Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    Anisco, Jenelyn D. Statcon Que Po Lay vs. Central Bank of The Philippines, Et Al., Facts

    Uploaded by

    Jen Anisco
    On January 26, 1951, gold bars and foreign currency worth PHP 271,895.02 were seized by Manila customs officials from Que Po Lay for making a false declaration. Que Po Lay challenged the seizure and was charged with illegal exportation of gold. The Collector of Customs and Commissioner of Customs both ruled the seizure was valid. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the seizure was proper under the law as the owner made a false declaration, and that Que Po Lay received sufficient notice regarding the hearings and decisions. The Court also noted that administrative rules and regulations must be published and accessible to the public.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Anisco, Jenelyn D. Statcon Que Po Lay vs. Central Bank of The Philippines, Et Al., Facts

    Uploaded by

    Jen Anisco
    33 views1 page
    On January 26, 1951, gold bars and foreign currency worth PHP 271,895.02 were seized by Manila customs officials from Que Po Lay for making a false declaration. Que Po Lay challenged the seizure and was charged with illegal exportation of gold. The Collector of Customs and Commissioner of Customs both ruled the seizure was valid. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the seizure was proper under the law as the owner made a false declaration, and that Que Po Lay received sufficient notice regarding the hearings and decisions. The Court also noted that administrative rules and regulations must be published and accessible to the public.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    QUE PO LAY V. cbp

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    On January 26, 1951, gold bars and foreign currency worth PHP 271,895.02 were seized by Manila customs officials from Que Po Lay for making a false declaration. Que Po Lay challenged the seizure and was charged with illegal exportation of gold. The Collector of Customs and Commissioner of Customs both ruled the seizure was valid. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the seizure was proper under the law as the owner made a false declaration, and that Que Po Lay received sufficient notice regarding the hearings and decisions. The Court also noted that administrative rules and regulations must be published and accessible to the public.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    33 views1 page

    Anisco, Jenelyn D. Statcon Que Po Lay vs. Central Bank of The Philippines, Et Al., Facts

    Uploaded by

    Jen Anisco
    On January 26, 1951, gold bars and foreign currency worth PHP 271,895.02 were seized by Manila customs officials from Que Po Lay for making a false declaration. Que Po Lay challenged the seizure and was charged with illegal exportation of gold. The Collector of Customs and Commissioner of Customs both ruled the seizure was valid. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the seizure was proper under the law as the owner made a false declaration, and that Que Po Lay received sufficient notice regarding the hearings and decisions. The Court also noted that administrative rules and regulations must be published and accessible to the public.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Anisco, Jenelyn D. Statcon QUE PO LAY vs. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

    , FACTS:
    On Jan. 26, 1951, articles consisting 329 pcs. of gold bars and 174 pieces of U.S. money bills, U. S. money orders, U.S. treasury warrants and travellers, checks worth P271,895.02 were seized by the Collector of Customs of Manila. And they were subject of a seizure proceeding under the authority of the Collector of Customs (S. Iden. No. 1010). On May 19, 1951, first hearing was set but postponed to June 19, 1951 but then Atty. De Guzman and Que Po Lay did not appeared. On Aug. 10, 1951, the Collector of Customs rendered decision declaring the forfeiture of the articles in favour of the Govt. On Sept 6, 1951, Commissioner of Customs affirmed this forfeiture. On Feb. 3, 1951, Que Po Lay charged b4 CFI of Manila with violation Circular No. 20 & 21 for failure to sell exchanged to an agent of the CBP w/in one day from acquisition ( crim case # 14788 and 14789), in connection SEC 34 of RA No. 265 for illegal exportation of Gold Bars Criminal Case No. 14787. On the ground that circular No. 20 of the CBP under which he was charged had no legal existence for not having published in OG at the time of the Commission of the offense.

    ISSUES:
    W/N Seizure No. 1010 of Collector of Customs valid and legal. W/N notices to plaintiffs counsel given upon hearing and decision as well of the Commissioner of Customs sufficient in law as to satisfy the requirement of due process.

    HELD:
    The Gold Bars and Foreign exchanged were properly seized under SEC. 1363 because the owner made false declaration in his entry, therefore no point that the seizure must fail. And with regard to the claim that CIRCULAR NO. 20 of the CBP that SC declared inapplicable to Que Po Lay, the same also deserves scant consideration for the reason that said circular was mentioned in the seizures report merely as an additional ground to justify the seizures of the articles. As to lack of notice, all possible notice had been given. NOTE: CANNOT BE DISPENSED WITH BY THE LEGISLATURE AND THE REQUIREMENT OF FILING IS INTENDED TO HAVE A
    CENTRAL OFFICE, NAMELY, THE U.P. LAW CENTER, WHERE INTERESTED PERSONS CAN READILY SECURE COPIES OF SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS OR CHECKS ON THEIR EXISTENCE.

    WHEREFORE, THE ORDER APPEALED FROM IS AFFIRMED WITH COST AGAINST QUE PO LAY THE APPEALLANT.

    You might also like