748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Bautista-Ricafort

*
G.R. No. 166901. October 27, 2006.

ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. HELEN

BAUTISTA-RICAFORT, Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 260,
Parañaque City; SAMUEL ROSETE, in his personal capacity and as
attorney-in-fact and in representation of NOEL TABUELOG,
proprietor of BEST PART ENTERPRISES; ERNESTO DE JESUS,
President of EASTERN METROPOLITAN BUS CORP.; NORMA
PONDEVIDA, proprietress of NSP TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES; RENATO CLAROS, President of PRINCE BUS AND
TRUCK PARTS, INC.; ERNESTO M. CHUA, President of EMC
TRANSPORTATION, INC.; CECILIA T. SAULOG, proprietress of
MANSOUR TRANSPORT SERVICES; JENELITA S.
NAPARATE, proprietress of SANEI SOUGYO TRADING;
RODOLFO J. MAGO, proprietor of DNS SHUTTLE SERVICES;
and AMALIA C. EDAMURA, Proprietress of DAMLAR
TRADING, respondents.

Taxation; Tariff and Customs Code; Jurisdictions; The Bureau of

Customs exercises exclusive jurisdiction over seized and forfeited cars—it is
tasked to enforce tariff, and supervise and control customs law and all other
laws, rules and regulations relating to the tariff and customs administration,
and to supervise and control all import and export cargoes, loaded or stored
in piers, terminal facilities, including container yards and freight stations,
for the protection of government revenues.—We rule that the trial court
acted in accordance with the Tariff and Customs Code (TCC) and the
rulings of this Court when it issued the assailed Orders. Section 602 of the
TCC provides that the Bureau of Customs shall exercise exclusive
jurisdiction over seized and forfeited cars. It is tasked to enforce tariff, and
supervise and control customs law and all other laws, rules and regulations
relating to the tariff and customs administration; and to supervise and
control all import and export cargoes, loaded or stored in piers, terminal
facilities, including container yards and freight stations, for the protection of
government revenues. Under Section 2301 of the TCC, the Collector of
Customs is empowered to make a seizure of cargoes and issue a receipt for
the detention thereof.
 Same; Same; Same; Courts; Regional Trial Courts; Regional Trial
Courts are devoid of any competence to pass upon the validity or regularity
of seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the Bureau of Customs
and to

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

749

VOL. 505, OCTOBER 27, 2006 749

Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Bautista-Ricafort

enjoin or otherwise interfere with these proceedings.—As the Court ruled in

Jao v. Court of Appeals, 249 SCRA 35 (1995), Regional Trial Courts are
devoid of any competence to pass upon the validity or regularity of seizure
and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the Bureau of Customs and to
enjoin or otherwise interfere with these proceedings. It is the Collector of
Customs, sitting in seizure and forfeiture proceedings, who has exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions touching on the seizure and
forfeiture of dutiable goods. The Regional Trial Courts are precluded from
assuming cognizance over such matters even through petitions of certiorari,
prohibition or mandamus. The Court further explained: It is likewise well-
settled that the provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code and that of
Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, otherwise known as “An Act Creating
the Court of Tax Appeals,” specify the proper fora and procedure for the
ventilation of any legal objections or issues raised concerning these
proceedings. Thus, actions of the Collector of Customs are appealable to the
Commissioner of Customs, whose decision, in turn, is subject to the
exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals and from there
to the Court of Appeals. The rule that Regional Trial Courts have no review
powers over such proceedings is anchored upon the policy of placing no
unnecessary hindrance on the government’s drive, not only to prevent
smuggling and other frauds upon Customs, but more importantly, to render
effective and efficient the collection of import and export duties due the
State, which enables the government to carry out the functions it has been
instituted to perform.

Same; Same; Same; The forfeiture of seized goods in the Bureau of

Customs is a proceeding against the goods and not against the owner—it is
in the nature of a proceeding in rem, i.e., directed against the res or
imported articles and entails a determination of the legality of their
importation.—The RTC had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
petition for replevin by respondents herein, issue the writ of replevin and
order its enforcement. The Collector of Customs had already seized the
vehicles and set the sale thereof at public auction. The RTC should have
dismissed the petition for replevin at the outset. By granting the plea of
respondents (plaintiffs below) for the seizure of the vehicles and the transfer
of custody to the court, the RTC acted without jurisdiction over the action
and the vehicles subject matter thereof. It bears stressing that the forfeiture
of seized goods in the Bureau of Customs is a proceeding against the goods
and not against the owner. It is in the nature of a proceeding in rem, i.e.,
directed against the res or imported articles and entails a determination of
the legality of their importation. In this proceeding, it is, in legal
contemplation, the property itself which commits the violation and is treated
as the offender, without reference whatsoever to the character or conduct of
the owner.

