COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v.

RELUNIA

May 29, 1959 | Montemayor, J. | Aids to construction, in general - Title

PETITIONER: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

RESPONDENTS: FAUSTINO RIVERA

SUMMARY: RPS Misamis Oriental, a unit of the Philippine Navy, was dispatched to Japan to transport contingents bound for Puson,
Korea, and carry Christmas gifts for our soldiers there. It was used for transportation purposes and it made trips between Korea and
Japan. While RPS Misamis Oriental was in Japan, it loaded 180 cases containing various articles which are subject to customs duties.
Upon arrival in the Philippines, these articles were forfeited because of violations of Customs Law. Commissioner of Customs argued that
RPS Misamis Oriental is subject to Administrative Code Sec. 1363 which says that unmanifested merchandise found in the vessel shall
be forfeited. ISSUE is whether Navy vessels, like RPC Misamis Oriental, are required to have a manifest. YES. Even if Sec. 1221 of the
Administrative Code is entitled "Entrance of Vessels in Foreign Trade," Sec. 1228 states that it is required that "every vessel from a
foreign port or place must have on board complete written or typewritten manifests of all her cargoes. Also, RPS Misamis Oriental claimed
to have submitted one to a certain Mr. Ysla, but was denied by the latter.

DOCTRINE: Resort to the TITLE of a statute as an aid in interpretation thereof is an UNSAFE criterion, and is not entitled to much
weight. (50 Am. Jur. 301). The title can be resorted to as aid where there is doubt as to the meaning of the law or the intention of the
legislature in enacting it. Not otherwise.

FACTS:

1. On December 10, 1953, the RPS "MISAMIS ORIENTAL" a unit of the Philippine Navy was dispatched to Japan to transport
contingents of the 14th BCT bound for Pusan, Korea, and carry

Christmas gifts for our soldiers there.

It seems that thereafter, it was used for transportation purposes in connection with the needs of our soldiers there and made
trips between Korea and Japan, so that it did not return to the Philippine until September 2, 1954. While in Japan, it
loaded 180 cases containing various articles subject to customs duties.

2. These articles have been classified into three groups, to wit:

a. those supposed to be for the Philippine Army Post Exchange, with an appraised value of $24,197.53,

b. those pertaining to the Philippine Army Post Exchange, with an appraised value of $1,590.04

c. those belonging to individuals, consisting of nine Philippine Army and Navy Officers and crew and two private persons,
with an appraised value of $1,772.00.

3. We are reproducing pertinent portions of decision of CTA:

. . All these articles were declared forfeited by the Collector of Customs of Manila for violations of the Customs Law in a
decision rendered on March 18, 1955.

4. One of the cases containing an electric range ‘GE’ with four burners, brought by the RPS ‘MISAMIS ORIENTAL’ is consigned to
petitioner herein. The said article was forfeited pursuant to Section 1363 (g) of the Administrative Code as an unmanifested
cargo. On appeal to the Commissioner of Customs, the dispositive portion of the decision of the Collector of Customs of Manila
was affirmed in toto; hence this appeal.

Section 1363 (g) of the Administrative Code, upon which the decree of forfeiture is based, reads as follows:
 ‘SEC. 1363. Property subject to forfeiture under customs laws. — Vessels, cargo, merchandise, and other objects and
things shall, under the conditions hereinbelow specified, be subject to forfeiture

‘(g) Unmanifested merchandise found on any vessel, a manifest therefore being required.

ISSUE/s: WoN manifest is required of the RPS “MISAMIS ORIENTAL” and, if so, WoN the aforesaid electric range is an unmanifested
merchandise within the meaning of Section 1363 (g) of the Administrative Code

RULING: SC affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals as regards the forfeiture of the electric range in question in set aside, and
the decision of the Commissioner of Customs affirming that of the Collector of Customs, as regards the same article is hereby affirmed.
No costs.

RATIO:

1. In conclusion, we hold that all vessels whether private or government owned, including ships of the Philippine navy,
coming from a foreign port, with the possible exception of war vessels or vessels employed by any foreign government, not
engaged in the transportation of merchandise in the way of trade, as provided for in the second paragraph of Section 1221 of
the Revised Administrative Code, are required to prepare and present a manifest to the customs authorities upon arrival
at any Philippine port.

2. The law provides that an ‘unmanifested merchandise found on any vessel, a manifest therefore being required’ is subject to
forfeiture. The means that where a vessel is required by law, or by regulations promulgated pursuant to law, to make and
submit a manifest of its cargo to the custom authorities and it fails to do so, merchandise not manifested shall be forfeited. Is
the RPS ‘MISAMIS ORIENTAL’ required under the Customs Law to make and submit to the customs authorities a manifest of its
cargo? The Collector of Customs of Manila says it is, and he has been sustained by respondent Commissioner of Customs.

