THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 181007, November 21, 2016
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM SINGSON AND TRITON SHIPPING CORPORATION, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J.:
This appeal by Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision2 dated November 16, 2006 and the Resolution3 dated November 29, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 83282 affirming the Decision4 dated November 18, 2003 and the Resolution5 dated March 22, 2004 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in CTA Case No. 6406, which recalled and set aside the Warrant of Seizure and Detention (WSD) issued against the vessel M/V Gypsy Queen and its cargo of 15,000 bags of rice.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, and by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, the [WSD] in the above[-]captioned case is hereby ordered RECALLED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the subject 15,000 bags of rice and the vessel "M/V GYPSY QUEEN" are ordered RELEASES [sic] to their respective claimants or their duly authorized representative upon proper identification and compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations.12On December 19, 2001, the DCC issued a 1st Indorsement of the said decision and forwarded the entire records of the case to the Commissioner of Customs (petitioner), through its Legal Service, BOC, Manila. On January 29, 2002, the BOC, Legal Service referred the decision of the DCC for approval to the petitioner.13
Furthermore, it is an undisputed fact that, on February 7, 2002, BOC Deputy Commissioner Gil A. Valera wrote a letter to the [NFA] Administrator, Atty. Anthony R. Abad, requesting confirmation of the genuineness and authenticity of the NFA documents issued by NFA Zambales which were submitted by the respondents in the forfeiture proceedings. On February 15, 2002, the NFA confirmed the authenticity and genuineness of the documents as certified to by Manager Absalum R. Circujales, NFA, Iba, Zambales. It is well to note that petitioner failed to assail and rebut these pieces of evidence presented by respondents during the forfeiture proceedings which were confirmed as genuine and authentic which showed that the rice withdrawn from NFA Zambales were the same rice apprehended on board the vessel M/V "Gypsy Queen."24Disagreeing with the CA's decision, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration25 which was also denied;26 hence, the petitioner now seeks recourse to this Court via a petition for review on certiorari.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
1.3 That [Capt. Urbi], Commander, Naval Forces Central, [PN], in his letter to the [DCC] of Cebu dated 12 September 2001, stated among others, that verification made by his office with the Office of the Station Commander, Coast Guard Station, Manila, show that there was no vessel named MV "Gypsy Queen" that logged-in or submitted any Master's Oath of Safe Departure on 15 August 2001. It also found that no personnel by the name [of] PO3 Fernandez, PCG, was detailed at Pier 18, Mobile Team on said date.29This judicial admission, according to the petitioner, is more than enough to establish that the rice shipment was illegally transported.30
Sec. 2535. Burden of Proof in Seizure and/or Forfeiture. - In all proceedings taken for the seizure and/or forfeiture of any vessel, vehicle, aircraft, beast or articles under the provisions of the tariff and customs laws, the burden of proof shall lie upon the claimant: Provided, That probable cause shall be first shown for the institution of such proceedings and that seizure and/or forfeiture was made under the circumstances and in the manner described in the preceding sections of this Code.Based on the afore-quoted provision, before forfeiture proceedings are instituted, the law requires the presence of probable cause which rests on the petitioner who ordered the forfeiture of the shipment of rice and its carrying vessel. Once established, the burden of proof is shifted to the claimant.
1. For the vessel:cralawlawlibraryBesides, the records showed that the 15,000 bags of rice were of local origin, having been purchased from NFA Zambales pursuant to the Open Sale Program of the NFA. The findings of fact of the CTA on this matter are informative:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
a) the Master's Oath of Safe Departure dated August 14, 2001 (Exhibits "G", "G-1", and "G-2"); b) the Roll Book showing that M/V Gypsy Queen was cleared by the PPA, North Harbor Office Manila on August 14, 2001 (Exhibits "P"); c) Official Receipt No. 44191451 issued by the PPA for payment of port and other charges upon the said vessel dated August 14, 2001 in the amount of P3,300.00 (Exhibit "5"); and d) the Bill of Lading showing that the vessel loaded with 15,000 bags of rice sailed from Manila to Cebu for the consignee, Ray Brig Marketing/Singson (Exhibit "4").
