[ G. R,. No. L-8811. October 31, 1957 ] 102 Phil. 244
[ G. R,. No. L-8811. October 31, 1957 ]
THE ACTING COLLECTOR OP CUSTOMS, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, AND THE COMMISSIONER OP CUSTOMS, RESPONDENTS. PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC., INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
FELIX, J.:
This is a petition to review a resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals dated January 22, 1955, dismissing C.T.A. Case No. 17, entitled The Acting Collector of Customs vs. The Acting Commissioner of Customs, upon motion of intervenor Philippine Education Co., Inc. The facta of the case may be briefly stated as follows: In October, 1953, the Philippine Education Co., Inc., imported by mail from the Hillman Periodicals, Inc., of New York, New York, U.S.A., 1,463 copies of the October, 1953, issue of the magazine “Pageant” which carried on pages 16-25 thereof an article by one Laura Berquist entitled “Check Your Sex-Life Against the New Kinsey Report”. After hearing and upon the recommendation of the Board of Censors of the Bureau of Customs, herein petitioner Collector of Customs rendered decision dated March 4, 1954, in Manila Seizure Identification Case No. 1307, holding that the article in question appearing in said issue of the “Pageant” magazine, which contained quotations and excerpts from the treatise of Dr. Alfred Kinsey, “The Sexual Behavior of the Human Female”, violated the provisions of Section 3-(b) of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909 which prohibits the entry of obscene and indecent reading materials in the Philippines and consequently ordered the seizure, forfeiture and burning of the 1,463 copies of the magazine. The importer of the seized article, Philippine Education Co., Inc., appealed the decision in due time to the Commissioner of Customs in conformity with the procedure established by Section 1380 of the Administrative Code, and on August 28, 1954, the Commissioner rendered judgment reversing the Collector of Customs’ view by holding that the magazine “Pageant” did not contain obscene or indecent article. The Collector of Customs was, therefore, ordered to release the magazine covered by Manila Seizure Identification No. 1307 to the claimant Philippine Education Co., Inc. Upon receipt of a copy of the respondent Commissioner’s decision, the Secretary of Finance directed said official to transmit the original record of the seizure case to the Court of Tax Appeals for review which directive was complied with by the Commissioner on September 15, 1954. On September 24, 1954, the Court of Tax Appeals returned the records to the Commissioner of Customs informing him that under Republic Act No. 1125, said Court is not empowered nor under legal obligation to review motu proprio decisions of the Collector of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Customs or the provincial or city Boards of Assessment Appeals, unlike the defunct Board of Tax Appeals which was conferred that prerogative. It was further explained by said Court that jurisdiction to review on appeal decisions of the aforementioned officials can only be acquired by the Court upon the filing of a formal petition for review within the reglementary period by the person, association or corporation adversely affected by the decision sought to be reviewed. On September 27, 1954, the Acting Collector of Customs filed a notice of appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Customs to the Court of Tax Appeals, allegedly in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125 in relation to Section 7 (2) of the same Act, and a petition for review was actually filed on the same day, docketed as C.T.A. Case No. 17. Petitioner alleged, among other things, that the Commissioner of Customs erred (1) In finding that the magazine “Pageant” did not come under the category of obscene or indecent reading material within the purview of Section 3- (b) of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909; (2) In declaring that the admission of the magazine “Pageant” was moral, practical and legal; (3) In holding that the spontaneous protests of the citizenry was directed against the admission of the “Kinsey Report” and not against the issue of the “Pageant” objected to; (4) In adopting the criterion that to determine whether a book is obscene or indecent, it must be considered as a whole and not judged from paragraphs alone which are vulgar and indecent. It was prayed that after hearing and consideration, the decision of respondent Commissioner of Customs be set aside and the copies of the aforesaid magazine be forfeited and burned pursuant to Section 1379 of the Revised Administrative Code. The Commissioner of Customs, represented by an attorney in the Office of the Legal Counsel, Bureau of Customs, filed his answer on October 14, 1954, contending that the Collector of Customs of Manila was without authority or legal capacity to appeal under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125; that the Court of Tax Appeals had no jurisdiction over the subject