It is argued that Sections 1221, 1225 and 1228 of the Administrative Code require masters of Government vessels to
submit cargo manifests. Section 1221 provides:

‘SEC. 1221. Ports open to vessels engaged in foreign trade-duty of vessels to make entry. — Vessels engaged in the
foreign carrying trade shall touch at ports of entry only, except as otherwise specially allowed; and every such
vessel arriving within a customs collection district of the Philippines from a foreign port shall make entry at the port
of entry for such district and shall be subject to the authority of the collector of customs of the port while within his
jurisdiction.

The master of any war vessel or vessel employed by any foreign government shall be required to report and enter
on arrival in the Philippines, unless engaged in the transportation of merchandise in the way of trade.’

The term ‘report and enter’ appearing in the last paragraph of Section 1221 means, according to the Collector of
Customs, ‘the entrance of a vessel from a foreign port into a Philippine port of entry as contemplated in Section
1225’ which reads in part:

‘SEC. 1225. Documents to be produced by master upon entry of vessel. — For the purpose of making entry of
a vessel engaged in foreign trade, the master thereof shall present the following documents, duly certified by
him, to the boarding officer of customs.
 (a) The original manifest of all cargo destined for the port to be returned with boarding officer’s endorsement.

3. And Section 1228 provides:

SEC. 1228. Manifest required of vessels from the foreign port. — Every vessel from a foreign port or place must have on board a
complete written or typewritten manifest of all her cargo.

‘All of the cargo intended to be landed at a port in the Philippines must be described in separate manifests for each port of
call therein. Each manifest shall include the port of departure and the port of delivery with the marks, numbers, quantity,
and description of the packages and the names of the consignees thereof. Every vessel from a foreign port or place must have on
board complete manifests of passengers, immigrants, and their baggage in the prescribed form, setting forth their destination
and all particulars required by the immigration laws; and every such vessel shall have prepared for presentation to the proper
customs official upon arrival in ports of the Philippines a complete list of all ship’s stores then on board. If the vessel does not
carry cargo, passengers, or immigrants, there must still be a manifest showing that no cargo is carried from the port of
departure to the port of destination in the Philippines.

‘A cargo manifest shall in no case be changed or altered, except after entry of the vessel, by means of an amendment by the
master, consignee, or agent thereof, under oath, and attached to the original manifest.’

4. One, if not the main, reason given by the Court of Tax Appeals in holding that the RPS "MISAMIS ORIENTAL" was NOT
required to present any manifest to the customs authorities upon its arrival in Manila was that Sections 1221, 1225 and
1228 of the Administrative Code aforequoted are found under Article VI of the Customs Law, the title of which reads:

"Entrance of vessels in foreign trade"

that the said article lays down rules governing entry of vessels engaged in foreign trade; and that inasmuch as the navy vessel in
question was not engaged in foreign trade it was not required to submit the manifest provided for in section 1225.

5. The Tax Court took the view that under Article VI of the Customs Law including the different sections of the Administrative
Code under it, only vessels engaged in foreign trade are required to submit manifests upon entering any Philippine port.

The Tax Court apparently overlooked the reason behind the requirement of presenting a manifest and allowed itself to be
swayed by the title of the law. Resort to the title of a statute as an aid in interpretation thereof is an unsafe criterion,
and is not entitled to much weight.

The title can be resorted to as an aid where there is doubt as to the meaning of the law or the intention of the legislature
in enacting it, not otherwise.

6. The Tax Court also overlooked or failed to give due consideration to the provisions of Section 1228 which requires that
every vessel from a foreign port or place must have on board complete written or typewritten manifests of all her
cargoes.

Said provision is quite comprehensive, if not all inclusive, with the exception perhaps of vessels mentioned in the second
 paragraph of Section 1221, namely, war vassels or vessels employed by any foreign government. This is presumably out of
international practice. In our opinion all other vessels coming from foreign ports, whether or not engaged in foreign trade
arriving or touching upon any port in the Philippines should be provided with a manifest which must be presented to the
customs authorities. The reason for requiring a manifest is well stated in the brief for the Commissioner of Customs which we
quote with favor:

"Whether the vessel engaged in foreign trade (Sections 1221 and 1225, Revised Administrative Code) or not (Section 1228), and
even when the vessel belongs to the army or the army or the navy (Section 1234), the universal requirement from a reading of
all the foregoing provisions is that they be provided with a manifest. The reason is obvious, and must stem from marine
experience. As the name of the documents suggest, a manifest is obviously meant to place beyond doubt the nature of the
load or of the cargo that a vessel carries. The manifest is therefore intended to be an indication, if not an open
declaration, that the vessel is not engaged in smuggling or in surreptitious practices and activities. If the making of a
manifest were to be a monopoly of vessels engaged in foreign trade, it is plain that other vessels would be understood as licensed
to engage in undesirable marine activities, a consequence so absurd as to need no further explanation.

