Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor found a prima
Farolan vs. Court of Tax Appeals
GR No. 42204, January 21 1993, 217 SCRA 298
FACTS:
On January 30, 1972, the vessel S/S "Pacific Hawk" arrived at the Port of Manila carrying, among others, 80 bales of screen net consigned to Bagong Buhay Trading (Bagong Buhay).
Said importation was declared through a customs broker which was classified under Tariff Heading No. 39.06-B of the Tariff and Customs Code at 35% ad valorem.
Since the customs examiner found the subject shipment reflective of the declaration, Bagong Buhay paid the duties and taxes due which was paid through the Bank of Asia.
Thereafter, the customs appraiser made a return of duty.
Read: Republic vs. Villasor
Acting on the strength of an information that the shipment consisted of "mosquito net" made of nylon, the Office of the Collector of Customs ordered a re-examination of the shipment which revealed that the shipment consisted of 80 bales of screen net, each bale containing 20 rolls or a total of 1,600 rolls.
The value of the shipment was re-appraised.
Furthermore, the Collector of Customs determined the subject shipment as made of synthetic (polyethylene) woven fabric classifiable under Tariff Heading No. 51.04-B at 100% ad valorem.
Thus, Bagong Buhay Trading was assessed P272,600.00 as duties and taxes due on the shipment in question.
Since the shipment was also misdeclared as to quantity and value, the Collector of Customs forfeited the subject shipment in favor of the government which was also affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs.
However, the Court of Tax Appeals reversed the decision of the Commissioner declaring that the latter erred in imputing fraud upon private respondent because fraud is never presumed and thus concluded that the forfeiture of the articles in question was not in accordance with law.
As a consequence, several motions were filed and private respondent demands that the Bureau of Customs be ordered to pay for damages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Collector of Customs may be held liable.
HELD:
The Bureau of Customs cannot be held liable for actual damages that the private respondent sustained with regard to its goods.
Otherwise, to permit private respondent's claim to prosper would violate the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Since it demands that the Commissioner of Customs be ordered to pay for actual damages it sustained, for which ultimately liability will fall on the government, it is obvious that this case has been converted technically into a suit against the state.
Read: Merritt vs. Government of the Philippine Islands
On this point, the political doctrine that "the state may not be sued without its consent," categorically applies.
As an unincorporated government agency without any separate juridical personality of its own, the Bureau of Customs enjoys immunity from suit.
Along with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, it is invested with an inherent power of sovereignty, namely, taxation.
As an agency, the Bureau of Customs performs the governmental function of collecting revenues which is definitely not a proprietary function.
Thus, private respondent's claim for damages against the Commissioner of Customs must fail.
GR No. 42204, January 21 1993, 217 SCRA 298
FACTS:
On January 30, 1972, the vessel S/S "Pacific Hawk" arrived at the Port of Manila carrying, among others, 80 bales of screen net consigned to Bagong Buhay Trading (Bagong Buhay).
Said importation was declared through a customs broker which was classified under Tariff Heading No. 39.06-B of the Tariff and Customs Code at 35% ad valorem.
Since the customs examiner found the subject shipment reflective of the declaration, Bagong Buhay paid the duties and taxes due which was paid through the Bank of Asia.
Thereafter, the customs appraiser made a return of duty.
Read: Republic vs. Villasor
Acting on the strength of an information that the shipment consisted of "mosquito net" made of nylon, the Office of the Collector of Customs ordered a re-examination of the shipment which revealed that the shipment consisted of 80 bales of screen net, each bale containing 20 rolls or a total of 1,600 rolls.
The value of the shipment was re-appraised.
Furthermore, the Collector of Customs determined the subject shipment as made of synthetic (polyethylene) woven fabric classifiable under Tariff Heading No. 51.04-B at 100% ad valorem.
Thus, Bagong Buhay Trading was assessed P272,600.00 as duties and taxes due on the shipment in question.
Since the shipment was also misdeclared as to quantity and value, the Collector of Customs forfeited the subject shipment in favor of the government which was also affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs.
However, the Court of Tax Appeals reversed the decision of the Commissioner declaring that the latter erred in imputing fraud upon private respondent because fraud is never presumed and thus concluded that the forfeiture of the articles in question was not in accordance with law.
As a consequence, several motions were filed and private respondent demands that the Bureau of Customs be ordered to pay for damages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Collector of Customs may be held liable.
HELD:
The Bureau of Customs cannot be held liable for actual damages that the private respondent sustained with regard to its goods.
Otherwise, to permit private respondent's claim to prosper would violate the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Since it demands that the Commissioner of Customs be ordered to pay for actual damages it sustained, for which ultimately liability will fall on the government, it is obvious that this case has been converted technically into a suit against the state.
Read: Merritt vs. Government of the Philippine Islands
On this point, the political doctrine that "the state may not be sued without its consent," categorically applies.
As an unincorporated government agency without any separate juridical personality of its own, the Bureau of Customs enjoys immunity from suit.
Along with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, it is invested with an inherent power of sovereignty, namely, taxation.
As an agency, the Bureau of Customs performs the governmental function of collecting revenues which is definitely not a proprietary function.
Thus, private respondent's claim for damages against the Commissioner of Customs must fail.