750

750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Bautista-Ricafort

Actions; Intervention; A court which has no jurisdiction over the

principal action has no jurisdiction over a complaint-in-intervention—
intervention presupposes the pendency of a suit in a court of competent
jurisdiction.—The RTC cannot be faulted for dismissing petitioner’s
complaint-in-intervention. Considering that it had no jurisdiction over
respondents’ action and over the shipment subject of the complaint, all
proceedings before it would be void. The RTC had no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the complaint-in-intervention and act thereon except to
dismiss the same. Moreover, considering that intervention is merely
ancillary and supplemental to the existing litigation and never an
independent action, the dismissal of the principal action necessarily results
in the dismissal of the complaint-in-intervention. Likewise, a court which
has no jurisdiction over the principal action has no jurisdiction over a
complaint-in-intervention. Intervention presupposes the pendency of a suit
in a court of competent jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of intervention is governed
by jurisdiction of the main action.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Montilla Law Office for petitioner.
J.O.B. Lorenzo & Associates Law Firm for private
respondents.
Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala & Cruz for David
Robinson.

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

Before us is 1a Petition for Review on Certiorari for the reversal of
the Decision of the Court 2of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
61562, affirming the Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Parañaque City, Branch 260, in Civil Case No. 98-0435 for replevin
and damages.
Section 1, Republic Act (RA) No. 8506, which took effect on
February 22, 1998, provides that “it shall be unlawful for any person
to

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao, with Associate Justices

Edgardo F. Sundiam and Japar B. Dimaampao, concurring; Rollo, pp. 32-44.
2 Issued by Judge Helen Bautista-Ricafort; CA Rollo, pp. 36-38.

751

VOL. 505, OCTOBER 27, 2006 751

Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Bautista-Ricafort

import, cause the importation of, register, cause the registration of,
use or operate any vehicle with its steering wheel right hand side
thereof in any highway, street or road, whether private or public, or
at the national or local x x x.”
Noel Tabuelog, Ernesto de Jesus, Norma Pondevida, Renato
Claros, Ernesto M. Chua, Cecilia T. Saulog, Jenelita S. Napárate,
Rodolfo F. Mago, and Amalia C. Edamura are duly-licensed
importers of vehicles. Sometime in April and May 1998, they
imported 72 secondhand right-hand drive buses from Japan. When
the shipment arrived at the South Harbor, Port of Manila, the District
Collector of Customs impounded the vehicles and ordered them
stored at the warehouse of the Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI), a
customs-bonded warehouse under the custody of the Aviation and
Cargo Regional Division. Conformably with Section 2607 of the
Tariff and Customs Code,
3
the District Collector of Customs issued
Warrants of Distraint against the 4
shipment and set the sale at public
auction on September 10, 1998.
In the meantime, on October
5
28, 1998, the Secretary of Justice
rendered Opinion No. 127, Series of 1998, stating that shipments of
right hand wheel vehicles loaded and exported at the port of origin
before February 22, 1998 were not covered by RA No. 8506 unless
the same were loaded and imported after said date.
On November 11, 1998, the importers, through their Attorney-
inFact Samuel N. Rosete, filed a complaint with the RTC of
Parañaque City, against the Secretary of Finance, Customs
Commissioner, and the Chief Executive of the Societe Generale de
Surillee, for replevin with prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary and mandatory injunction and damages.
 Plaintiffs averred, inter alia, that in accordance with the opinion
of the Assistant Director of the Customs Legal Service and the
Office of the Legal Affairs of the Department of Finance, the
importation of right-hand drive vehicles are not prohibited under RA
No. 8506 provided that conversion kits are included in the imported
vehicles. As

_______________

3 Records, pp. 148-159.

4 Id., at pp. 139-141.
5 Id., at pp. 142-147.

752

752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Bautista-Ricafort

such, there was no factual and legal basis for the seizure of the
shipment and the storage thereof at the ATI. The complaint
contained the following prayer:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed before

this Honorable Court that an Order be issued in the following tenor:
A. PRIOR TO HEARING:

