9/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 231

VOL. 231, MARCH 28, 1994 463

Provident Tree Farms, Inc. vs. Batario, Jr.

*
G.R. No. 92285. March 28, 1994.

PROVIDENT TREE FARMS, INC., petitioner, vs. HON.

DEMETRIO M. BATARIO, JR., Presiding Judge of Branch 48,
Regional Trial Court of Manila, COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
and A.J. INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, respondents.

Administrative Law; Bureau of Customs; Enforcement of the import

ban under Sec. 36 of the Revised Forestry Code is within the exclusive
realm of the Bureau of Customs and regular courts have no authority to
interfere with it.—The enforcement of the import ban under Sec. 36, par.
(1), of the Revised Forestry Code is within the exclusive realm of the
Bureau of Customs, and direct recourse of petitioner to the Regional Trial
Court to compel the Commissioner of Customs to enforce the ban is devoid
of any legal basis. To allow the regular court to direct the Commissioner to
impound the imported matches, as petitioner would, is clearly an
interference with the exclusive jurisdiction of the

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

464

464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Provident Tree Farms, Inc. vs. Batario, Jr.

Bureau of Customs over seizure and forfeiture cases. An order of a judge to

impound, seize or forfeit must inevitably be based on his determination and
declaration of the invalidity of the importation, hence, a usurpation of the
prerogative and an encroachment on the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Customs. In other words, the reliefs directed against the Bureau of Customs
as well as the prayer for injunction against importation of matches by

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017476e6ca5cb9886f42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/9
9/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 231

private respondent AJIC may not be granted without the court arrogating
upon itself the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs.
Same; Same; Tariff and Customs Code; The enforcement of statutory
rights is not foreclosed by the absence of a statutory procedure.—The claim
of petitioner that no procedure is outlined for the enforcement of the import
ban under the Tariff and Customs Code, if true, does not at all diminish the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs over the subject matter. The
enforcement of statutory rights is not foreclosed by the absence of a
statutory procedure. The Commissioner of Customs has the power to
“promulgate all rules and regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of
this (Tariff and Customs) Code x x x subject to the approval of the Secretary
of Finance.” Moreover, it has been held that “x x x (w)here the statute does
not require any particular method of procedure to be followed by an
administrative agency, the agency may adopt any reasonable method to
carry out its functions.”
Same; Same; Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction; Petitioner’s
correspondence with the Bureau of Customs contesting the legality of the
importations may take the nature of an administrative proceeding the
pendency of which would preclude the court from interfering with it.—But
over and above the foregoing, PTFI’s correspondence with the Bureau of
Customs contesting the legality of match importations may already take the
nature of an administrative proceeding the pendency of which would
preclude the court from interfering with it under the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction.
Same; Same; Certiorari and Mandamus; Court cannot compel an
agency to do a particular act or to enjoin such act which is within its
prerogatives, except when in the exercise of its authority it gravely abuses or
exceeds its jurisdiction.—Moreover, however cleverly the complaint may be
worded, the ultimate relief sought by PTFI is to compel the Bureau of
Customs to seize and forfeit the match importations of AJIC. Since the
determination to seize or not to seize is discretionary upon the Bureau of
Customs, the same cannot be subject of mandamus. But this does not
preclude recourse to the courts by way of the extraordinary relief of
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of

465

VOL. 231, MARCH 28, 1994 465

Provident Tree Farms, Inc. vs. Batario, Jr.

Court if the Bureau of Customs should gravely abuse the exercise of its
jurisdiction. Otherwise stated, the court cannot compel an agency to do a
particular act or to enjoin such act which is within its prerogative, except
when in the exercise of its authority it gravely abuses or exceeds its

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017476e6ca5cb9886f42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/9
9/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 231

jurisdiction. In the case at bench, we have no occasion to rule on the issue of

grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction as it is not before us.

