Feeder International Line v.
CA
G.R. No. 94262 | May 31, 1991
Facts:
The M/T "ULU WAI" a foreign vessel of Honduran registry, owned and operated by Feeder International
Shipping Lines of Singapore, left Singapore on 6 May 1986 carrying 1,100 metric tons of gas oil and 1,000
metric tons of fuel oil consigned to Far East Synergy Corporation of Zamboanga, Philippines. On 14 May
1986, the vessel anchored at the vicinity of Guiuanon Island in Iloilo without notifying the Iloilo customs
authorities. The presence of the vessel only came to the knowledge of the Iloilo authorities by information
of the civilian informer in the area. Acting on said information, the Acting District Collector of Iloilo dispatched
a Customs team on 19 May 1986 to verify the report. The Customs team found out that the vessel did not
have on board the required ship and shipping documents, except for a clearance from the port authorities
of Singapore clearing the vessel for "Zamboan." In view thereof, the vessel and its cargo were held and a
Warrant of Seizure and Detention over the same was issued after due investigation. Feeder International
Line PTE Ltd, through its agent Feeder International (Phils.) Inc. then filed its Motion to Dismiss and to
Quash the Warrants of Seizure and Detention which the District Collector denied in his Order dated 12
December 1986. In the course of the forfeiture proceedings, the parties, through their respective counsel,
agreed on a stipulation of facts. On 17 March 1987, the District Collector issued his decision, finding the
M/T "ULU WAI" guilty of violating Section 2530 (a) of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (PD
1464), as amended, while her cargo of 1,100 M/T Gas Oil and 1,000 M/T Fuel Oil are found guilty of violating
Section 2530 (a), (f), and (1-1) under the same Code and are hereby forfeited in favor of the Republic of
the Philippines. Feeder International appealed to the Commissioner of Customs who rendered a decision
dated 13 May 1987, affirming the decisin of the District Collector of Customs of Iloilo in toto. On 25 June
1987, Feeder International filed a petition for review of the decisions of the Collector and the Commissioner
of Customs with the Court of Tax Appeals, praying for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or
a restraining order to enjoin the Commissioner from implementing his decision. On 14 December 1988, the
Court of Tax Appeals issued its decision affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Customs. Feeder
International, on 19 January 1990, filed a petition for review of the Court of Tax Appeals' decision with the
Supreme Court. On 21 March 1990, the Supreme Court issued a resolution referring the disposition of the
case to the Court of Appeals in view of the Court's decision in Development Bank of the Philippines vs.
Court of Appeals, et al. holding that final judgments or decrees of the Court of Tax Appeals are within the
exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. On 8 May 1990, the Court of Appeals rendered its
questioned decision affirming the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals. Feeder International's motion for
reconsideration having been denied on 4 July 1990, it interposed the present petition.
Issue:
Whether a forfeiture proceeding is penal in nature, and whether the corporation can invoke the right to be
presumed innocent.
Held:
A forfeiture proceeding under tariff and customs laws is not penal in nature, contrary to the argument
advanced by Feeder International. In the case of People vs. Court of First Instance of Rizal, etc., et al., the
Court made an exhaustive analysis of the nature of forfeiture proceedings, in relation to criminal
proceedings, holding therein that "seizure and forfeiture proceedings under the tariff and customs laws are
not criminal in nature as they do not result in the conviction of the offender nor in the imposition of the
penalty provided for in Section 3601 of the Code. As can be gleaned from Section 2533 of the code, seizure
proceedings are purely civil and administrative in character, the main purpose of which is to enforce the
administrative fines or incident to unlawful importation of goods or their deliberate possession. The penalty
in seizure cases is distinct and separate from the criminal liability that might be imposed against the indicted
importer or possessor and both kinds of penalties may be imposed. Considering, therefore, that
proceedings for the forfeiture of goods illegally imported are not criminal in nature since they do not result
in the conviction of the wrongdoer nor in the imposition upon him of a penalty, proof beyond reasonable
doubt is not required in order to justify the forfeiture of the goods. The degree of proof required is merely
substantial evidence which means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion. Further, a corporate entity has no personality to invoke the right to be presumed
innocent which right is available only to an individual who is an accused in a criminal case. Herein, the
Court finds and so hold that the Government has sufficiently established that an illegal importation, or at
least an attempt thereof, has been committed with the use of the vessel M/T "ULU WAI," thus warranting
the forfeiture of said vessel and its cargo pursuant to the provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code. Feeder
International is guilty of illegal importation, there having been an intent to unload, is amply supported by
substantial evidence. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are in consonance with the findings of
both the Collector and the Commissioner of Customs, as affirmed by the Court of Tax Appeals. The Court
finds no compelling reason to deviate from the elementary principle that findings of fact of the Court of
Appeals, and of the administrative and quasi-judicial bodies for that matter, are entitled to great weight and
are conclusive and binding upon this Court absent a showing of a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction.