2. For the cargo:cralawlawlibrary
a) Official Receipt No. 0703 issued by the Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc. dated August 14, 2001 in the amount of P65,160.00, and another Official Receipt evenly dated August 14, 2001 in the amount of P3,030.26 showing that proper usage and other port charges upon the said cargo were duly paid (Exhibits "10" and "11").
Pursuant to the Open Sale Program of the NFA wherein the NFA would openly sell its imported stocks to interested individual retailers and encourage these retailers to buy the stocks in order that the older stocks can be disposed of in the warehouses to accommodate the incoming imported rice, Memorandum No. R03-140 No. 01-06-010 dated June 4, 2001 was issued by the Regional Manager II of NFA endorsing to the NFA Manager of Zambales the accredited individual retailers of NFA Nueva Ecija. Among the accredited individual retailers were Jose Navarro and Emmanuel Jacinto. Emmanuel Jacinto was able to buy from the open sale 7,000 bags of NFA rice. He likewise purchased NFA rice from Jose Navarro and Manuel Sevilla, a retailer from Bulacan. Emmanuel Jacinto then sold 17,000 bags of NFA rice to [Metro Star]. The parties admit that all documents issued by the NFA Zambales, relative to the said Open Sale Program such as the Certifications issued by the NFA Zambales Senior Grains Operations Officer, the Official Receipts, the NFA Authority to Issue and the NFA Warehouse Stocks Issue were duly confirmed as genuine by then NFA Administrator R.A. Abad in his letter dated February 15, 2002 to Customs Deputy Commissioner Gil Valera.From the foregoing, it is clear that the respondents had sufficiently established that the 15,000 bags of rice were of local origin and there were no other circumstances that would indicate that the same were fraudulently transported into the Philippines. As such, the release of the rice cargo and its carrying vessel is warranted.
Subsequently, Metro Star sold 15,000 bags of rice to Raybrig Marketing owned by [Singson] in the amount of P12,050,000.00. [Singson] is duly registered to engage in Wholesaling/Importing Rice under Grains Business License issued by the NFA. Emmanuel Jacinto testified that these 15,000 bags of rice were taken from the 17,000 bags of imported NFA rice sold by him to [Metro Star]. It was Metro Star that delivered the 15,000 bags of NFA rice sold from its warehouse in Bocaue, Bulacan to Manila for loading. It was the charterer who arranged. for the shipment of the 15,000 bags of rice on board MN "Gypsy Queen" from Manila to Cebu. The shipment of the said 15,000 bags of rice was covered by a Bill of lading with [Metro Star] of Bulacan as Shipper and [Singson] of Raybrig Marketing in Cebu City as Consignee. And M/V "Gypsy Queen" paid the proper charges and other fees to the [PPA] in the amount of P3,030.00 as shown by Official Receipt No. 44191451 relative to said shipment.33 (Citations omitted)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 19-34.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, with Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla concurring; id. at 36-43.
3 Id. at 44.
4 Penned by Associate Judge Lovell R. Bautista, with Presiding Judge Ernesto D. Acosta and Associate Judge Juanito C. CastaƱeda, Jr. concurring; id. at 97-106.
5 Id. at 115.
6 Id. at 36-37.
7 Id. at 37.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 37-38.
11 Id. at 45-60.
12 Id. at 59-60.
13 Id. at 38.
14 Id. at 61.
15 Id. at 62-85.
16 Id. at 86-95.
17 Id. at 39.
18 Id. at 97-106.
19 Id. at 104.
20 Id. at 107-113.
21 Id. at 115.
22 Id. at 116-131.
23 Id. at 40-41.
24 Id. at 42.
25 Id. at 194-199.
26 Id. at 44.
27 Id. at 26.
28Filinvest Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 556 Phil. 439, 446 (2007).
29Rollo, p. 27.
30 Id.
31Agriex Co., Ltd. v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 158150, September 10, 2014, 734 SCRA 533, 555-556, citing Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Rodriguez, et al., 633 Phil. 196, 211 (2010).
32See M/V "Don Martin" Voy 047 and its Cargoes of 6,500 Sacks of Imported Rice, Palacio Shipping, Inc., and Leopolda "Junior" Pamulaklakin v. Hon. Secretary of Finance, BOC, and the District Collector of Cagayan De Oro City, G.R. No. 160206, July 15, 2015.
33Rollo, pp. 103-104.