matter because the case at bar did not involve collection of taxes; that this case, if decided in favor of petitioner, would encourage insubordination among subordinates against their superiors, and prayed that the petition be denied. With leave of court, intervenor Philippine Education Co., Inc., filed on November 19, 1954, a motion to dismiss petition for review on the ground that the Acting Collector of Customs who filed the notice of appeal and the petition for review lacks legal capacity to prosecute the action; and that the petition states no cause of action and that the Court of Tax Appeals has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action as the same did not involve disputed assessment or refund of internal revenue taxes, customs duties, fees or charges. The Solicitor General who took sides with the Collector of Customs in the controversy, filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss presented by intervenor, refuting the arguments adduced therein. On January 22, 1955, the Court of Tax Appeals issued a resolution dismissing the petition of the Collector of Customs, holding that in accordance with Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125, the Court of Tax Appeals was conferred exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving duties, fees, seizures, fines, forfeitures or other penalties; that only persons, associations or corporations whose pecuniary and proprietary interests are adversely affected by a decision of said official may appeal to said Court; that the Commissioner of Customs is empowered under Section 1380 of the Revised Administrative Code to approve, modify, or reverse decisions of the collectors of customs in seizure cases brought under protest, and once this is done, the decision of the former becomes executory unless the owner of the seized articles appeals to the Court within the reglementary period for the review of said decision. It further stated that with the enactment of Republic Act No. 1125 creating the Court of Tax Appeals, the provisions of Section 1386 of the Revised Administrative Code authorizing the Secretary of Finance to order the removal of the records of a case to the courts for review was in effect abrogated. From this resolution the Acting Collector of Customs, through the Solicitor General, appealed the matter to this Court maintaining’ that the Court of Tax Appeals erred:
In holding that petitioner-appellant Collector of Customs may not appeal from or petition for review decisions of the Commissioner of Customs even when expressly directed to do so by the Secretary of Finance; In holding that only the importer or consignee of the seized or detained article and no other may appeal or petition for review to said Court the adverse ruling of the Commissioner of Customs under Republic Act No. 1125; In holding that its jurisdiction is limited only to cases involving disputed assessments and payments of duties and charges of imported articles subject of detention or seizure proceedings in the Bureau of Customs; In holding that Republic Act No. 11.25 impliedly repealed thfi provisions of Section 1386 of the Revised Administrative Code empowering the Secretary of Finance to remove and certify to the Court of First Instance (now Court of Tax Appeals) any matter arising out of the administration of customs laws which in his opinion should DC passed upon by said Court, and in holding that the said prerogative is no longer available to said Secretary of Finanee; In dismissing the appeal interposed by petitioner-appellant in said C.T.A. Case No. 17; and In failing to decide and pass upon a question of substance and transcendental importance; that the “Kinsey Report” on “The Sexual Behavior of the Human Female” contained in the seized magazine in question is indeed immoral, indecent, obscene and is consequently among the literature or printed article banned by the provisions of Section 3-(6) of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909.
Consolidating the interrelated questions raised by petitioner-appellant, the issues left for our determination are: (a) whether the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals to take cognizance of appeals from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs is only limited to cases involving disputed assessments and payment of duties and charges subject of detention or seizure proceedings in the Bureau of Customs; and (b) whether the Collector of Customs, in his official capacity, can institute an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Customs to the Court of Tax Appeals, even granting that he (the Collector) was directed to do so by the Secretary of Finance. I. The explanatory note of House Bill No. 175, that became Republic Act No. 1125, which created the Court of Tax Appeals, contains the following manifestation:
“Cognizant of the necessity of having an agency which mill review tax cases and at the same time expedite the collection of taxes which is badly needed by our government, the undersigned proposes the organization by legislation of the Court of Tax Appeals”.
