the goods were being removed by the
Customs agents from the bodegas where they were stored, the consignee filed a petition (Civil
case No. 234) with the RTC of Manila asking that the Collector of Customs and all his agents be
restrained from further enforcing the aforesaid warrant and from proceeding with the trial of S.I.
796, and that said warrant be declared null and void since the Collector no longer had
jurisdiction to issue the same considering that the customs duties and taxes had already been paid
and the goods had left the control and jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs.
Issues:

Did the Collector of Customs have jurisdiction to issue the warrant of seizure and
detention?

Answer: 

On the assumption that the goods were released from Customs custody without proper appraisal
as contended by EIIB, the Collector of Customs had jurisdiction to issues the warrant of seizure
and detention. This remedy is generally available in importations tainted with irregularity
(Section 2531, TCCP; Viduya v. Berdiago, 73 SCRA 553).
Did the payment of the customs duties, taxes, etc. render illegal and improper the issuance
of said warrant?

Answer:

In seizure and forfeiture, the payment of customs duties and taxes, etc. does not necessarily
render as irregular and improper the issuance of a WSD. What is legally consequential is whether
there was, in fact, an irregularity committed in the importation of the articles and their release
from customs.

Has the RTC jurisdiction to hear and decide Civil Case No. 234?

Answer:

No. The RTC has no jurisdiction. In the case of seizures and forfeitures, an ordinary court may
not take cognizance of the case and, therefore, said courts would be bereft of jurisdiction to hear
and decide the same. The jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs in seizure and forfeiture
proceedings is exclusive of all the courts. The proper remedy would be to go through with the
hearing of the case with the Collector of Customs from whose decision an appeal may be made
to the Commissioner of Customs and, thereafter, if the taxpayer still feels aggrieved, go to the
Court of Tax Appeals.

Question: Is the illegality of the Warrant of Seizure and Detention justifies the court’s
interference with the Collector’s jurisdiction?

Answer: Even the illegality of the WSD cannot justify the trial court’s interference with the
Collector’s jurisdiction. In the first place, there is a distinction between the existence of the
Collector’s power to issue it and the regularity of the proceeding taken under such power. In the
second place, even if there be such an irregularity in the latter, the Regional Trial Court does not
have the competence to review, modify, or reverse whatever conclusions may result therefrom
(Mison v. Natividad).

Question: Is the RTC vested with authority to determine the question of probable cause in
customs seizure cases?

Answer: No. in the case of Bureau of Customs v. Ogario, G.R. No. 138081, March 30, 2000,
329 SCRA 289, respondents cited the statement of the Court of Appeals that regular courts still
retain jurisdiction “where, as in this case, for lack of probable cause, there is serious doubt as to
the propriety of placing the articles under customs jurisdiction through seizure/forfeiture
proceedings. “They overlooked the fact, however, that under the law, the question of whether
probable cause exists for the seizure of the subject sacks of rice is not for RTC to determine”.

Question: What are the reasons for vesting exclusive jurisdiction to the Bureau of
Customs?
Answer: The rule that the RTCs have no review powers over seizure and forfeiture proceedings
conducted by the BOC is anchored upon the policy of placing no unnecessary hindrance on the
government’s drive, not only to prevent smuggling and other frauds upon Customs, but more
importantly, to render effective and efficient the collection of import and export duties due the
State.

Administrative case against a Judge for issuing Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) over a
settled customs doctrine:

Jurisprudence: Zuno v. Cabredo, April 30, 1971, 402 SCRA 75

Facts: Deputy Collector of Customs Florin of the Sub-Port of Tabaco, Albay, issued on
September 3, 2001 a Warrant of Seizure and Detention (WSD) against a shipment of 35,000 bags
of rice for violation of Section 2530 of the TCCP. The consignees of the seized rice filed before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tabaco Albay of which the respondent was the Judge, a
Petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
against the Bureau of Customs to enjoin the latter from detaining the subject shipment.

Acting favorably on the petition, the respondent judge issued a TRO restraining the BOC from
detaining the subject shipment and by virtue of which said shipment of rice was released to the
consignees.

Issue: Whether the act of the respondent judge constitute gross ignorance of the law and grave
misconduct.

Ruling: Clearly, therefore, respondent judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
petition and issue the questioned TRO. He proceeded against settled doctrine, an act constituting
gross ignorance of the law. This is a serious violation under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of
Court. What is involved here is a fundamental and well-known judicial norm. if the law is so
elementary, not to know it or to act if one does not know it, constitute gross ignorance of the law.
Gross ignorance of the law is the disregard of basic rules and settled jurisprudence. Failure to
know the basic principles in an inexcusable offense. Respondent’s actuation in this case is
tantamount to grave misconduct.

