Arce vs. Capital Ins. - Surety Co., GR No. L-28501, Sep. 30, 1982
Arce vs. Capital Ins. - Surety Co., GR No. L-28501, Sep. 30, 1982
Arce vs. Capital Ins. - Surety Co., GR No. L-28501, Sep. 30, 1982
*
No. L-28501. September 30, 1966.
________________
* SECOND DIVISION.
64
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e499e23be137d3950003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/3
11/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017
“x x x Petitioner contends that upon the expiration of Republic Act No. 650
the Commissioner of Customs lost jurisdiction over the case and therefore
his decision was null and void, This contention is untenable. It is a settled
rule that a court, be it judicial or administrative, that has acquired
jurisdiction over a case, retains it even after the expiration of the law
governing the case. Herein, we are concerned with the effect of the
expiration of a law, not with the abrogation of a law, and we hold the view
that once the Commissioner of Customs has acquired jurisdiction over the
case, the mere expiration of Republic Act No. 650 will not divest him of his
jurisdiction thereon duly acquired while said law was still in force. In other
words, we believe that despite the expiration of Republic Act No. 650 the
Commissioner of Customs retained his jurisdiction over the
65
case and could continue to take cognizance thereof until its final
determination, for the main question brought in by the appeal from the
decision of the Collector of Customs was the legality or illegality of the
decision of the Collector of Customs, and that question could not have been
abated by the mere expiration of Republic Act No. 650. We firmly believe
that the expiration of Republic Act No. 650 could not have produced the
effect (1) of declaring legal the importation of the cotton counterpanes
which were illegally imported, and (2) of declaring the seizure and
forfeiture ordered by the Collector of Customs illegal or null and void; in
other words, it could not have the effect of annulling or setting aside the
decision of the Collector of Customs which was rendered while the law was
in force and which should stand until it is revoked by the appellate tribunal.
x x x” (Roxas vs. Sayoc, G.R. No. L-8502. November 29, 1956).
Judgment affirmed.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e499e23be137d3950003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/3
11/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017
—————
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e499e23be137d3950003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/3