G.R. No.

160270
April 23, 2010
(Smuggling, Jurisdiction Case)
SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY,
Petitioner,
- versus -

MERLINO E. RODRIGUEZ and WIRA INTERNATIONAL TRADING

CORP., both represented herein by HILDA M. BACANI, as their
authorized representative,
Respondents.
FACTS
• September 29, 2001 : arrival of a
US$6,000 cargo shipment described
as agricultural product at the
Port of Subic, SBFZ.
• October 23, 2001 : Acting COO III,
Raval Manalas issued a Memo
addressed to the Port District Collector
stating that the subject shipment was
found to contain 2,000 bags Thai Rice.
[1] there was a misshipment of cargo.
• October 24, 2001 : Hilda Bacani,
[2] request for shipment upgrade.
importer’s representative wrote to
[3] manifest willingness to
Billy Bibit (Port District Collector) that; pay
appropriate duties and taxes.
•[1]
October
hold the25, 2001of :the
delivery BOC issued
shipment,
Hold Order No. 14/C1/2001 1025-
and
101 directing BOC Subic Port officers
[2] transfer the same to the security
to;
warehouse.
• October 26, 2001 : WIRA
(consignee) paid ₱259,874.00 worth
D/T.
• October 30, 2001 : BOC
Commissioner, Titus Villanueva
approved the shipment upgrade
through a directive.
• November 28, 2001 : WIRA
(consignee) paid a further amount of
₱206,212.00 D/T.
• December 4, 2001 : OIC-Cash Division,
Fertony Marcelo issued a certification
addressed to Augusto Canlas (Gen. Mngr.,
Seaport Department) that the shipment’s D/T were
already paid and has acquired Gate Pass
(issued on Dec. 3).
• May 22, 2002 : Issuance of
Warrant of Seizure and Detention
against the subject rice shipment.
• June 11, 2002 : respondents filed a
complaint for Injunction and Damages
with prayer for issuance of Writ of
Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction and/or TRO
to the RTC, Olongapo City against SBMA
and Augusto Canlas. [Civil Case No. 261-0-2002]
• June 13, 2002 : RTC Olongapo
City, Branch 72 issued a TRO thru
Sheriff Leopoldo Rabanes and
Leandro Madarang to the SBMA and
Augusto Canlas.
• June 14, 2002 : Sheriff went to the
office of the aggrieved to determine
whether or not the TRO was followed
~ refused to honor by the later.
• June 17, 2002 : Importers filed a
verified indirect contempt charges
against the SBMA and Canlas for not
honoring the court’s TRO which was
raffled the following day.
• June 24, 2002 : SBMA and Canlas
filed a comment and/or opposition to
the verified indirect contempt charge
alleging therein their legal basis to
refuse to honor the TRO.
• July 12, 2002 : the trial was
conducted ~ petitioners presented
Sheriff Rabanes who testified on
direct examination.
• July 19, 2002 : SBMA and Canlas
filed their answer to the Complaint
for Injunction and Damages with
Counterclaim.
[1] Civil Case No. 261-0-2002 (Complaint
• August 1, 2002 : SBMA and
for Injunction and Damages); and
Canlas filed a motion asking leave of
[2] Civil Case No. 262-0-2002 (Petition
court to file a consolidated motion
for Indirect Contempt).
to dismiss which sought the dismissal
of the;
• August 20, 2002 : 2nd hearing was
conducted ~ petitioners formally offered
their evidence and rested while the
defendants further manifested that they
were adopting their legal arguments
marshalled in the motion of dismiss.
• August 29, 2002 : SBMA and Canlas filed
a manifestation with formal offer of evidence
alleging that the BOC has jurisdiction over the
case in view of WSD case file against the
petitioners and denominated as Seizure
Identification No. 200[2]-10.
• November 21, 2002 : RTC issued an
Order on the indirect contempt case
stating its decision that the accused
were guilty of indirect contempt of court
and shall be penalized accordingly.
• November 27, 2002 : RTC issued another
Order considering the pending incidents in
the injunction case ~ Titus Sangil (BOC-SP,
Chief, Law Division) was given 15 days from the
receipt of the order to submit the decision
to the Seizure ID Case No. 2002-10.
• Thereafter, the petitioner filed
Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition to CA with prayer for TRO
and Preliminary or Permanent
Injunction seeking to nullify and set
aside the RTO Orders.
• June 20, 2003 : CA rendered a
Decision dismissing the petition for
lack of merit and affirming the
Orders issued by the RTC.
• October 8, 2003 : Petitioners’
Motion for Reconsideration
was denied by the CA in its
Resolution.
ISSUE
Was the CA erred in affirming the RTC
Orders dated 21 November 2002
and
27 November 2002 ?
ARGUMENTS
 I
PETITIONER DEFENDANTS
• The
RTC imported
of Olongapo2,000 City
bags has
of rice
no • Actions for injunction and
were in theover
jurisdiction physical control
the case filedand
by damages lie within the jurisdiction
possession
respondentsof(June
the 11,
BOC2002)
as early as
as said of RTC as per Section 9 of Batas
October
action is25, within
2001, bythevirtue of the
exclusive Pambansa Blg. 192, otherwise
BOC-SP
original Hold Order of
jurisdiction andthe
BOC BOCWSDas known as Judiciary Reorganization
(May 22, 2002).
per Section 602 ofAsRepublic
such, theActBOC
no. Act of 1980, as amended by
had
1937, acquired
otherwise exclusive original
know as Tariff and Republic Act no. 7691.
jurisdiction
Customs Codeover the subject
of the Philippines, as
shipment.
amended.
 II
I
PETITIONER DEFENDANTS
• On May 22, 2002, BOC-SP District • BOC
Thus, Commissioner
the Hold Order allowed the
previously
Collector issued WSD against the release
issued of by the
theshipment
BOC had subject to
been
subject shipment upon proper D/T base
superseded, on theineffective,
and made upgraded
recommendation of the Customs value and compliance
by the succeeding with all
BOC issuances.
Intelligence and Investigation existing rules and regulation.
System (April 29, 2002). Thus, Furthermore, the shipment already
exclusive original jurisdiction over received a certification and have
the shipment was regained by the acquired a gate pass after complying
BOC. to all requirements set by the BOC.
 III
I II
PETITIONER
• The existence of the WSD is
mention in the Consolidated
Motion to Dismiss filed on
August 1, 2002.
DEFENDANTS
• Petitioners did not mention
the existence of the WSD in its
Answer to the Complaint for
Injunction and Damages, filed
on July 19, 2002. Thus,
suspicion is found in the
existence of the WSD.