1. A Writ of Replevin be issued upon the posting of a bond of

PhP12,000,000.00 (double the value of the vehicles) executed in
favor of defendants to answer for damages, and approved by this
Court, directing the Sheriff or his deputies to forthwith take custody
of the said vehicles which are in the possession and custody of the
defendants or their agents at the Bureau of Customs Holding Area,
located at South Harbor, Port Area, Manila City, and retain it in its
custody;

B. AFTER HEARING:

1. To pay the sum of PhP6,000,000.00 if the Writ of Replevin cannot

be implemented successfully plus interest until fully paid;
2. To pay compensatory damages of not less than PhP840,000.00 for
unrealized profits, moral damages of not less [than]
PhP1,000,000.00, exemplary damages of not less than
PhP250,000.00, litigation and necessary expenses of not less than
PhP500,000.00, attorney’s fees on a contingent basis, not less than
P1,000,000.00 actual damages if and when plaintiffs are legally
obliged to pay storage fees;
6
3. Such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises.”
The RTC granted7 the application for a writ of replevin on a bond of
P12,000,000.00.
However, George Jeroes, the Chief of Customs Police and four
(4) customs policemen prevented the Sheriff and 8
the policemen
assisting him from taking custody of the vehicles. He claimed that
the District Collector of Customs had jurisdiction over
9
the vehicles.
On motion of the plaintiffs, the court issued an Order on November
23, 1998, directing the PNP Director to assist the Sheriff in
implementing the

_______________

6 Id., at p. 17.
7 Id., at pp. 78-79.
8 Id., at pp. 108-110.
9 Id., at p. 111.

753

VOL. 505, OCTOBER 27, 2006 753

Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Bautista-Ricafort

writ it issued and to arrest anyone who would obstruct the

implementation of its order. The Sheriff served a copy of the Order
on ATI and succeeded
10
in taking custody of the vehicles and signed a
receipt therefor. The District Collector of Customs agreed to
transfer the custody of the vehicles to the RTC, on the condition that
the required taxes, dues, and other charges be paid. The Customs11
Commissioner approved the decision of the District Collector.
Plaintiffs paid the requisite taxes, dues, and other charges amounting
to P7,528,635.00. They were 12
able to take possession of the vehicles
over the objections of ATI.
On November 27, 1998, the defendants, through the 13
Office of the
Solicitor General, filed an Omnibus Motion, seeking the
reconsideration of the RTC Order granting plaintiffs’ plea for a writ
of replevin. It likewise prayed that the writ of replevin issued by the
court be quashed on the ground that the RTC has no jurisdiction over
the vehicles subject of seizure and detention before the Bureau of
Customs. The OSG declared that the Bureau of Customs which had
custody of the vehicles through ATI “had exclusive jurisdiction over
said vehicles and on the issues of the seizure and detention thereof.”
The ATI filed a motion
14
for the court to allow the vehicles to remain
in its warehouse. 15
On December 1, 1998, the ATI filed a Third-Party Claim over
the shipment, alleging that it had a lien over the vehicles for
accumulated and unpaid storage and arrastre charges, and wharfage
dues amounting to P13,036,480.94. It prayed that the vehicles be
returned and remain with it until payment of said dues. On
16
 16
December 9, 1998, ATI filed a Motion seeking to require plaintiffs
(third-party defendants) to post a bond to insure payment of its
claims against the plaintiffs, or to order the Sheriff to return
possession of the vehicles to it.

_______________

10 Id., at p. 116.
11 Id., at p. 164.
12 Id., at pp. 162-163.
13 Id., at pp. 112-138.
14 Id., at p. 160.
15 Id., at pp. 171-173.
16 Id., at pp. 212-213.

754

754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Bautista-Ricafort

Plaintiffs opposed the Third-Party Claim of ATI claiming that it

failed to allege in its Affidavit of Third-Party Claim any factual and
legal basis for its alleged lien and to present documentary evidence
to prove the same. ATI has no cause of action against them for
wharfage/arrastre
17
services because there was no contract to cover
said charges.
Before the court could resolve the motions, plaintiffs
18
filed a
“Motion/Notice to Dismiss/Withdraw Complaint” against the
officials of the Bureau of Customs and Department of Finance, on
the ground that said defendants had agreed to the implementation of
the writ of replevin issued by the court on condition that plaintiffs
pay the taxes, dues, and other charges on the importation amounting
to P7,528,635.00 to the government and that plaintiffs had paid the
said amount. The OSG opposed the motion, alleging that:

“The instant Complaint states that the subject importation is legal. This is a
matter which cannot be admitted by defendants simply because the law and
the Opinion of the Secretary of Justice are crystal clear. Likewise, all the
erroneous statements of law and legal conclusions stated therein cannot be
hypothetically admitted.