What is the concept of Administrative adjudication or Quasi-judicial power?

It is the power to hear and determine or ascertain fact and decide by the application of rules of
law to the facts and the enforcement and administration of law.

What are the requisites of Administrative Adjudication?

They are: 

1. Jurisdiction
2. Notice; and
3. Hearing
Jurisdiction – the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law; the limits or territory
within which authority may be exercised.

Notice – it a written or formal notification about legal proceeding initiated against a party. The
purpose of issuing a notice is to make a party aware about the legal process that would affect his
rights, obligations, and duties.

Hearing – a legal proceeding where an issue of law or fact is tried and evidence is presented to
help determine the issue.

What are the requirements of Administrative due process?

The requirements are the following:

1. Impartial tribunal;
2. Due notice and hearing or opportunity to be heard;
3. Procedure consistent with the essentials of a fair trial;
4. Proceedings should be conducted to give opportunity for a court to determine whether the
applicable rule of law and procedure were observed.

What does Judicial Proceeding mean?

A judicial proceeding is any action brought before a court of law which is presided over by a
judge. A judicial proceeding is initiated by a party’s request for remedial action to be taken by
another. The parties to a proceeding must adhere to the process set out where strict rules apply.

A judicial proceeding usually takes the form of a hearing or trial. The action is initiated by a
party who then requires a response to the claim put forward to the courts. The responding party is
legally required to confirm or deny the claim.

If the claim is refuted, both parties must support their positions by introducing
relevant evidence or witness testimony. The presiding judge concludes the proceedings by
making a ruling on the action based on the evidence and testimony provided.

Search – consists of looking for or seeking out that which is otherwise concealed from view.

 An examination of a person’s house or other buildings or premises, or of his person, or of

his vehicle, aircraft, etc., with a view to the discovery of contraband or illicit or stolen
property, or some evidence of guilt to be used in the prosecution of a criminal action for
some crime or offense with which he is charged.

Seizure – the act of taking possession of property, e.g., for a violation of law or by virtue of an
execution of a judgment. Term implies a taking or removal of something from the possession,
actual or constructive, of another person or persons.
  Seizure of an individual connotes the taking of one physically or constructively into
custody and detaining him, thus causing a deprivation of his freedom in as significant
way, with real interruption of his liberty of movement.

Distinctions between search and seizure:

A search is a probing or exploration for something that is concealed or hidden from the searcher,
whereas as seizure is a forcible or secretive dispossession of something against the will of the
possessor or owner.

Forfeiture – a comprehensive term which means a divestiture of specific property without

compensation; it imposes a loss by the taking away of some preexisting valid right without
compensation.

Arrest – to deprive a person of his liberty by legal authority. Taking, under real or assumed
authority, custody of another for the purpose of holding or detaining him to answer a criminal
charge or civil demand.

Search warrant – an order in writing, issued by a justice or other magistrate, in the name of the
State, directed to sheriff, constable, or other officer, authorizing him to search for and seize any
property that constitutes evidence of the commission of a crime, contraband, the fruits of crime,
or things otherwise criminally possessed.

Certiorari
Prohibition
mandamus

What is the rationale of issuing Search Warrant?

A search warrant may issue to:

a. Respond to an incident in the main case (smuggling case) if one has already been
instituted; or
b. In anticipation thereof.

Exercise of Power of Seizure and Arrest

It shall be within the power and duty of the customs official or any authorized person to make
seizure of any vessel, aircraft, cargo, article, animal or other movable property, when the same is
subject to forfeiture or liable for any fine imposed under the tariff and customs laws, rules and
regulations provided. But, the same is to be exercised only in conformity with the law and the
provisions of the CMTA.

Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures

Basis:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Any evidence obtained in violation of this shall be inadmissible for any purpose in the
proceeding.

Case:

A disgruntled employee of Apache Corporation reported to the Commissioner of Customs that

the company is illegally importing electronic equipment by way of unlawful “shipside” activities
thereby evading payment of customs duties and taxes on the goods. Accordingly, the
Commissioner, upon the request of the EIIB, issued warrants of seizures and detention and
directed EIIB to seize the goods listed in the warrants.

After the seizure of the goods and considering the magnitude of the value of the goods, counsel
for Apache Corporation filed a petition with the Supreme Court for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus to enjoin the Commissioner of Customs and his agents from continuing further with
the forfeiture proceedings and praying that the Commissioner return the confiscated articles on
the ground that the warrants were in violation of the Rules of Court and the Bill of Rights.