From this manifestation, there seems to be no room for doubt as to the legislative intent in creating said Court, which We must have in mind in passing upon its jurisdiction. That is probably the reason why the respondent Court of Tax Appeals itself dismissed the appeal of the Collector of Customs holding that: only persons, associations or corporations whose pecuniary and proprietary interests are adversely affected by a decision of the Collector of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Customs or provincial or city Board of Assessment Appeals may appeal to said Court". It is not disputed that the decision of the Commissioner of Customs appealed from arose from the judgment reached by the Collector of Customs of the port of Manila, upon recommendation of the Board of Censors of that Bureau, declaring the article of Miss Berquist appearing in the October 1953 issue of the magazine “Pageant” as violative of the prohibition contained in Section 3-(6) of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909. it is not questioned either that the case at bar does not involve liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges, and if We consider this case in the light of the part of the explanatory note of said Act 1125 aforequoted, We might find the proper and logical foundation for the inference that this case may not come within the purview of the provisions thereof. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125 conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Tax Appeals, contains the following:
Sec. 7. Jurisdiction.—The Court of Tax Appeals shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided— (1) * * * (2) Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties, foes or other money charges; seizures, detention or release of property affected; fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Customs; and (3) * * *
It will be noted that the final sentence of paragraph 2 of this Section 7, “or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Customs”, comes after an enumeration of the class of cases cognizable by the Court of Tax Appeals, nameily, those involving liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges, and as contended by respondent intervenor, by the doctrine of ejusdem generis, in order that the “other matters arising under the Customs Law or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Customs” may come within the jurisdiction of the Court, they should involve also liability for payment of money to the Government (see Ollada vs. Court of Tax Appeals et al., (99 Phil., 604), penned by Mr. Justice Felix Bautista Angelo, squarely interpreting the provisions of the afore-quoted Section 7-(2) of Kep. Act No. 1125).
“The rule of ejusdem generis requires that words of general description following’ words of particular description be interpreted as applying to things of similar character” (Words and Phrases, Vol. 14, p. 193-194.
The Administrative Code itself in defining the meaning and scope of the phrase “seized property” as used in Chapter 39 on the Bureau of Customs, says that: SEIZED PROPERTY means any property seized or held for the satisfaction of any administrative fine or for the enforcement of any forfeiture under the Customs haw. (Sec. 1419 of the R. A. C). a definition which is in consonance with the ‘aforementioned doctrine of ejusdem generis. And this interpretation cannot be otherwise. Let us suppose, for example, that the Commissioner of Customs, against the findings of the Board of Marine Inquiry would exonerate a licensed marine officer from any responsibility incurred, according to the charges, on account of professional misconduct, intemperate habits, negligence or incapacity of the officer concerned (Sec. 1198 of the Revised Administrative Code), can the provisions of Section 1384 of the Revised Administrative Code (indicating the person who may cause the removal of a customs case into court and which provides that “if the decision of the Commissioner is adverse to the Government the case may also be removed in the manner hereinafter specified, by order of the Department Head”), be applicable to that case as counsel for the petitioner sweepingly make them applicable to the case at bar? Certainly, the answer is too obvious to deserve any denial. In said Section 1198 it is said that the appeal is to be taken to the Secretary of . Finance, the Department Head, and if by reason of this provision the case of the example could not be taken to the Court of Tax Appeals, then as a corollary thereof it should be held also that there are cases wherein decisions of the Commissioner of Customs arising under the Customs Law or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Customs, can not be taken for review to the Court of Tax Appeals which may not have the required qualifications to pass upon such matter as those involved in the case at bar. On the other hand and as stated before, the action of petitioner Collector of Customs was predicated on the provision of Section 3- (6) of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909, as amended, which reads as follows:
SEC. 3. That importation or shipment into the Philippine Islands of the following articles in prohibited:
(a) * * * (b) Articles, books, pamphlets, printed matter, manuscripts, typewritten matter, paintings, illustrations, figuresor objects of obscene or indecent character or subversive of public order.
This section 3 merely prohibits the importation of printed matter of obscene or indecent character and does not provide for the seizure and destruction of such printed matter as ordered by the Collector of Customs though he was in that reversed by the Commissioner of Customs who ordered the release of the copies of the magazine to the intervenor Philippine Education Co., Inc. As regards such seizure, Section 1363 of the Revised Administrative Code enumerates the merchandise or properties subject to seizure under the Customs Law, but it contains no specific provision for the seizure of merchandise (granting that the copies of said magazine come within the general concept of the word merchandise) containing obscene or indecent reading matter. The provision of said Section 136S that comes most near to the point in controversy o? that might have a bearing on the premises, is paragraph (f) thereof, which reads as follows:
(f) Any merchandise o/ prohibited importatinn or exportation, the importation or exportation of which is effected or attempted contrary to law and all other merchandise which, in tlie opinion of the Collector have been used or intended to be used us instrument in the importation or exportation 0/ the former. (As amended toy Sec. 1, R.A. No. 454).
