EN BANC

[A.M. No. RTJ-03-1779. April 30, 2003.]

(A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1577-RTJ)

Chief State Prosecutor JOVENCITO R. ZUÑO, ATTY. CLEMENTE P.

HERALDO, Chief of the Internal Inquiry and Prosecution Division —
Customs Intelligence and Investigation Service (IIPD-CIIS), and
LEONITO A. SANTIAGO, Special Investigator of the IIPD-CIIS ,
petitioners, vs . JUDGE ARNULFO G. CABREDO, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 15, Tabaco City, Albay , respondent.

SYNOPSIS

Respondent judge is charged with grave misconduct, knowingly rendering an unjust

interlocutory order, manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and gross inexcusable negligence
for issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) restraining the Deputy Collector of
Customs from detaining the subject bags of rice allegedly for violation of the Tariff and
Customs Code of the Philippines. Court Administrator Velasco, in his evaluation, stated
that the questioned TRO was clearly illegal and issued in excess of jurisdiction because the
Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture proceedings.
The Court Administrator concluded that the act of respondent judge in issuing the
questioned TRO amounted to gross ignorance of the law.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Court Administrator. Respondent judge had no
jurisdiction to issue the questioned TRO. He proceeded against settled doctrine, an act
constituting gross ignorance of the law. This is a serious violation under Section 8, Rule
140 of the Rules of Court. What is involved here is a fundamental and well-known judicial
norm. If the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act if one does not know it,
constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Gross ignorance of the law is the disregard of
basic rules and settled jurisprudence. Failure to know the basic principles is an inexcusable
offense. Respondent's actuation in this case is tantamount to grave misconduct. It is a
basic principle that the Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and
forfeiture proceedings of dutiable goods. A studious and conscientious judge can easily
be conversant with such an elementary rule. Respondent judge was dismissed from the
service. SEHTIc

SYLLABUS

1. TAXATION; TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE; COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, WITH

EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS. — The
collection of duties and taxes due on the seized goods is not the only reason why trial
courts are enjoined from issuing orders releasing imported articles under seizure and
forfeiture proceedings by the Bureau of Customs. Administrative Circular No. 7-99 takes
into account the fact that the issuance of TROs and the granting of writs of preliminary
injunction in seizure and forfeiture proceedings before the Bureau of Customs may arouse
suspicion that the issuance or grant was for considerations other than the strict merits of
the case. Furthermore, respondent Judge's actuation goes against settled jurisprudence
that the Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 proceedings, and regular courts cannot interfere with his exercise thereof or sti e and put
it to naught.
2. ID.; ID.; PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS ARE
APPEALABLE TO THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND THEREAFTER TO THE COURT
OF TAX APPEALS. — Even if it be assumed that in the exercise of the Collector of Customs
of its exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture cases, a taint of illegality is correctly
imputed, the most that can be said is that under these circumstances, grave abuse of
discretion may oust it of its jurisdiction. This does not mean, however, that the trial court is
vested with competence to acquire jurisdiction over these seizure and forfeiture cases.
The proceedings before the Collector of Customs are not nal. An appeal lies to the
Commissioner of Customs and thereafter to the Court of Tax Appeals. It may even reach
this Court through an appropriate petition for review. The proper ventilation of the legal
issues is thus indicated. Certainly, the Regional Trial Court is not included therein. Hence, it
is devoid of jurisdiction.
3. JUDICIAL ETHICS; JUDGES; GRAVE MISCONDUCT; GROSS IGNORANCE OF LAW;
IF THE LAW IS SO ELEMENTARY, NOT TO KNOW IT OR TO ACT IF ONE DOES NOT KNOW
IT CONSTITUTES GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW; CASE AT BAR. — [R]espondent judge
had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition and issue the questioned TRO. He
proceeded against settled doctrine, an act constituting gross ignorance of the law. This is
a serious violation under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. What is involved here is
a fundamental and well-known judicial norm. If the law is so elementary, not to know it or
to act if one does not know it, constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Gross ignorance of
the law is the disregard of basic rules and settled jurisprudence. Failure to know the basic
principles is an inexcusable offense. Respondent's actuation in this case is tantamount to
grave misconduct. It is a basic principle that the Collector of Customs has exclusive
jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture proceedings of dutiable goods. A studious and
conscientious judge can easily be conversant with such an elementary rule.
4. ID.; ID.; JUDGES SHOULD AVOID NOT JUST IMPROPRIETY BUT EVEN THE
APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY. — [I]n issuing orders and rendering decisions, judges
must make sure that the same are not only just, correct, and impartial, but also done in a
manner free from any suspicion of unfairness and partiality. As aforestated, Administrative
Circular No. 7-99 reminds judges that their issuance of TROs and grants of writs of
preliminary injunction in seizure and forfeiture proceedings before the Bureau of Customs
may arouse suspicion that said issuance or grant was for considerations other than the
strict merits of the case. The said administrative circular seeks to reiterate that they
should embody the image of equity and justice in the eyes of the public. Respondent
Judge's order is of the kind that erodes the public's con dence and faith in the courts.
Judges are to avoid not just impropriety, but even the appearance of impropriety. They
must give no ground for reproach in order to promote public con dence in the integrity
and impartiality of the judiciary. No position exacts a greater demand for moral
righteousness and uprightness than a seat in the judiciary.

