Bureau of Customs v. Peter Sherman, et. al., GR No.

190487, April 13, 2011 Facts: Mark Sensing Philippines, Inc. (MSPI) caused the importation of finished bet slips and thermal papers from June 2005 to January 2007, without paying duties or taxes. Hence, the Bureau of Customs (petitioner) filed, under its Run After The Smugglers (RATS) Program, a criminal complaint before the Department of Justice against the agents of MSPI for violating Section 3601 vis--vis Sections 2530 (f) and (l) 5 and 101 (f) of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, as amended and R.A. No. 7916. The State Prosecutor found probable cause and accordingly recommended the filing of Information against them. Respondents filed a petition for review before the Secretary of Justice during the pendency of which the Information was filed on April 11, 2009 before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). The Secretary of Justice reversed the State Prosecutors Resolution and accordingly directed the withdrawal of the Information. Petitioners motion for reconsideration having been denied, it elevated the case by certiorari before the Court of Appeals. In the meantime, the prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw Information with Leave of Court before the CTA, which granted the withdrawal of, and accordingly dismissed the Information. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioner. The CTA issued a Resolution merely noting without action said motion. Hence, this petition. Issue: WON BOCs participation in criminal and civil aspects of the case is limited to that of a witness. Held: Yes The prosecution of crimes pertains to the executive department of the government whose principal power and responsibility is to insure that laws are faithfully executed. Corollary to this power is the right to prosecute violators. All criminal actions commenced by complaint or information are prosecuted under the direction and control of public prosecutors. In the prosecution of special laws, the exigencies of public service sometimes require the designation of special prosecutors from different government agencies to assist the public prosecutor. The designation does not, however, detract from the public prosecutor having control and supervision over the case. As stated in the Resolution, the CTA noted without action petitioner's motion for reconsideration. By merely noting without action petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the CTA did not gravely abuse its discretion because it is the public prosecutor who has control and supervision over the cases. The participation in the case of a private complainant, like petitioner, is limited to that of a witness, both in the criminal and civil aspect of the case.

Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Commissioner of Customs v. Unimex Micro-Electronic (GMBH), GR No. 166309-10, March 9, 2007 Facts: The Bureau of Customs (BOC) discovered that the Unimexs shipment to Handyware did not tally with the description appearing on the cargo manifest. Hence, BOC instituted seizure proceedings against Handyware and later issued a warrant of seizure and detention against the shipment. In 1987, a default order and forfeiture decree was issued by the Collector of Customs against Handyware. In 1992, the CTA reversed the forfeiture decree and ordered the release of the subject shipment to Unimex subject to the payment of customs duties. Unfortunately, the respondent failed to secure a writ of execution to enforce the CTA decision. Hence, it filed in the CTA a petition for the revival of the 1992 decision and prayed for the immediate release of its shipment or, in the alternative, payment of the shipments value plus damages. During the presentation of evidence, the BOC informed the court that the subject shipment could no longer be found at its warehouses. Hence, the CTA ordered the BOC Commissioner to pay respondent the commercial value of the goods based on the prevailing exchange rate at the time of their importation. Issues: 1. WON the Bureau of Customs liable for interest? 2. WON the Bureau of Customs liable for actual damages? Held: 1. No Interest may be paid either as compensation for the use of money (monetary interest) referred to in Article 1956 of the New Civil Code or as damages (compensatory interest) under Article 2209 of the NCC. There is no dispute that the case was originally filed questioning the seizure of the shipment by the BOC. The decision subject of the action for revival of judgment did not refer to any monetary obligation by petitioner to respondent. In fact, if there was any monetary obligation mentioned, it referred to the obligation of respondent to pay the correct taxes, duties, fees and other charges before the release of the goods can be had. Interest is not chargeable against petitioner except when it has expressly stipulated to pay it or when interest is allowed by the legislature or in eminent domain cases where damages sustained by the owner take the form of interest at the legal rate. Consequently, the CAs imposition of the 12% p.a. legal interest upon the finality of the decision of this case until the value of the goods is fully paid(as forbearance of credit) is likewise bereft of any legal anchor 2. Yes Although it may be gainsaid that the satisfaction of respondents demand will ultimately fall on the government, and that, under the political doctrine of "state immunity," it cannot be held liable for governmental acts (jus imperii), we still hold that petitioner cannot escape its liability. The circumstances of this case warrant its exclusion from the purview of the state immunity doctrine. The Court cannot turn a blind eye to BOCs ineptitude and gross negligence in the safekeeping of respondents goods. The Court is likewise aware of BOCs lackadaisical attitude in failing to provide a cogent explanation on the goods disappearance, considering that they were in its custody and that they were in fact the subject of litigation. The situation does not allow us to reject respondents claim on the mere invocation of the doctrine of state immunity. Succinctly, the doctrine must be fairly observed and the State should not avail itself of this prerogative totake undue advantage of parties that may have legitimate claims against it. Accordingly, upon payment of the necessary customs duties by

respondent, petitioner's "payment shall be taken from the sale or sales of goods or properties seized or forfeited by the Bureau of Customs."

CIR v. La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory, GR No. 144942, June 28, 2011 Facts: In its 2000 Resolution, the Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari submitted by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for non-compliance with the procedural requirement of verification explicit in Sec. 4, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and because the appeal was not pursued by the Solicitor General. When the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner was denied, petitioner filed the present motion seeking a clarification on the supposed discrepancy between the pronouncement of this Court requiring the participation of the Office of the Solicitor General and the pertinent provisions of the Tax Code allowing legal officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to institute and conduct judicial action for and in behalf of the Government. Issue: WON the legal officer of the BIR is authorized to institute appeal proceedings (as distinguished from commencement of proceeding) without the participation of the SolicitorGeneral. Held: NO. The institution or commencement before a proper court of civil and criminal actions and proceedings arising under the Tax Reform Act which shall be conducted by legal officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue is not in dispute. An appeal from such court, however, is not a matter of right. Sec. 220 of the Tax Reform Act must not be understood as overturning the long-established procedure before this Court in requiring the Solicitor-General to represent the interest of the Republic. This court continues to maintain that it is the Solicitor-General who has the primary responsibility to appear for the government in appellate proceedings. This pronouncement finds justification in the various laws defining the Office of the SolicitorGeneral, beginning with Act No. 135, which took effect on 16 June 1901, up to the present Administrative Code of 1987. Sec. 35, Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the said code outlines the powers and functions of the Office of the Solicitor General which includes, but not limited to, its duty to a. Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party. b. Appear in any court in any action involving the validity of any treaty, law, executive order, or proclamation, rule or regulation when in his judgment his intervention is necessary or when requested by the Court.