3. Hence, it is imperative that the Omnibus Motion be resolved first

prior to any other incident for the same delves on the very merits of
the instant case.
4. The release of the imported right-hand drive buses by the Bureau of
Customs cannot make the said importation legal; otherwise, said
act will constitute a violation of R.A. No. 8506 which declares
illegal the act of importation of this type of vehicle.
 5. The Bureau of Customs was constrained to release the subject
vehicles on November 27, 1998 because of this Court’s Order dated
November 23, 1998, the last paragraph of which states:

“Chief of PNP General Roberto Lastimoso is ordered to assist the Sheriff in the
implementation of its order dated November 11, 1998 and to effect the arrest of
persons who would obstruct the implementation of this court’s order.”

_______________

17 Id., at pp. 222-226.

18 Id., at pp. 275-277.

755

VOL. 505, OCTOBER 27, 2006 755

Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Bautista-Ricafort

The overwhelming number of PNP personnel who accompanied the sheriff

(there were at least 20 police cars which swarmed over the area), pitied
against only three (3) hapless Customs policemen, plus the threat to arrest
anyone who would obstruct the implementation of the Order dated
November 11, 1998 granting the application for a Writ of Replevin, left the
Bureau of19Customs with no choice but to allow the release of the subject
vehicles.”

On January 13, 1999, ATI filed a Motion for Intervention and for
Admission of its Complaint-in-Intervention, alleging that it had a
lien on the vehicles to the extent of P13,820,150.93, representing
accumulated storage and arrastre charges and wharfage dues. ATI
prayed that its Complaint-in-Intervention be admitted, and that after
due proceedings judgment be rendered in its favor, thus:

“WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that

judgment be rendered in this Complaint-in-Intervention ordering plaintiffs
to pay intervenor:

a) the sum of PESOS THIRTEEN MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED

TWENTY THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FIFTY AND 93/100
(P13,820,150.93), plus legal interest from the date of the filing of
this Complaint-in-Intervention.
b) the sum of PESOS ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00)
as and for attorney’s fees; and
20
c) costs of suit.”

Plaintiffs opposed the motion of ATI on the following grounds: (1)

ATI failed to allege and present any contract covering the
deposit/storage of the vehicles in its warehouse; (2) ATI has no legal
interest over the matter in litigation; and (3) the adjudication of the
rights of the parties may be delayed or prejudiced
21
while those of ATI
may be protected in a separate proceeding.

_______________

19 Id., at pp. 219-220.

20 Id., at p. 296.
21 Id., at pp. 315-318.

756

756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Bautista-Ricafort

The OSG opposed the motion of the plaintiffs and the notice to
dismiss/withdraw22 the complaint, praying that the court resolve its
pending motions.
On April 27, 1999, the court issued an Order dismissing the
complaint on the following grounds:

“1. Plaintiffs themselves filed a Motion to Dismiss against Secretary of

Finance and Commissioner of Customs.
2. This Court has no jurisdiction over the case. “The Court of Tax
Appeals exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review the
ruling of the Commissioner in seizure and confiscation cases and
that power is to the exclusion of the Court of First Instance which
may not interfere with the Commissioner’s decisions x x x”

In view of the foregoing,

23
let this case be as it is hereby ordered Dismissed.
SO ORDERED”

The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration of the April 27, 1999
Order, and prayed that the court resolve the issue as to who is
entitled to the possession of the vehicles as required by Sections 9
and 10, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. For its part, ATI filed a
motion for clarification of the order, alleging that the court failed to
resolve its motion. It also pleaded for the court to admit its
Complaint-in-Intervention and its motion seeking to require
plaintiffs to post a bond24 to insure payment of its claims for
wharfage/arrastre charges.
On September 23, 1999, the RTC issued its Order dismissing the
Complaint-in-Intervention, thus:

“Before this Court are the following Motions:

1. Motion for Clarification, and

2. Motion for Reconsideration
 The Complaint-in-Intervention of Intervenor—ATI is likewise dismissed,
it being only an accessory to the principal case.