DECISION

PER CURIAM : p

Before the Court are administrative complaints led against Judge Arnulfo G.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Cabredo of Branch 15 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tabaco City, Albay, for grave
misconduct, knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order, manifest partiality, evident
bad faith, and gross inexcusable negligence.
The Antecedents
The facts are simple. Atty. Winston Florin, the Deputy Collector of Customs of the
Sub-port of Tabaco, Albay, issued on September 3, 2001 Warrant of Seizure and Detention
(WSD) No. 06-2001 against a shipment of 35,000 bags of rice aboard the vessel M/V
Criston, for violation of Section 2530 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines
(TCCP). 1
A few days after the issuance of the warrant of seizure and detention, or on
September 25, 2001, Antonio Chua, Jr. and Carlos Carillo, claiming to be consignees of the
subject goods, led before the Regional Trial Court of Tabaco City, Albay, a Petition for
Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) which was docketed as Civil Case No. T-2170. The said petition
sought to enjoin the Bureau of Customs and its o cials from detaining the subject
shipment.
On September 28, 2001, Judge Cabredo issued an order ex parte, the relevant
portion of which reads as follows:
xxx xxx xxx

Acting on the petition for Prohibition with Prayers for the Issuance of
Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order and nding the same to
be su cient in form and substance and that after a thorough evaluation of the
entire records, it appears that the subject matter involved is of extreme urgency
and the applicants will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury pursuant to
paragraph 2, Section 5, [R]ule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, let a
temporary restraining order be issued good for seventy two (72) hours from
service thereof restraining the herein respondents or any person or entity so acting
in their behalf from detaining the subject a) 14,920 bags of imported well[-]milled
rice (WMR), b) 5,000 bags of local well[-]milled rice (WMR) and c) 15,000 bags of
imported special variety rice, upon the ling of a bond in the amount of
PhP31,450,000.00. 2
xxx xxx xxx