7. But the Court of Tax Appeals equally held that Section 1234 is not applicable to vessels of the Philippine Navy for the
reason that said section applies only to ships of the United States Army or Navy, and that if our legislature had really wanted or
intended to make its provisions applicable to our navy ships, it should have made the corresponding change or amendment
of the section.

We agree that it should have been done. But we believe that there was no necessity where as in the present case the
application of said section to our navy ships is so clear and manifest, considering that the reasons for requiring a manifest
from transport and supply ships of the army and navy of the United States are and with more reason applicable to our way
ships to carry out the policy of the government, and because we have complete control over them.

8. We therefore believe and hold that the RPS "MISAMIS ORIENTAL" was required to present a manifest upon its arrival in
Manila on September 2, 1954.

The Court of Tax Appeals, however, believed and found that even if a manifest were requires of the RPS "MISAMIS ORIENTAL",
still, one was actually presented by one of its officers to customs authorities through one Mr. Casimiro de la Ysla on September
3, 1954. This, Ysla denied. And after carefully studying the evidence on record and considering the circumstances attending the
case, we are inclined to agree with the Collector of Customs and the Commissioner of Customs who upheld him that no
such manifest required by law was submitted to the customs authorities upon the arrival of the RPS "MISAMIS
ORIENTAL."

9. If a manifest had really been delivered to the customs authorities upon the arrival of the RPS "MISAMIS ORIENTAL" there was
no reason whatsoever for Ysla to deny receipt thereof; and there would have been no occasion or reason for the Acting
Collector of Customs on September 17, 1954 to write to the Collector of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippine stating that
according to his information "a copy of the ship’s manifest covering said cargo had been secured by that office from the
Commanding Officer of the vessel" and request that two copies thereof furnished the Bureau of Customs. Why should the
Bureau of Customs ask for copies of the manifest if as claimed by the navy authorities such manifest had already been delivered
to them?

Again, it had always been the contention and the belief of the navy authorities that Philippine navy vessels were not required
to prepare and deliver this manifest upon their arrival in the Philippines from foreign ports. In fact there is evidence to
the effect that on two different occasions prior to the arrival of RPS "MISAMIS ORIENTAL" on September 2, 1954, Philippine
navy vessels had arrived from abroad with merchandise presumably for personal use of officers and men of the Philippine
navy and that no manifest had been presented covering said goods, which goods never went through customs.

10. With this belief and attitude of the Philippine navy authorities, it was not likely that a manifest of the goods carried by the RPS
 "MISAMIS ORIENTAL" was prepared on board while the boat was still in Japan, much less was a copy of the manifest if made,
was delivered to customs authorities.

If a manifest had already been prepared by the officers of the ship, and that a copy thereof had been presented to the customs,
why all this insistence and plea, that they be excused from and relieved of the duty of presenting a manifest when they
were found to be without one?

11. Moreover, if said manifest had actually been delivered of customs authorities upon the arrival of the RPS "MISAMIS ORIENTAL"
in Manila, then in the regular course of things the customs authorities would have inspected the same, assessed customs
duties on them if found dutiable, or released them if otherwise. And yet the only time when the customs authorities learned
of the existence of the goods and merchandise on board the RPS "MISAMIS ORIENTAL" was when according to the decision of
the Collector of Customs a confidential information was received in the office of the presence of commercial goods on board the
RPS "MISAMIS ORIENTAL" and after interception by the Port Patrol Policeman Consorcio Javier of a truckload of case leaving
the customs zone from the navy boat.

12. Besides, according to the regulation of the Bureau of Customs, as well as the practice of that office, when a vessel arrives from
a foreign port, a customs boarding officer boards the ship and a copy or copies of the cargo manifests are delivered to
him by the master of the vessel, and he makes a proper indorsement thereof including the date of delivery to him (boarding
officer). And according to Section 1229 of the Revised Administrative Code, the master of the vessel shall immediately mail to the
Auditor General a copy of the cargo manifest properly indorsed by the boarding officer.

13. If as claimed by the navy authorities, the law about cargo manifest had been fully complied with and that a copy of said
manifest was delivered to an officer of the Bureau of Customs who had the duty of indorsing and dating the same and that a
copy thereof had been mailed to the Auditor General, it was not explained why said navy authorities failed to produce at
the hearing their copy of said manifest duly indorsed by the boarding officer; neither did they try to subpoena the Auditor
General to produce the copy which should have been mailed to him. All these point to the conclusion that no such cargo
manifest was ever delivered to the customs authorities upon the arrival of the RPS "MISAMIS ORIENTAL."