But nothing of record indicates that the importation of the 1,463 copies of the “Pageant” magazine in question was effected contrary to law, for said copies were brought to the Philippines in accordance with the procedure provided for cases of importation of magazines. In support of his contention that seizures of any kind made by the Bureau of Customs come within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals, the dissenting Justice gives as an example the case of illegal importation of opium and says: “Let us suppose that opium is imported, and being of prohibited importation, the Collector of Customs seized and confiscates the same and the seizure and confiscation is approved by the Commissioner of Customs, and the importer, dissatisfied with said decision of the Commissioner, claiming that the article found by the customs authorities to be opium was not really opium, but something else or that although it is opium, nevertheless, it would be used for a legitimate purpose, where would he go or appeal for relief? Frankly, We believe this example to be absolutely beside the point for everyone knows that the seizure in question not only comes under the provision of Section 1363, paragraph (f) just quoted, but also that the unlicensed importation of opium into this country is a criminal offense penalized and covered by Article 192 of the Revised Penal Code and that in addition to the penalty prescribed therein for those found guilty of said offense, the same Penal Code prescribes, as accessory penalty, the forfeiture of the prohibited drug, and it is of common knowledge that said accessory penalty is usually imposed by Judges of Courts of First Instance where the case is originally tried. (Article 25, R.P.C.). The dissenting Justice further cites our decisions in the 3 cases of Millarez, as Acting Collector of Customs for the port of Manila, et al. vs. Judge Rafael Amparo et al.,1 G. R. Nos. L-8364, L-8365, and L-8351, June 30, 1955; the case of Kho Kum Commercial vs. Commissioner of Customs et al., G. R. No. L-9778, Resolution of October 11, 1955, and namarco vs. Judge Higinio Macadaeg et al.,2 G. R. No. L-10030, January 18, 1956, all of which. refer to seizures in connection with prohibited importation of garlic, and naturally the seizures thereof made by the Bureau of Customs not only come under the aforementioned Section 1363, paragraph (f) of the Revised Administrative Code, but also involved the determination of the proprietary rights of the persons concerned. It is, therefore, evident that none of these cases have any bearing on the case at bar. Moreover, if, as will be later shown, appeals from the decision of the Commissioner of Customs can only be taken to the Court of Tax Appeals by any “person, association and corporation adversely affected by a decision or ruling of said Commissioner” (Sec. 11, R.A. No. 1125), it would seem obvious that the appeal taken by the Collector of Customs would be a matter that falls beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals to entertain. Of course, We do not maintain that the copies of the magazine objected to, if really containing indecent or obscene literature, cannot be forfeited and destroyed, but We hold that this cannot be done or authorized by any order, resolution or decision of the respondent Court of Tax Appeals, a court that according to the explanatory note of Republic Act No. 1125, was created to review tax cases and to expedite the collection of taxes. Finally, the title of Republic Act No. 1125 reads as follows: “An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals”, and this law might be rendered unconstitutional if it is interpreted as including within the jurisdiction of said Court appeals from decisions of the Commissioner wherein no tax is involved, thus amplifying its jurisdiction to cases not covered by the title of the law creating the same. We, therefore, conclude that under the terms of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125, the present case, which does not involve disputed assessments or payment of duties and charges subject of detention or seizure proceedings in the Bureau of Customs does not come within the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals. II. Having arrived at the foregoing conclusion concerning issue No. 1, We really need not pass upon issue No. II. Yet, as it involves an important legal question which affects a matter of Government policy, We prefer to say a few words on the same. The records show that the Secretary of Finance took a hand in the removal of the case to the Court of Tax Appeals and which that tribunal returned to the Commissioner of Customs. As the Solicitor General asserted, it was the Secretary of Finance, sanctioned by the Revised Administrative Code, who directed the Collector of Customs to appeal from the decision of respondent Commissioner. The provisions of the Revised Administrative Code material to the instant case are the following:
SEC. 1384. BY WHOM CAUSE MAY HE REMOVED INTO COURT.—The removal of a cause into court may be had at the instance of the protesting party or, in case of seizure, at the instance of the owner or agent of the seized property. If the decision of the Commissioner in adverse to the Government, the cause may also be removed in the manner hereinafter specified, by order of the Department Head. SEC. 1386. REMOVAL UPON ORDER OF DEPARTMENT HEAD.—Upon making’ any decision which may be removed upon order of the Department Head, the Commissioner shall immediately transmit a copy of such decision to him and also to the Auditor General; and if within fifteen days thereafter the Department shall certify that in his opinion the decision ought to be revised by the Court of First , Instance in the City of Manila, it shall be the duty of the Commissioner, upon notification thereof to transmit the original record to said court in the same manner as upon removal by a party other than the Government.