Questions:

1. If you were a newly-appointed Solicitor in the office of the Solicitor General representing
the Commissioner of Customs, how would you defend the latter? Give the specific
defenses.

Answer: Appurtenant to its power under the Tariff and Customs Code (now CMTA) to
enforce the provisions of such law, the Bureau of Customs may conduct searches and
seizures even without the benefit of a warrant issued by a judge upon probable cause.
This is historically considered an exemption from the constitutional guarantee against
unreasonable searches and seizures.

2. Assuming that the enforcement of the warrant had been extended to the residence of the
President of Apache Corporation, is such enforcement valid?

Answer: No, the Tariff and Customs Code (now CMTA) authorizes customs officials
and agents to search any building, except dwelling house.

3. Do you think the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus filed by Apache
Corporation will prosper in the Supreme Court?
 Answer: No, the choice of remedy assumes want of authority and jurisdiction.
Warrantless searches and seizures are, however, authorized under the TCC. Such
searches and seizures are not considered unreasonable within the meaning of the
constitutional guarantee.

What is Warrant of Arrest?

It is a written order of the court which is made on behalf of the State and is based upon a
complaint issued pursuant to statute and/or court rule and which commands law enforcement
officer to arrest a person and bring him before the magistrate.

What is probable cause?

It is defined as such reasons, supported by facts and circumstances, as will warrant a cautious
man in the belief that his actions, and the means taken in prosecuting it, are legally just and
proper.

The required probable cause that will justify a warrantless search and seizure is not determined
by a fixed formula but is resolved according to the facts of each case.

Take note that: The constitutional right against unreasonable search is the embodiment of a
spiritual concept: the belief that to value the privacy of home and person and to afford its
constitutional protection against a long reach of government is no less that to value human
dignity and his privacy must not be disturbed except in case of overriding social need, and then
only under stringent procedural safeguards. (Paper Industries Corp. vs. Asuncion, 106 SCAD
621)

Does the provision prohibit all searches and seizures?

No, what it prohibits are unreasonable searches and seizures.

When are searches and seizures unreasonable?

The plain import of the language of the Constitution, which in one sentence prohibits
unreasonable searches and seizures and at the same time prescribes the requisites for a valid
warrant, is that searches and seizures are normally unreasonable unless authorized by a validly
issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. Thus, the fundamental protection given by the search
and seizure clause is that between person and police must stand the protective authority of a
magistrate clothed with power to issue or refuse to issue search warrants or warrant of arrest.

Is the rule against unreasonable searches and seizure absolute?

The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures is not absolute but
admits of certain exceptions, namely:
 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of
the Rules of Court and prevailing jurisprudence;
2. Seizure of evidence in plain view;
3. Search of moving vehicles;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and frisk situations; and
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.

Read the cases of:

a. Felicisimo Rieta vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 147817 August 12, 2004; 436
SCRA 273;
b. People vs. Doria, 102 SCAD 542;
c. People vs. Chua, 107 SCAD 562.

May a person exercising police authority above be sued and held liable for damages caused
to the premises?

As general rule, no. no proceeding shall give rise to any claim for the damages caused to article,
vessel or aircraft.

Exception: If the force used by the agents during the search of dutiable articles in the vessels or
aircraft or the vehicle itself is not necessary or excessive.

Search of Dwelling House

A dwelling house may be entered and searched only upon a warrant issued by a Judge of the
Court or such other responsible officers as may be authorized by law upon sworn application
showing probable cause and particularly describing the place to be searched and person or thing
to be seized.

Dwelling house is defined as the house or other structure in which a person or persons live, a
residence; abode; habitation; the apartment or building, or group of buildings, occupied by a
family as a place of residence, structure used as a place of habitation.

Note that, the State, however powerful, does not as such have the access except under the
circumstances above noted, for in the traditional formulation, his house, however humble, is his
castle. Thus, is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by government, which is called upon to
refrain from any invasion of his dwelling and to respect the privacies of life. (People vs. Marti,
G.R. No. 81561, Jan. 18 1991)

 A warehouse, store or other building or enclosure used for the keeping or storage of
articles does not become a dwelling house merely by reason of the fact that the person
employed as watchman/guard lives in the place, nor will the fact that his family as a place
of residence. Structure used as a place of habitation.
What is the test for determining if a building is a dwelling house?

Under, statute prohibiting breaking and entering a dwelling house the test for determining if a
building is such a house is whether it is used regularly as a place to sleep.

What is the legal requirement in the search of a dwelling house?

Answer: Judicial search warrant.