By virtue of said TRO, the 35,000 bags of rice were released from customs to Antonio
Chua, Jr. and Carlos Carillo.
In his complaint, Chief State Prosecutor Zuño alleged that respondent Judge
violated Administrative Circular No. 7-99, 3 which cautions trial court judges in their
issuance of temporary restraining orders and writs of preliminary injunctions. Said circular
reminds judges of the principle, enunciated in Mison v. Natividad , 4 that the Collector of
Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture proceedings, and regular
courts cannot interfere with his exercise thereof or stifle or put it to naught.
Chief State Prosecutor Zuño further alleged that respondent Judge knew very well
that at the time he issued the questioned order, he did not have any jurisdiction to pass
upon the validity or regularity of the seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the
Bureau of Customs. Hence, he asserts, respondent Judge wantonly disregarded rules and
settled jurisprudence, to the damage and prejudice of the government, depriving it of its
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 legal custody over the seized articles and consequently, the opportunity to collect taxes
and duties thereon.
Atty. Clemente P. Heraldo, Chief of the Internal Inquiry and Prosecution Division-
Customs Intelligence and Investigation Service (IIPD-CIIS), and Leonito A. Santiago,
Special Investigator of the IIPD-CIIS also led a joint Supplemental Complaint-A davit
reiterating the allegations in the complaint filed by Chief State Prosecutor Zuño. 5
In his 1st Indorsement dated September 23, 2002, Court Administrator Presbitero J.
Velasco, Jr. referred to respondent Judge the complaint against him for his comment. On
November 11, 2002, respondent Judge led his Comment With Motion to Suspend
Proceedings. He alleged therein that when he issued the questioned TRO, he honestly
believed that the Bureau of Customs had been divested of its jurisdiction over the case. He
speci cally cited the statement of Deputy Collector of Customs Florin in the warrant of
seizure and detention that, as the investigating o cer, he "cannot nd any violation of
Section 2530 of the Tariff and Customs Code." 6 According to respondent Judge, because
of this statement, the Bureau of Customs no longer had any jurisdiction over the case.
Respondent Judge likewise explained in his Comment that he saw to it that the
interests of both parties in the case were duly protected. By requiring petitioners therein to
put up a bond equivalent to the full value of the goods to answer for whatever liability may
be adjudged against them, he safeguarded the interest of the government relative to
collecting taxes and duties due on the shipment. On the other hand, he allowed petitioners
therein to have possession of the goods, which were perishable in nature, upon ling of the
bond.
Finally, respondent judge, in his Comment, also moved that the proceedings herein
be suspended. He alleged that the matter of whether or not the issuance of the questioned
TRO was illegal, whimsical, and attended with manifest partiality and bad faith is now
pending before the Court of Appeals in a case docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 72047. Hence,
the proceedings herein should be suspended to await the nal decision in the case before
the Court of Appeals. AEDISC

