[ G.R. No. L-21362. March 06, 1924 ] 45 Phil. 784
[ G.R. No. L-21362. March 06, 1924 ]
LUNG CHEA KUNG KEE & CO., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. VICENTE ALDANESE, ACTING COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, AND CHUA SOCO, DEFENDANTS. VICENTE ALDANESE, APPELLEE. D E C I S I O N
JOHNS, J.:
The question presented involves the construction of sections 1316 and 1408 of the Administrative Code, which are as follows:
“SEC. 1316. Delivery of merchandise without production of bill of lading.—When a collector of customs delivers merchandise without the surrender of the proper bill of lading, he may protect himself from any liability to the rightful holder of the bill by requiring the person to whom delivery is made to execute a sufficient bond in an amount greater than the invoice, or manifest, or in the absence of both, greater than the appraised value of the merchandise. Such bond shall run to the Government of the Philippine Islands, for the benefit of whom it may concern, and shall be conditioned for the production of the proper bill of lading or for the satisfaction of any damages occasioned to its lawful holder by reason of wrongful delivery.”
“SEC. 1408. Collector of customs not liable in respect of rulings in customs cases.—No collector or other officer of customs shall be in any way personally liable for or on account of any official ruling or decision as to which the person claiming to be aggrieved has the right to obtain either an administrative or judicial review under the provisions of this chapter; and except for a misdelivery of merchandise, a collector of customs shall not, in the absence of his own abuse of authority, be liable to any person for a loss occasioned either by his own official act or the act of his subordinates.”
Although section 1316 has been amended, it was in force, as above quoted, at the time the cause of action accrued. It provides that when a collector of customs delivers merchandise without the surrender of the proper bill of lading, he may protect himself from liability by requiring a sufficient bond in the name of the Government for the use and benefit of whom it may concern. It is admitted that no bond was given or required, and that the flour in question was delivered to Chua Soco without the surrender of the bill of lading.
The Collector of Customs contends that, inasmuch as the flour was delivered by a subordinate employee, without his knowledge, consent or approval, he is not liable, and that the remedy, if any, of the plaintiff is against the subordinate employee. That involves the construction of section 1408 above quoted. It specifically provides that no collector or other officer of customs shall in any way be personally liable for or on account of any official ruling or decision for which an aggrieved claimant has the right of an administrative or judicial review. It then says:
“And except for a misdelivery of merchandise, a collector of customs shall not, in the absence of his own abuse of authority, be liable to any person for a loss occasioned either by his own official act or the act of his subordinates.” It provides that in the absence of his own abuse of authority, a collector of customs shall not be liable “to any person for a loss occasioned either by his own official act or the act of his subordinates.” In other words, the section specifically provides that a collector shall not be personally liable for any official ruling, and that in the absence of his own abuse of authority, he shall not be liable “to any person for a loss occasioned either by his own official act or the act of his subordinates.” But it will be noted that an exception for such liability is made “for a misdelivery of merchandise.” The reason for the exception is very apparent. Section 1408 specifically defines his powers and duties as to merchandise evidenced by a bill of lading, and that he may protect himself in the delivery of merchandise by requiring a good and sufficient bond for delivery without a bill of lading. The exception in section 1408 is “for a misdelivery of merchandise,” and it is admitted that there was a misdelivery in the instant case.
The Administrative Code specifically defines the powers, duties, and liabilities of a collector of customs.
At the time of the misdelivery, the flour was in his official custody, and, legally speaking, it was under his personal control and supervision. Under the stipulated facts, no one had a right to take or remove the flour without the surrender of the bill of lading, except upon the giving of a good and sufficient bond, and the flour was taken from the official custody of the Collector of Customs without the surrender of the bill of lading or the giving of a bond.
The fact that section 1408 specifies and defines the cases in which the “Collector of customs is not liable,” and specifically makes an exception “for a misdelivery of merchandise,” clearly implies that the Collector of Customs, as such, is liable for a misdelivery of merchandise.
It will be noted that the section recites: “Either by his own official act or the act of his subordinates.” But no such exception is made “for a misdelivery of merchandise.” In other words, under section 1408, as to the things therein named and specified, the Collector of Customs is not liable for his official acts, either for himself or his subordinates. The statute having specified the things for which the Collector of Customs is not liable for his own official acts or those of his subordinates, and having specifically excluded “a misdelivery of merchandise” from such nonliability, under every rule of statutory construction, the Collector of Customs is officially liable for “a misdelivery of merchandise,” either by himself or his subordinates.
The defendant-cites and relies upon the case of Robertson vs. Sichel (127 U. S., 507), where it is held:
“1. The government is not responsible for the misfeasances or wrongs, or negligences or omissions of duty, of the subordinate officers or agents employed in the public service.
“2. A public officer is not responsible for the misfeasances or positive wrongs, or for the nonfeasances or negligences or omissions of duty, of the subagent or servants or other persons, properly employed by or under him, in the discharge of his official duties.
“3. A collector of customs is not personally responsible for the negligence of his subordinates in the custom house department; in order to charge him in such case, he must have been guilty of personal neglect, misfeasance or wrong.”
Apparently, the case sustains his contention. There the trunk of a minor girl was detained by the officers for inspection, to determine whether or not it contained any dutiable articles, and during its detention the trunk was destroyed by fire without the fault or negligence of the Collector of Customs, or his subordinates. The decision was based upon those facts.
The Attorney-General has not cited any case, and we apprehend that no decision of any reputable court of last resort will ever be found, holding that under the statute here in question a collector of customs is not officially liable for the acts of his subordinates “for a misdelivery of merchandise.”
Every decision is founded upon its own facts, and there is a marked legal distinction between the liability of a Collector of Customs for the burning of a trunk, which is in his official custody, and the wrongful delivery of merchandise, in violation of the express terms of the statute.
If the Collector of Customs is not officially liable for the wrongful delivery of merchandise by one of his subordinates, in legal effect, a shipper would be without any protection whatever. In actual practice a very large percentage of the deliveries of merchandise are made by subordinates of the Collector of Customs, and the amount of such deliveries during a current year involves millions of pesos. In such cases, it is a matter of common knowledge that the redress of the shipper against a subordinate only would be of no value, and would throw the door wide open to all kinds of fraud. It was for such reason that in section 1408 the Legislature, in specifying the matters for which the Collector of Customs is not legally bound, wisely made an exception “for a misdelivery of merchandise.” The purpose of the exception is to make the Collector of Customs officially liable in such cases and for the wrongful acts of his subordinates “for a misdelivery of merchandise/'
It is but fair to say, and the record in the instant case shows, that the wrongful delivery was made by a subordinate and without the knowledge, consent, or approval of the Collector of Customs.
It follows that the judgment of the lower court is reversed, and one will be entered here in favor of the plaintiff and against Vicente Aldanese, as Collector of Customs, for the sum of ¥47,816.32, without costs. So ordered.
Araullo, C. J., Johnson, Street, Avanceña, Ostrand, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.