This case involved sugar that was seized by customs officials from a shipment being unloaded from a vessel. The petitioner presented invoices showing the sugar was purchased locally, but customs proceeded with seizure. An initial decision was made in favor of the petitioner, but customs filed for reconsideration. The issue was whether the initial decision became final or if customs could automatically review under Memorandum Order 20-87. The court ruled the initial decision was not final, as the Order allows for automatic review by the Commissioner of Customs for decisions adverse to the government. The enforcement of the Order was also valid without publication in the official gazette as it was an administrative order directed at customs officials.
This case involved sugar that was seized by customs officials from a shipment being unloaded from a vessel. The petitioner presented invoices showing the sugar was purchased locally, but customs proceeded with seizure. An initial decision was made in favor of the petitioner, but customs filed for reconsideration. The issue was whether the initial decision became final or if customs could automatically review under Memorandum Order 20-87. The court ruled the initial decision was not final, as the Order allows for automatic review by the Commissioner of Customs for decisions adverse to the government. The enforcement of the Order was also valid without publication in the official gazette as it was an administrative order directed at customs officials.
This case involved sugar that was seized by customs officials from a shipment being unloaded from a vessel. The petitioner presented invoices showing the sugar was purchased locally, but customs proceeded with seizure. An initial decision was made in favor of the petitioner, but customs filed for reconsideration. The issue was whether the initial decision became final or if customs could automatically review under Memorandum Order 20-87. The court ruled the initial decision was not final, as the Order allows for automatic review by the Commissioner of Customs for decisions adverse to the government. The enforcement of the Order was also valid without publication in the official gazette as it was an administrative order directed at customs officials.
This case involved sugar that was seized by customs officials from a shipment being unloaded from a vessel. The petitioner presented invoices showing the sugar was purchased locally, but customs proceeded with seizure. An initial decision was made in favor of the petitioner, but customs filed for reconsideration. The issue was whether the initial decision became final or if customs could automatically review under Memorandum Order 20-87. The court ruled the initial decision was not final, as the Order allows for automatic review by the Commissioner of Customs for decisions adverse to the government. The enforcement of the Order was also valid without publication in the official gazette as it was an administrative order directed at customs officials.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
YAOKASIN V.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (1989)
FACTS: On May 1988, the Philippine Coast Guard seized sacks of refined sugar, which were being unloaded from the M/V Tacloban, and turned them over to the custody of the Bureau of Customs. Petitioner presented a sales invoice to prove that the sugar was purchased locally. The District Collector of Customs, Yutangco, however, proceeded with the seizure of the bags of sugar. On June 1988, show-cause hearings with Yutangco, were conducted and was held in favor of petitioner. Days later, the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Board (EIIB) filed a Motion for Reconsideration , for "further hearing on the merits", based on evidence that the seized sugar was of foreign origin. The case was indorsed to Customs Commisioner, Mison. Petitioner opposed the motion for being merely pro forma and/or that the same was, in effect, a motion for new trial. Petitioner also applied for and secured a writ of replevin from the RTC. On July 1988, Mison, reconsidered the June 1988 decision, now in favor of the government. Petitioner now contendsthat the June 1988 decision became final and executory, in view of the absence of an appeal therefrom by the "aggrieved party" (himself) within the 15-day period provided for in Sec. 2313 of the Tariff and Customs Code . The Customs argue that since the June 1988 decision is adverse to the government, the case should go to Mison on automatic review, pursuant to Memorandum Order No. 20-87. ISSUE: Whether the June 1983 decision became final and executory. RULING: NO. The memorandum order implements Section 12 of the Integrated Reorganization Plan (IRP) which provides that where a decision of a Collector of Customs in such seizure and protest cases is adverse to the government, it shall automatically be reviewed by the Commissioner of Customs which, if affirmed, shall automatically be elevated for final review by the Secretary of Finance. Section 12 of the IRP applies in this case. Section 12 of the IRP and Section 2313 of the Tariff and Customs Code do not conflict with each other. They may co-exist. Section 2313 of the Code provides for the procedure for the review of the decision of a collector in seizure and protest cases upon appeal by the aggrieved party. On the other hand, Section 12 of the IRP refers to the general procedure in appeals in seizure and protest cases with a special proviso on automatic review when the collector's decision is adverse to the government. Section 2313 and the proviso in Section 12, although they both relate to the review of seizure and protest cases, refer to two different situations when the collector's decision is adverse to the importer or owner of the goods, and when the decision is adverse to the government. ISSUE: Is the enforcement of the Sec. 12 of the Integrated Reorganization Plan and thereafter CMO No. 20-87 valid when these laws have not been published in the Official Gazette? DECISION:
Yes. CMO and Sec 12 of the Integrated Reorganization Plan is enforceable. The requirement of Art. 2 of the Civil Code does not apply to CMO No. 20-87 since it is only an administrative order of the Commissioner of Customs to his subordinates, namely the customs collectors. Also in the Commonwealth Act No. 638, which enumerates what shall be published in the Official Gazette, states that administrative orders and proclamations shall be published except when these have no general applicability. CMO No. 20-87 requiring collectors of customs to comply strictly with Section 12 of the Plan, is an issuance which is addressed only to particular persons or a class of persons, hence no general applicability therefore need not be published in the Official Gazette. ISSUE: Whether or not administrative issuances are considered laws which require publication in the Official Gazette for their effectivity. RULING: It depends. Article 2 of the Civil Code, which requires laws to be published in the Official Gazette, does not apply to CMO No. 20-87 which is only an administrative order of the Commissioner of Customs addressed to his subordinates, the customs collectors.Commonwealth Act No. 638 (an Act to Provide for the Uniform Publication and Distribution of the Official Gazette) enumerates what shall be published in the Official Gazette besides legislative acts and resolutions of a public nature of the Congress of the Philippines. Executive and administrative orders and proclamations, shall also be published in the Official Gazette, except such as have no general applicability. CMO No. 20-87 requiring collectors of customs to comply strictly with Section 12 of the Plan, is an issuance which is addressed only to particular persons or a class of persons (the customs collectors). It need not be published, on the assumption that it has been circularized to all concerned