The Court Administrator's Evaluation

The Court Administrator, in his Evaluation dated February 7, 2003, stated that the
questioned TRO was clearly illegal and issued in excess of jurisdiction. He cited Rallos v.
Gako, Jr. , 7 which held that 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 or to enjoin or otherwise interfere with these proceedings. The rule
enunciated in Mison v. Trinidad 8 is clear: the Collector of Customs has exclusive
jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture proceedings. The RTCs are precluded from
assuming cognizance over such matters even through petitions for certiorari, prohibition
or mandamus. Moreover, even if the seizure by the Collector of Customs were illegal, which
has yet to be proven, such act does not deprive the Bureau of Customs of jurisdiction
thereon.
The Court Administrator concluded that the act of respondent judge in issuing the
questioned TRO amounted to gross ignorance of the law.
The Court's Ruling
We agree with the findings of the Court Administrator.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 First, respondent Judge is not exculpated by his contention that his act did not
cause any damage upon the government by preventing it from collecting duties and taxes
due on the shipment since he required petitioners therein to le a bond in the amount
equivalent to the value of the shipment.
The collection of duties and taxes due on the seized goods is not the only reason
why trial courts are enjoined from issuing orders releasing imported articles under seizure
and forfeiture proceedings by the Bureau of Customs. Administrative Circular No. 7-99
takes into account the fact that the issuance of TROs and the granting of writs of
preliminary injunction in seizure and forfeiture proceedings before the Bureau of Customs
may arouse suspicion that the issuance or grant was for considerations other than the
strict merits of the case. Furthermore, respondent Judge's actuation goes against settled
jurisprudence that the Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and
forfeiture proceedings, and regular courts cannot interfere with his exercise thereof or
stifle and put it to naught. 9
Second, respondent Judge cannot claim that he issued the questioned TRO because
he honestly believed that the Bureau of Customs was effectively divested of its jurisdiction
over the seized shipment due to the statement of Deputy Collector of Customs Florin who
stated that, as the investigating o cer, he "cannot nd any violation of Section 2530 of the
Tariff and Customs Code."
Even if it be assumed that in the exercise of the Collector of Customs of its
exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture cases, a taint of illegality is correctly
imputed, the most that can be said is that under these circumstances, grave abuse of
discretion may oust it of its jurisdiction. This does not mean, however, that the trial court is
vested with competence to acquire jurisdiction over these seizure and forfeiture cases.
The proceedings before the Collector of Customs are not nal. An appeal lies to the
Commissioner of Customs and thereafter to the Court of Tax Appeals. It may even reach
this Court through an appropriate petition for review. The proper ventilation of the legal
issues is thus indicated. Certainly, the Regional Trial Court is not included therein. Hence, it
is devoid of jurisdiction. 1 0
Clearly, therefore, respondent judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
petition and issue the questioned TRO. He proceeded against settled doctrine, an act
constituting gross ignorance of the law. 1 1 This is a serious violation under Section 8, Rule
140 of the Rules of Court. 1 2
What is involved here is a fundamental and well-known judicial norm. If the law is so
elementary, not to know it or to act if one does not know it, constitutes gross ignorance of
the law. 1 3 Gross ignorance of the law is the disregard of basic rules and settled
jurisprudence. 1 4 Failure to know the basic principles is an inexcusable offense.
Respondent's actuation in this case is tantamount to grave misconduct.
It is a basic principle that the Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over
seizure and forfeiture proceedings of dutiable goods. A studious and conscientious judge
can easily be conversant with such an elementary rule.
Finally, in issuing orders and rendering decisions, judges must make sure that the
same are not only just, correct, and impartial, but also done in a manner free from any
suspicion of unfairness and partiality. As aforestated, Administrative Circular No. 7-99
reminds judges that their issuance of TROs and grants of writs of preliminary injunction in
seizure and forfeiture proceedings before the Bureau of Customs may arouse suspicion
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 that said issuance or grant was for considerations other than the strict merits of the case.
The said administrative circular seeks to reiterate that they should embody the image of
equity and justice in the eyes of the public.
Respondent Judge's order is of the kind that erodes the public's con dence and
faith in the courts. Judges are to avoid not just impropriety, but even the appearance of
impropriety. They must give no ground for reproach in order to promote public con dence
in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. 1 5 No position exacts a greater demand for
moral righteousness and uprightness than a seat in the judiciary. 1 6
WHEREFORE, Judge Arnulfo G. Cabredo is found GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT.
The Court imposes on him the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service with forfeiture of all
bene ts, excluding accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or
agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Let a copy of this decision be attached to the personnel records of Judge Arnulfo G.
Cabredo. aTIAES

SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr. and
Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Annex "A" of the Complaint; Rollo, p. 48.

2. Annex "C" of the Complaint; Rollo, p. 64.

3. Entitled "RE EXERCISE OF UTMOST CAUTION, PRUDENCE, AND JUDICIOUSNESS IN
ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS AND WRITS OF PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIONS," dated June 25, 1999.

4. 213 SCRA 734, 742 (1992).

5. Rollo, pp. 6-10.
6. Comment on the Complaint, p. 4; Rollo, p. 80.
7. 344 SCRA 178 (2000).
8. See note 4, supra.

9. Id.
10. Bureau of Customs v. Ogario , 329 SCRA 289, 298 (2000) citing Ponce Enrile v. Vinuya , 37
SCRA 381, 388-389 (1971).
11. Conducto v. Monzon, 291 SCRA 619 (1998).
12. As amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC which took effect on September 11, 2001.
13. Cruz v. Yaneza, March 9, 1999, Uy v. Dizon-Capulong, 221 SCRA 87 (1993).
14. San Miguel Wood Products, Inc. v. Tupas, 249 SCRA 466 (1995).

15. Rule 2, Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 16. Naval v. Panday , 275 SCRA 654 (1999).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com