_______________

22 Id., at p. 329.
23 Id., at p. 361.
24 Id., at p. 380.

757

VOL. 505, OCTOBER 27, 2006 757

Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Bautista-Ricafort

Plaintiff Samuel Rosete is hereby ordered to return the possession of the

subject buses to Pedro Mendoza, in his capacity as Customs Commissioner
of the Bureau of Customs.
25
SO ORDERED.”

ATI filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied on

July 31, 2000. While it recognized the arguments of ATI, the court
held that its rights could be fully protected in a separate proceeding.
It declared that the subject buses were under custodia legis by virtue
of the writ of replevin it had issued. However, due to the dismissal
of the plaintiffs’ complaint, the subject buses have to be returned to
the person who was in custody prior to the implementation of the
writ. The motion for reconsideration filed26
by ATI and the opposition
filed by plaintiffs were likewise denied.
ATI filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA,
assailing the RTC Orders dated April 27, 1999, September 23, 1999,
and July 31, 2000. It raised the following questions:

WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED GRAVE

ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT OUTRIGHTLY DISMISSED THE
SUBJECT COMPLAINT FILED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.
WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLIC RESPONDENTS COMMITTED
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT OUTRIGHTLY
DISMISSED 27THE COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION FILED BY
PETITIONER.

ATI averred that it filed its Complaint-in-Intervention before the

RTC dismissing the complaint of private respondents. It pointed out
that the dismissal of the main case does not necessarily result in the
dismissal of its ancillary action because it has a legal interest in the
matter in litigation, that is, it is so situated as to be adversely
affected by the distribution or other disposition of the property in
ques-

_______________

25 Rollo, p. 48.
26 Id., at p. 49.
27 CA Rollo, p. 27.

758

758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Bautista-Ricafort

tion. It thus behooved the court to have ordered respondents to post

a bond following its third-party claim over the property for the
collection of the wharfage and arrastre fees/charges.
On November 30, 2004, the 28
CA rendered judgment dismissing
the petition for lack of merit. The appellate court ruled that the
RTC had no jurisdiction over the complaint filed by respondents.
Under the Customs and Tarriff Code, the Collector of Customs
sitting in seizure and forfeiture proceedings had the exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions relating on the
seizure and forfeiture of dutiable goods. The RTC had no review
powers over such proceedings; it is the Court of Tax Appeals under
RA No. 1125. Since the RTC had no jurisdiction over the main case,
it was also bereft of authority to hear the third-party claim or the
complaint-in-intervention
29
filed by ATI. Citing Saw v. Court of
Appeals, the appellate court ruled that intervention was not an
independent proceeding but merely an ancillary and supplemental
one, which, in the nature of things, is subordinate to the main
proceeding unless otherwise provided for by statute or by the Rules
of Court. The general rule is that an intervention is limited to the
field of litigation open to the original parties. The RTC had
dismissed the main action; thus, there was no more principal
proceeding in which petitioner ATI may intervene.
ATI filed a motion for reconsideration,
30
which the CA denied
through its January 28, 2005 Resolution.
In the present petition, ATI (now petitioner) raises the following
issues:

1. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS

REVERSIBLE ERROR IN DISMISSING THE THIRD-
PARTY CLAIM WHICH WAS CONVERTED INTO A
COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION BASED ON THE
GROUND THAT IT IS ANCILLARY TO THE
DISMISSED MAIN ACTION.
 2. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN DISMISSING THE THIRD-
PARTY CLAIM WHICH WAS

_______________

28 Rollo, p. 44.
29 G.R. No. 90580, April 8, 1991, 195 SCRA 740, citing Barangay Matictic v.
Elbinias, 148 SCRA 83 (1987).
30 Rollo, p. 46.

759

VOL. 505, OCTOBER 27, 2006 759

Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Bautista-Ricafort

CONVERTED INTO A COMPLAINT-IN-

INTERVENTION BASED ON THE GROUND THAT
THE COURT A QUO HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER
THE PRINCIPAL ACTION.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN DISMISSING THE
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION ON THE BASIS OF
THE RULING IN 31
BARANGAY MATICTIC VS. ELBINIAS
(148 SCRA 83).

