CUSTOM AND DUTIES

ORGANIZATION, POWERS ABD JURISDICTION OF BOC

#1
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs. Marcelino E. Rodriguez
G.R. No. 160270 April 23, 2010
SECOND DIVISION; Carpio, J.:

FACTS:

On the basis of the declared value of US$6,000 of a cargo described as “agricultural

product, the shipment, which arrived at the Port of Subic was assessed customs duties and
taxes. Upon examination, the subject shipment was found to contain rice. The importer of
the cargo stated that there was a “misshipment” of cargo which actually contained rice. She
then requested that the “misshipment” be upgraded from “agricultural product” to a
shipment of rice, and at the same time manifested willingness to pay the appropriate duties
and taxes. However, hold orders were issued.
A certification/letter was later issued by Fertony G. Marcelo, Officer-in-charge of he
Cash Division of the Customs Subic Port, however, SBMA, through Seaport Department
General Manager Augusto Canlas refused to allow the release of the rice shipment. Thus, a
complaint for Injunction and Damages was filed with prayer for issuance of Writ of
Preliminary Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order
against petitioner SBMA and Augusto L. Canlas, with the RTC of Olongapo City. The
injunctive relief was granted. A copy of the complaint with summons together with the TRO
was served by Sheriff upon the defendants/respondents on the same day.
When the Sheriffs went back to defendants/respondents’ office to determine
whether or not the TRO was followed, defendants/respondents Attys. Abella and Katalbas
refused to honor the TRO, alleging that said Order was illegal. This led to the filing in the
instant case a verified indirect contempt charge because of the defiance exhibited. The
defendants/respondents alleged that they cannot be cited for contempt of court because
they had legal basis to refuse to honor the TRO: that it is the Bureau of Customs that has
jurisdiction, thus, the indirect contempt case has no leg to stand on.
The RTC found the defendants/respondents guilty of indirect contempt. The CA
dismissed the petition, hence, this appeal under Rule 45.

ISSUE:

Was the indirect contempt conviction proper?

HELD:

No. Section 3 of Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure includes, among the
grounds for filing a case for indirect contempt, are the following: “Disobedience of or
resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, judgment or command of a court, or injunction
granted by a court or judge, any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the process or
proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt under Section 1 of this rule; any
improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the
administration of justice.”
The SBMA officers may be considered to have acted in good faith when they refused
to follow the TRO issued by the RTC. The SBMA officers' refusal to follow the court
order was not contumacious but due to the honest belief that jurisdiction over the subject
shipment remained with the BOC because of the existing warrant of seizure and detention
against said shipment. Thus, we hold that the RTC Order dated 21 November 2002 which
found the SBMA officers guilty of indirect contempt for not complying with the RTC's
TRO should be invalidated.

#2
G.R. No. 183664 July 28, 2014
AIRLIFT ASIA CUSTOMS BROKERAGE vs. COURT OF APPEALS
Facts:

 CAO 3-2006 was issued by the then Commissioner (BOC) , It covers the Rules and
Regulations Governing the Accreditation of the Customs Brokers Transacting with
the BOC and essentially requires the accreditation by the BOC of customs brokers
who intend to practice before the BOC. Brokers who want to practice are required
to apply for accreditation and to obtain a Certificate of Accreditation.
 Petitioners assailed the validity of CAO 3-2006 through an action for declaratory
relief before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Issued without authority, and
violates their right to practice their profession.
 RTC decided in favour of petitioners.
o This power, initially lodged with the Commissioner of the Civil Service
under Section 3409 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines
(TCCP), had been transferred upon the passageof RA 9280 to the
Professional Regulatory Board for Customs Brokers (PRBCB), which is
under the supervision and administrative control of the Professional
Regulation Commission (PRC).
o CAO 3-2006 imposed an additional qualification not found in the law.
 CA reversed the RTC
o Although an added burden to brokers, nevertheless bore a reasonable
connection to the BOC’s aim to ensure accountability and integrity in the
transactions involving customs duties and tariff laws.
 ISSUE : WON the BOC can validly issue such Customs Administrative Order – NO
o Prior to the passage of RA 9280, the TCCP (specifically, Sections 3401 to
3409 thereof) governed the entry, regulation, and supervision of the
customs broker profession.
 Sections 3401 and 3402 of the TCCP required all applicants for
customs brokers’ certificates to pass a written examination given by
the Board of Examiners for Customs Brokers under PRC supervision.
BOC Commissioner was ex officio chairman.
 Suspension/revocation also filed with Board of Examiners.
 The enactment of RA 9280, however, brought about significant
changes.
 In lieu of the Board of Examiners, RA 9280 created the
PRBCB. whose members are appointed by the President
from a list of recommendees submitted by the PRC which
has supervisory and administrative control over the PRBCB.
Significantly, RA 9280 excluded the BOC Commissioner as
member of the PRBCB.
 Some of the powers of the PRBCB is to supervise and
regulate the licensure, registration, and practice of customs
brokers profession; and to Register successful examinees in
the licensure examination and issue the corresponding
Certificate of Registration and Professional Identification
Card;
o CA’s argument: It remains in the general power. It adds that "[t]o strip the
BOC [Commissioner] of any disciplinary and supervisory authority over
license customs brokers… would not only cripple the [BOC’s] efforts on
anti smuggling and raising revenue.
 This general grant of power should yield to specific grant of power
to CSC commissioner in the TCCP (Sec 3409) regarding the rules and
regulation in the practice of the brokerage profession.
o CAO 3-2006 amounts to a licensing requirement that restricts the practice
of profession of customs brokers and is prohibited by RA 9280.
 CA: intends to regulate only the practice before the BOC, which is
claimed to be one aspect
 SC: Notably, with the exception of consulting with clients,
and teaching tariff and customs administration, most of the
 above-enumerated activities involve dealing with the BOC. In
other words, a large part of a custom brokers’ work involves
practice before the BOC.
 Moreover, a reading of CAO 3-2006 does not appear to be
restricted only to "practice before the BOC."