Undoubtedly relying on the foregoing, the Secretary of Finance, apparently dissatisfied with the ruling made by the Commissioner of Customs, directed the latter to remove the case to the Court of Tax Appeals for revision, and later sanctioned the appeal made by the Collector of Customs from the said decision. But the Secretary of Finance forgot that in the present case no liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges is involved; that the Court of Tax Appeals was created because of the need of “having an agency which will review tax cases and at the same time expedite the collection of taxes”; and that Republic Act No. 1125 creating the Court of Tax Appeals provides the following:
“SEC. 11. WHO MAY APPEAL; EFFECT OF APPEAL.—Any person, association or corporation adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Collector of Internal Revenue, the Collector of Customs (Commissioner) or any provincial or city Board of Assessment Appeals may file an appeal in the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty days after the receipt of such decision or ruling.
Republic Act No. 1125, which was approved on June 16, 1954, became very specific when it gave an enumeration of those who may appeal from a decision or ruling of the Collector of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs or Board of Assessment Appeals. Under this law, the right to appeal from decisions or rulings of said officials is allowed only to persons, associations or corporations adversely affected by the same, and well knowing the connotation of the legal maxim “inclusio unius est exclusio alterius”, the Government is certainly not one of them. From another angle, it is to be noted that the appeal was brought in the name of the Acting Collector of Customs, presumably in his official capacity as he was even represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, against his superior the Acting Commissioner of Customs, also in such capacity as a Government official and who was represented by the legal Counsel of the Bureau of Customs. As suits brought for or against Government officials in their capacities as such public officials are suits for or against the Government (See Salvador Araneta et al. vs. Hon. Magno Gatmaitan et al.,* G. R. Nos. L-8895 & L-9191, prom. April 30, 1957). We, therefore, find Ourselves confronted with a precarious situation and the fallacy of an appeal by the Government against its own ruling. It may be argued, however, that the Collector of Customs was directed by the Secretary of Finance, the overall superior in said Department, to prosecute the case pursuant to Sections 1384 and 1386 of the Revised Administrative Code. But as Republic Act No. 1125 made no mention of revision of decisions or rulings adverse to the Government upon order of Department Heads, as contemplated by said sections of the Administrative Code, and as the procedure of appeals to the Court of Tax Appeals as provided by the later legislation (Rep. Act No. 1125) cannot stand side by side with the former, the provisions of the Administrative Code appertaining to removal of cases to the court for revision may be deemed repealed in so far as they may refer to cases that come within the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals. At the deliberation of this case, the legal maxim of Ubi jus ibi remedium was invoked and one of the members of this Court raised the question that in cases like the one at bar in which no tax or pecuniary liability is involved, the Government must have a remedy if it is not satisfied with the decision of the Commissioner of Customs. We certainly have no quarrel on this point with the said dissenting Justice and are ready to agree with him, although We may add that in this case, the Commissioner of Customs is part of the Government and that the remedy against his decisions should be sought administratively rather than in the Judiciary. Anyway, if the provisions of the Customs Laws admittedly cover a greater field and include in their embrace not only cases in which taxes and other pecuniary liabilities are dealt with, but also others that have nothing to do with such liabilities, and if as shown before the latter cases cannot be taken to the Court of Tax Appeals, it would seem reasonable to conclude that appeals from decisions or orders of the Commissioner of Customs must be in accordance with and follow the procedure outlined in the Customs Laws that were applicable before the creation of said Court of Tax Appeals, because for all intents and purposes, the provisions of said Customs Laws shall be considered still in force and effect. Such being the case and as the popular saying goes, “there is no use of barking at the wrong tree” or better still, “of praying at the wrong altar”. In virtue of the foregoing conclusions, i.e., that the Court of Tax Appeals has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of the Acting Collector of Customs in this matter and of the procedural defect just pointed out, there is no need for Us to pass upon the merits of the question regarding the nature of the article contained in the issue of the magazine “Pageant” objected to. Wherefore, the Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals dated January 22, 1955, is hereby affirmed and the herein petition dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered. Bautista Angelo and Reyes J. B. L., JJ., concur. Reyes, A., J., concurs in the result.