PETITION for review on certiorari of an order of the Regional Trial

Court of Manila, Br. 48. Batario, Jr., J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako for petitioner.
     Sumulong, Sumulong, Paras & Abano Law Offices for private
respondent.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

PETITIONER PROVIDENT TREE FARMS, INC. (PTFI), is a

Philippine corporation engaged in industrial tree planting. It grows
gubas trees in its plantations in Agusan and Mindoro which it
supplies to a local match manufacturer solely for production of
matches. In consonance with the state policy to encourage qualified
persons to engage in industrial tree plantation, Sec. 36, par. (1), of
1
the Revised Forestry Code confers on entities like PTFI a set of
incentives among which is a qualified ban against importation of
wood and “wood-derivated” products.
On 5 April 1989, private respondent A.J. International
Corporation (AJIC) imported four (4) containers of matches from
Indonesia, which the Bureau of Customs released on 12 April 1989,
and two (2) more containers of matches from Singapore on 19 April
1989. The records do not disclose when the second ship-

_______________

1 Sec. 36, par (1), of the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines, P.D. No. 705, as
amended by P.D. No. 1559 of 11 June 1978 provides: “x x x x No wood, wood
products or wood-derivated products including pulp, paper and paperboard shall be
imported if the same are available in required quantities and reasonable prices, as may
be certified by the Department Head, from artificial or man-made forests, or local
processing plants manufacturing the same x x x x”.

466

466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Provident Tree Farms, Inc. vs. Batario, Jr.

ment was released.

On 25 April 1989, upon request of PTFI, Secretary Fulgencio S.
Factoran, Jr., of the Department of Natural Resources and
Environment issued a certification that “there are enough available
softwood supply in the Philippines for the match industry at
2
reasonable price.”

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017476e6ca5cb9886f42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/9
9/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 231

On 5 May 1989, PTFI filed with the Regional Court of Manila a

complaint for injunction and damages with prayer for a temporary
restraining order against respondents Commissioner of Customs and
AJIC to enjoin the latter from importing matches and “wood-
derivated” products, and the Collector of Customs from allowing
and releasing the importations. It was docketed as Civil Case No.
89-48836 and raffled to respondent Judge Demetrio M. Batario, Jr.
PTFI prays for an order directing the Commissioner of Customs to
impound the subject importations and that AJIC be directed to pay
petitioner P250,000.00 in actual damages, P1,000,000.00 in
exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
On 14 June 1989, AJIC moved to dismiss the complaint alleging
that: (a) The Commissioner of Customs under Sec. 1207 of the
Tariff and Customs Code and not the regular court, has “exclusive
jurisdiction to determine the legality of an importation or ascertain
whether the conditions prescribed by law for an importation have
been complied with x x x x (and over cases
3
of) seizure, detention or
release of property affected x x x x;” (b) The release of subject
4
importations had rendered injunction moot and academic; (c) The
prayer for damages has no basis as the questioned acts of the
Commissioner are in accordance with law and no damages may be
5
awarded based on future acts; and, (d) The complaint for injunction
cannot stand
6
it being mainly a provisional relief and not a principal
remedy.
PTFI opposed the motion to dismiss. On 28 July 1989, AJIC’s
motion to dismiss was denied. However, on 8 February 1990, on

_______________

2 Annex “B-1”, Petition, Rollo, p. 37.

3 Motion to Dismiss, pp. 2-3, Annex “C,” Petition, Rollo, pp. 39-40.
4 Id., p. 6, Rollo, p. 43.
5 Id., pp. 6-7, Rollo, pp. 43-44.
6 Id., p. 7, Rollo, p. 44.

467

VOL. 231, MARCH 28, 1994 467

Provident Tree Farms, Inc. vs. Batario, Jr.

motion for reconsideration by AJIC and despite the opposition of

PTFI, the Court reconsidered its 28 July 1989 order and dismissed
the case on the ground that it had “no jurisdiction to determine what
7
are legal or illegal importations.”
In this present recourse, PTFI seeks to set aside the 8 February
1990 order of respondent court and prays for the continuation of the
hearing in Civil Case No. 89-48836. PTFI claims that what was
brought before the trial court was a civil case for injunction, i.e.,
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017476e6ca5cb9886f42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/9
9/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 231