What are the requisites of a valid search warrant are:

1. Probable cause is present;

2. Such presence in determined personally by the judge;
3. The complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce are personally examined by
the judge, in writing and under oath or affirmation;
4. The applicant and the witnesses testify on facts personally known to them; and
5. The warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

INJUNCTION- a restraining order.

A court order by which an individual is required to perform, or is restrained from performing, a

particular act. A writ framed according to the circumstances of the individual case.

An injunction commands an act that the court regards as essential to justice, or it prohibits an act
that is deemed to be contrary to good conscience. It is an extraordinary remedy, reserved for
special circumstances in which the temporary preservation of the status quo is necessary.

An injunction is ordinarily and properly elicited from other proceedings. For example, a landlord
might bring an action against a tenant for waste, in which the right to protect the landlord’s
interest in the ownership of the premises is at issue. The landlord might apply to the court for an
injunction against the tenant’s continuing harmful use of the property. The injunction is an
ancillary remedy in the action against the tenant.

Injunction relief is not a matter of right, but its denial is within the discretion of the court.
Whether or not an injunction will be granted varies with the facts of each case.

MANDAMUS – we command; a writ issuing from a court of higher jurisdiction commanding

the performance of a public duty.

A writ or order that is issued from a court of superior jurisdiction that commands an inferior
tribunal, corporation, municipal corporation, or individual to perform, or refrain from performing
a particular act, the performance or omission of which is required by law as an obligation.
A writ or order of mandamus is an extraordinary court order because it is made without the
benefit of full judicial process, or before a case has concluded. It may be issued by a court at any
time that it is appropriate, but it is usually issued in a case that has already begun.

Generally, the decisions of a lower court made in the course of a continuing case will not be
reviewed by higher courts until there is final judgment in the case. On the federal level, for
example, 28 U.S.C.A. 1291 provides that appellate review of the lower court decisions should be
postponed until after a final judgment has been made in the lower court. A writ of mandamus
offers one exception to this rule, if a party to a case is dissatisfied with some decision of the trial
court, the party may appeal the decision to a higher court with a petition for a writ of mandamus
before the trial proceeds. The order will be issued only in exceptional circumstances.

PROHIBITION – writ issued from a superior court forbidding an inferior court to hear a case
because of lack of jurisdiction; example: restraint on the sale of alcoholic beverages.

An order from a superior court to lower court or tribunal directing the judge and the parties to
cease the litigation because the lower court does not have proper jurisdiction to hear or determine
the matters before it. A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that is rarely used. 

A writ of prohibition is an order directed to the judge and parties of a suit in a lower court,
ordering the court not to exercise jurisdiction in a particular case. It arrests the proceedings of
any tribunal, corporation, board, or person, when such proceedings are without or in excess of
jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board, or person. The writ may be issued when an
inferior court is acting outside the normal rules and procedures in the examination of a case or
headed towards defeating a legal right.

The writ of prohibition is the counterpart of the writ of Mandamus.

CERTIORARI – is a formal request to a court challenging a legal decision of an administrative

tribunal, judicial office or organization (e.g. Government) and to decide if the decision has been
an error of law, if the tribunal had the power to make the decision complained of or whether the
tribunal exceeded its power in issuing the decision complained of.

A Writ of certiorari is an Order. A higher Court issues in order to review the decision and
proceedings in a lower court and determine whether there were any irregularities. When a court
issues a writ of certiorari it is referred to as “granting certiorari”. When the Supreme Court
orders a lower court to transmit records for a case for which it will hear on appeal, it is done
through a writ of certiorari. Certiorari is the common method for cases to be heard before the
Supreme Court since it has specific jurisdiction over a very limited range of disputes.

A Supreme Court has power to review the proceedings of all lower tribunals and to rule upon
their authority to hear the case and their decisions on questions of law. However, the lower
court’s determination on questions of fact will rarely be disturbed, although a state statute may
authorize a higher court to do so.
Certiorari - a form of judicial review whereby a court is asked to consider a legal decision of an
administrative tribunal, judicial office or organization (eg. government) and to decide if the
decision has been regular and complete, if there has been an error of law, if the tribunal had the
power to make the decision complained of or whether the tribunal exceeded its powers in issuing
the decision complained of.

For example, a certiorari may be used to wipe out a decision of an administrative tribunal which
was made in violation of the rules of natural justice, such as a failure to give the person affected
by the decision an opportunity to be heard.

Certiorari, if the application is successful, renders the decision at issue of no force or effect and
null and void. Lawyers say it is quashed.

The companion remedy is prohibition, which asks that an anticipated or prospective decision,
alleged to be ultra vires, be stopped before it issues.