Citing Metropolitan Bank and Trust 32

Company v. The Presiding
Judge, RTC, Manila Branch 39, petitioner maintains that the
dismissal of the original complaint filed by respondents cannot, in
any way, result in the denial of its complaint-in-intervention. It
posits that its consent as intervenor is necessary for the dismissal of
the main action, and that the original parties cannot “isolate” it and
agree, among themselves, to dismiss the complaint. Petitioner
asserts that, even if the original complaint was properly dismissed,
its complaint-in-intervention survives the original complaint and
may proceed as long as the existence of an actual controversy had
been established by the pleadings. It insists that the intervention has
to be heard regardless of the disposition of the principal action.
Petitioner submits that even on the assumption that the lower
court has no jurisdiction over the principal action, the third-party
complaint may still be maintained.
Petitioner further contends that the 33 appellate court erred in
relying on Barangay Matictic v. Elbinias because in that case, the
thirdparty-complaint was filed after the decision in the main case
had already become final, whereas, in the present case, the third-
party claim and third-party complaint before the RTC dismissed
respondents’ action. Petitioner maintains that the Metropolitan case
is thus applicable, and points out that the Court therein ruled that the
complaint-in-intervention should be preserved regardless of the
outcome of the original complaint.

_______________

31Id., at pp. 22-23.

32 G.R. No. 89909, September 21, 1990, 189 SCRA 820.
33 G.R. No. L-48769, February 27, 1987, 148 SCRA 83, 89.

760

760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Bautista-Ricafort

For their part, respondents assert that the CA decision is in accord

with the Rules of Court.
We are thus tasked to resolve the issue of whether the CA erred
in dismissing the petition for certiorari of the petitioner.
The petition is denied for lack of merit.
We rule that the trial court acted in accordance with the Tariff and
Customs Code (TCC) and the rulings of this Court when it issued
the assailed Orders.
Section 602 of the TCC provides that the Bureau of Customs
shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over seized and forfeited cars. It
is tasked to enforce tariff, and supervise and control customs law
and all other laws, rules and regulations relating to the tariff and
customs administration; and to supervise and control all import and
export cargoes, loaded or stored in piers, terminal facilities,
including container yards and freight stations, for the protection of
government revenues. Under Section 2301 of the TCC, the Collector
of Customs is empowered to make a seizure of cargoes and issue a
receipt for the detention thereof:

“SEC. 2301. Warrant for Detention of Property-Cash Bond.—Upon

making any seizure, the Collector shall issue a warrant for the detention of
the property; and if the owner or importer desires to secure the release of
the property for legitimate use, the Collector shall, with the approval of
the Commissioner of Customs, surrender it upon the filing of a cash bond,
in an amount to be fixed by him, conditioned upon the payment of the
appraised value of the article and/or any fine, expenses and costs which may
be adjudged in the case: Provided, That such importation shall not be
released under any bond when there is a prima facie evidence of fraud in the
importation of the article: Provided further, That articles the importation of
which is prohibited by law shall not be released under any circumstance
whomsoever, Provided, finally, That nothing in this section shall be
construed as relieving the owner or importer from any criminal liability
which may arise from any violation of law committed in connection with
the importation of the article.” (emphasis supplied)

Section 2530 of the TCC enumerates the properties subject of

seizure and forfeiture:

761

VOL. 505, OCTOBER 27, 2006 761

Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Bautista-Ricafort

“Section 2530. Property Subject of Forfeiture Under Tariff and Customs

Laws.—Any vehicle, vessel or aircraft, cargo, article and objects shall, under
the following conditions be subject to forfeiture:
xxxx
(f) Any article the importation or exportation of which is effected or
attempted contrary to law, or any article of prohibited importation or
exportation, and all other articles which, in the opinion of the Collector,
have been used, are or were entered to be used as instruments in the
importation or exportation of the former.”
34
As the Court ruled in Jao v. Court of Appeals, Regional Trial
Courts are devoid of any competence to pass upon the validity or
regularity of seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the
Bureau of Customs and to enjoin or otherwise interfere with these
proceedings. It is the Collector of Customs, sitting in seizure and
forfeiture proceedings, who has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
determine all questions touching on the seizure and forfeiture of
dutiable goods. The Regional Trial Courts are precluded from
assuming cognizance over such matters even through petitions of
certiorari, prohibition or mandamus. The Court further explained:

“It is likewise well-settled that the provisions of the Tariff and Customs
Code and that of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, otherwise known as
“An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals,” specify the proper fora and
procedure for the ventilation of any legal objections or issues raised
concerning these proceedings. Thus, actions of the Collector of Customs are
appealable to the Commissioner of Customs, whose decision, in turn, is
subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals
and from there to the Court of Appeals.
The rule that Regional Trial Courts have no review powers over such
proceedings is anchored upon the policy of placing no unnecessary
hindrance on the government’s drive, not only to prevent smuggling and
other frauds upon Customs, but more importantly, to render effective and
efficient the collection of import and export duties due the State, which
enables the35
government to carry out the functions it has been instituted to
perform.”
_______________

34 G.R. Nos. 104604 and 111223, both dated October 6, 1995, 249 SCRA 35, 42.
35 Id., at p. 43.

762

762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Bautista-Ricafort

Thus, the RTC had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition

for replevin by respondents herein, issue the writ of replevin and
order its enforcement. The Collector of Customs had already seized
the vehicles and set the sale thereof at public auction. The RTC
should have dismissed the petition for replevin at the outset. By
granting the plea of respondents (plaintiffs below) for the seizure of
the vehicles and the transfer of custody to the court, the RTC acted
without jurisdiction over the action and the vehicles subject matter
thereof. It bears stressing that the forfeiture of seized goods in the
Bureau of Customs is a proceeding against the goods and not against
the owner. It is in the nature of a proceeding in rem, i.e., directed
against the res or imported articles and entails a determination of the
legality of their importation. In this proceeding, it is, in legal
contemplation, the property itself which commits the violation and is
treated as the offender, without36 reference whatsoever to the
character or conduct of the owner.
In fine, the initial orders of the RTC granting the
37
issuance of the
writ of replevin and its implementation are void. While it is true
that the District Collector of Customs allowed the release of the
vehicles and the transfer thereof to the custody of the RTC upon the
payment by the private respondents of the required taxes, duties and
charges, he did not thereby lose jurisdiction over the vehicles;
neither did it vest jurisdiction on the RTC to take cognizance of and
assume jurisdiction over the petition for replevin. As very well
explained by the Office of the Solicitor General, the District
Collector of Customs agreed to transfer the vehicles to the custody
of the RTC since the latter had ordered the arrest of those who would
obstruct the implementation of the writ. The District Collector of
Customs had yet to resolve whether to order the vehicles forfeited in
favor of the govern-

_______________

36 Transglobe International, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126634, January

25, 1999, 302 SCRA 57, 69-70.
37 Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
142359, May 25, 2004, 429 SCRA 109; Estoesta, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
74817, November 8, 1989, 179 SCRA 203, 212; Caro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
L-31426, February 29, 1988, 158 SCRA 270, 275; Ang Lam v. Rosillosa, 86 Phil.
447, 452 (1950).

763

VOL. 505, OCTOBER 27, 2006 763

Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Bautista-Ricafort

ment, in light of the opinion of the Secretary of Justice that, under

RA No. 8506, the importation was illegal.
The RTC cannot be faulted for dismissing petitioner’s complaint-
inintervention. Considering that it had no jurisdiction over
respondents’ action and over the shipment subject38
of the complaint,
all proceedings before it would be void. The RTC had no
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint-in-intervention and
act thereon except to dismiss the same. Moreover, considering that
intervention is merely ancillary and supplemental
39
to the existing
litigation and never an independent action, the dismissal of the
principal action necessarily results in the dismissal of the complaint-
in-intervention. Likewise, a court which has no jurisdiction over the
principal action has no jurisdiction over a complaint-in-intervention.
Intervention presupposes40
the pendency of a suit in a court of
competent jurisdiction. Jurisdiction
41
of intervention is governed by
jurisdiction of the main action.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is
DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 61562
is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Panganiban (C.J., Chairperson), Ynares-Santiago, Austria-

Martinez and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment affirmed.

Note.—The Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over

seizure and forfeiture proceedings. (Rallos vs. Gako, Jr., 344 SCRA
178 [2000])

——o0o——

_______________

38 Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 37.
39 Cariño v. Ofilada, G.R. No. 102836, January 18, 1993, 217 SCRA 206, 215.
40 671 C.J.S. Parties, p. 806.
41 Begg v. New York, 262 U.S. 196, 67 L.ed. 946. 43 S.Ct. 513.

764
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.