FACTS: The NDC which is engaged in the shipping business
under the name of “Philippine National Lines” is the owner of the steamship “S.S.
Doña Nati” whose local agent in Manila
is A.V. Rocha.
When the customs
authorities found that the vessel Doña Nati carried on board unmanifested cargo consisting of one RCA Victor
TV set 21 in violation of Section 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code,
respondent sent a written notice to C.F. Sharp and Company, believing it to be
the operator or agent of the vessel, and when the latter referred the notice to
A.V. Rocha, the real operator of the vessel, for such step as he may deem
necessary to be taken, the latter answered stating that the television set was
not cargo and so was not required by law to be manifested, and he added to his
answer the following: “If this explanation is not sufficient, we request that
this case be set for investigation and hearing in order to enable the vessel to
be informed of the evidence against it to sustain the charge and to present
evidence in its defense.
Respondent, however,
replied to this letter saying that said television was a cargo within the
meaning of the law and so he does not find his explanation satisfactory and
then and there imposed on the vessel a fine of P5,000.00. Respondent even went
further. He ordered that the said fine be paid within 48 hours from receipt
with the threat that the vessel would be denied clearance and a warrant of
seizure would be issued if the fine would not be paid. Considering that this is
a grave abuse of discretion, petitioners commenced the present action for
certiorari before the court a quo.
ISSUE: WON notice
and hearing is required
RULING: We find
this action proper for it really appears that the petitioner Rocha was not
given an opportunity to prove that the television set complained of is not a
cargo that needs to be manifested as required by Section 2521 of the Tariff and
Customs Code. Under said section, in order that an imported article or
merchandize may be considered a cargo that should be manifested, it is first necessary
that it be so established for the reason that there are other effects that a
vessel may carry that are excluded from the requirement of law, among which are
the personal effects of the members of the crew.
The fact that the
set in question was claimed by the customs authorities not to be within the
exception does not automatically make the vessel liable. It is still necessary
that the vessel, its owner or operator, be given a chance to show otherwise.
This is precisely what petitioner Rocha has requested in his letter. Not only
he was denied this chance, but respondent collector immediately imposed upon
the vessel the huge fine of P5,000.00. This is a denial of the elementary rule
of due process.
True it is that the
proceedings before the Collector of Customs insofar as the determination of any
customs law or regulation is concerned, or of any act arising under the Tariff
and Customs Code, are not judicial in character, but merely administrative,
where the rules of procedure are generally disregarded, but even in the administrative proceedings, due
process must be observed because that is the right enshrined in our Constitution.
The right to due process is not merely statutory. It is a constitutional
right. Indeed, the Constitution provides that “No person shall be deprived of
life, liberty and property without due process of law,” which clause epitomizes
the principle of justice which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon
inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. That this principle applies with
equal force to administrative proceedings was well elaborated upon by this
Court in the Ang Tibay case.
Another point
raised is that the petitioners have brought this action prematurely for they
have not exhausted all the administrative
remedies available to them, one of which is to appeal the ruling to the
Commissioner of Customs. This may be true, but such step we do not consider a
plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law as would prevent
the petitioners from taking the present action, for it is undisputed that
respondent collector has acted in utter disregard
of the principle of due process.
No comments:
Post a Comment