I II III
PETITIONER
• When the TRO was served, there
was already an existing WSD issued
by the BOC against the shipment.
Thus, the exclusive original
jurisdiction over the shipment
remained with the BOC, and the
RTC had no jurisdiction over cases
involving said shipment.
IV
DEFENDANTS
• The case for indirect contempt
against Canlas, Abella, Jr., and
Katalbas, Jr. is for allegedly
defying the TRO issued by the
RTC in connection with the
complaint for injunction and
damages previously filed by
respondents.
 I II III IV
PETITIONER DEFENDANTS

I - SC agreed with the petitioner that the case is not with in the jurisdiction of the
RTC.
II - SC agreed that through the WSD, the jurisdiction over the shipment still
remained to the BOC.
III - “Petitioner’s apparent neglect to mention the warrant of seizure and detention in
its Answer is insufficient to cast doubt on the existence of said warrant.” –SC
IV - The SC still agreed with the Petitioner that the exclusive original jurisdiction
over the shipment remained with the BOC, and the RTC had no jurisdiction over cases
involving said shipment.
RATIONALE
 The
Was CAerred
theCA erredinin affirming theRTC
affirming the RTC
Orders. The issuance of the
Orders dated November 21 2002 RTC Order (27
November 2002) was improper due to the fact
and
the RTC had no jurisdiction to issue its Order
272002)
(27 November November
. 2002 ?
HOLDINGS
 WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We
REVERSE the Court of Appeals Decision dated
June 20, 2003 and Resolution dated October 8, 2003
in CA-G.R. SP No. 74989. We declare VOID the
Regional Trial Court Orders dated November 21, 2002
and November 27, 2002.
SO ORDERED.
REFERENCE
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/160270.htm
 G.R. No. 160270
April 23, 2010
(Smuggling, Jurisdiction Case)
SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY,
Petitioner,
- versus -

MERLINO E. RODRIGUEZ and WIRA INTERNATIONAL TRADING

CORP., both represented herein by HILDA M. BACANI, as their
authorized representative,
Respondents.