SY MAN V JACINTO

FACTS

Respondents in the case are Alfredo Jacinto, Commissioner of Customs (Commissioner), and Melecio
Fabros, Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila (Collector).

Collector ordered the seizure of 2 shipments of textile and a number of sewing machines imported by Sy
Man.

After due hearing, the Collector rendered a decision that those previously seized be delivered to importer
(Sy Man) after payment of customs duty, sales tax and other charges, except the sewing machines which
are forfeited to the government.

Sys counsel sent a letter to the Collector asking for the execution of the decision as it has become final and
could no longer be reviewed by the Commissioner after the lapse of 15 days given to Sy, who did not appeal
the decision to the said Commissioner.

The Collector replied that Sys letter had been forwarded to the Commissioner requesting for information
whether the merchandise seized may be delivered to the owner upon showing that the decision had become
final and executory but no reply had been received from the Commissioner.

Under the theory that the Commissioner as head of the Bureau of Customs and by virtue of sec. 1152 of the
Revised Administrative Code he has supervision and control over the Collector, the Commissioner
promulgated a Memorandum Order:
o Collectors merely submit reports of seizures but do not transmit records of the proceedings and
decisions.
o As in protest cases, decisions of Collectors in seizure cases, whether appealed or not, are subject
to the review of the Commissioner. Pending action by Commissioner, final disposition of good will
not be made except upon previous authority from his office.

Sy Man filed a petition to declare null and void the Memorandum Order and to order the Collector to deliver
the shipments of textile seized. Sy claims that when a decision of the Collector in a seizure case is not
appealed by the importer to the Commissioner within 15 days, as provided in the Sec. 1380 RAC, the
decision becomes final as to the importer and the government. Thereafter, nothing remains to be done but
the release of the goods seized.

TC granted the petition and ordered the Commissioner and the Collector to execute the decision on the
ground that it has become final.
ISSUES, HELD & ARGUMENTS
WON the Commissioner of Customs has the power to revise the unappealed decisions of the Collector in seizure
cases. NO.
The Commissioner believes that the decision of the Collector in a seizure case does not become final against the
government as long as it has not been reviewed and acted upon by him. The seizure case, though unappealed by Sy,
is still unfinished business as far as the government is concerned because the Commissioner has not acted upon it.
RATIONALE

When merchandises are imported through any of ports in the country, these goods are assessed for the
payment of duties and fees. The importer pays the amount assessed if he is satisfied with the assessment.
Failure to protest renders the action of the Collector conclusive on the importer.

Both under protest and seizure cases the importer may appeal the decision of the Collector to the
Commissioner within 15 days (Sec. 1380 RAC).

The actions of the Commissioner cant find support in the Memorandum Order itself as it was never
approved by the department head and was never published by in Official Gazette. Such approval and
publication are required for the memorandum order to have legal effect.

Moreover, a regulation promulgated by a Bureau Chief must not be inconsistent with law. If the law does not
give the Commissioner the power to review and revise unappealed decisions of the Collector of Customs in
seizure cases, then the memorandum order even if duly approved and published would equally have no
effect for being inconsistent with law.

In cases involving assessment of duties, the Commissioner has the supervisory authority to order a
reliquidation if he believes that the decision of the Collector was erroneous. (Sec. 1393 RAC). There is no
legal provision for seizure cases. The logical inference is that the lawmakers did not deem it necessary or
advisable to provide for this supervisory authority or power of revision by the Commissioner on unappealed
seizure cases.

Until the Memorandum Order was issued, it was not the practice of the Bureau to have Collectors decisions
be reviewed by the Commissioner. The memo commented that Collectors only submit reports and their final

disposition of seizure cases but not the records of proceedings. If the right to review had existed from the
beginning, Collectors would not have ignored such practice necessitating a memo order to remind them of
such.
Sec. 1380 of the RAC provides that in a seizure case, the Collector transmits all the records to the
Commissioner only after the importer signifies his desire to appeal. This section does not say that without
the notice of appeal, the Collector still needs to transmit the records of the case.
Sec. 1388 RAC provides that in a seizure case the owner may pay the fine imposed and the properties
seized shall be surrendered and all liability concerning the seizure shall be discharged. It can be concluded
that it is within the power of the importer or owner to end the case at the office of the Collector.
Where payment is made and the owner wishes to test the validity of the proceedings, he may make a formal
protest at time of payment to appeal the decision to the Commissioner. The elevation of the case to the
Commissioner is within the owners power and discretion.
It is argued that if the Commissioner has no power to revise or review unappealed seizure cases then if the
Collector commits an error prejudicial to the government, the latter cant protect itself. The law presumes
that in seizure cases Collector of Customs act honestly and correctly and as Government officials, always
with an eye to the protection of the interests of the Government employing them.
o In such execptional cases, the government is protected as in all seizure cases Sec. 1373 RAC
requires the Collector to immediately inform the Auditor General.
If the Government deems it necessary to provide for review and revision by the Commissioner or even by
the Department Head of the decisions of the Collector of Customs in unappealed seizure cases, the
1
Legislature may be requested to insert a section in the RAC similar to Section 1393 , which applies to
unprotested cases of assessment duties.

Conclusion:
The decision of the Collector of Customs in a seizure case if not protested and appealed by the importer to the
Commissioner of Customs on time, becomes final not only as to him but against the Government as well, and neither
the Commissioner nor the Department Head has the power to review, revise or modify such unappealed decision.
The memorandum order is void and of no effect for not being duly approved by the Dept Head and duly published
and also for being inconsistent with law.

SC noted a defect in this section as it fixes no period within which automatic review or reliquidation must be
effected upon order of the Commissioner.