“restraining the entry of safety matches into the country x x x for the
purpose of securing compliance with Sec. 36 (1) of the Forestry
Code” and for damages, “to seek redress of its right which has been
clearly violated by the importation of safety matches x x x x (which)
is a denial to the petitioner of the protection and incentive granted it
8
by Section 36 (1) of the Forestry Code x x x x” PTFI asserts the
inapplicability of the procedures outlined in R.A. No. 1125 relative
to incidents before the Court of Tax Appeals because the instant
action is not a protest case where the aggrieved party is not an
importer. It then argues that since it could not avail of the remedies
afforded by the Tariff and Customs Code, resort to the courts is
9
warranted, citing Commissioner of Customs v. Alikpala.
On the formal requirements, we hold that the claim of public
respondent that the petition was filed late has no basis. The records
revealed that PTFI10received the assailed order of 8 February 1990 on
20 February 1990, hence, it had until 7 March 1990 to file petition
for review on certiorari. On that date, PTFI filed a motion for
11
extension of fifteen (15) days within which to file the petition. On
19 March 1990, this Court granted PTFI a thirty (30)-day non-
12
extendible period to file its petition, thus resetting the new deadline
for the petition to 6 April 1990. On that date the petition was filed.

_______________

7 Order of 8 February 1990, Annex “A”, Petition, Rollo, p. 28-29.

8 Petition, pp. 6-9, Rollo, pp. 19-22.
9 No. L-32542, 26 November 1970, 36 SCRA 208.
10 Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari, p. 1;
Rollo, p. 2.
11 Id.
12 Rollo, p. 4-A.

468

468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Provident Tree Farms, Inc. vs. Batario, Jr.

Petitioner anchors his complaint on a statutory privilege or incentive

granted under Sec. 36, par. (1), of the Revised Forestry Code. The
only subject of this incentive is a ban against importation of wood,
wood products or wood-derivated products which is to be enforced
by the Bureau of Customs since it has, under the Tariff and Customs
Code, the exclusive original jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture
13
cases and, in fact, it is the duty of the Collector of Customs to
14
exercise jurisdiction over prohibited importations.
The enforcement of the import ban under Sec. 36, par. (1), of the
Revised Forestry Code is within the exclusive realm of the Bureau
of Customs, and direct recourse of petitioner to the Regional Trial
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017476e6ca5cb9886f42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/9
9/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 231

Court to compel the Commissioner of Customs to enforce the ban is

devoid of any legal basis. To allow the regular court to direct the
Commissioner to impound the imported matches, as petitioner
would, is clearly an interference with the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Bureau of Customs over seizure and forfeiture cases. An order of
a judge to impound, seize or forfeit must inevitably be based on his
determination and declaration of the invalidity of the importation,
hence, a usurpation of the prerogative and an encroachment on the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs. In other words, the reliefs
15
directed against the Bureau of Customs as well as the prayer for
injunction

_______________

13 Sec. 602 (g), of the Tariff and Customs Code provides: “The general duties,
powers and jurisdiction of the bureau shall include x x x x Exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture cases under the tariff and customs laws.”
14 Sec. 1207, of the Tariff and Customs Code provides: “Where articles are of
prohibited importation or subject to importation only upon conditions prescribed by
law, it shall be the duty of the Collector to exercise such jurisdiction in respect thereto
as will prevent importation or otherwise secure compliance with all legal
requirements.”
15 “x x x x A temporary restraining injunction/writ of preliminary injunction be
issued against x x x x (d)efendant Commissioner of Customs, commanding and
ordering said defendant from allowing the importation of matches and other derivated
products, or if such importations have been made and are in his custody, from
releasing the same, as such importations is prohibited by law, i.e., Forestry Code,
Section 36 x x x x After hearing, that said injunction be made permanent x x x x That
defendant Commissioner of Customs be ordered to

469

VOL. 231, MARCH 28, 1994 469

Provident Tree Farms, Inc. vs. Batario, Jr.

16
against importation of matches by private respondent AJIC may
not be granted without the court arrogating upon itself the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs.
The claim of petitioner that no procedure is outlined for the
enforcement of the import ban under the Tariff and Customs Code, if
true, does not at all diminish the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Customs over the subject matter. The enforcement of statutory rights
is not foreclosed by the absence of a statutory procedure. The
Commissioner of Customs has the power to “promulgate all rules
and regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of this (Tariff
and Customs) Code x x x subject to the approval of the Secretary of
17
Finance.” Moreover, it has been held that “x x x (w)here the statute
does not require any particular method of procedure to be followed
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017476e6ca5cb9886f42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/9
9/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 231

by an administrative agency, the agency may adopt any reasonable

18
method to carry out its functions.”
But over and above the foregoing, PTFI’s correspondence with
19
the Bureau of Customs contesting the legality of match impor-

_______________

impound the shipments complained of x x x x” (Complaint, pp. 5-6, Rollo, pp. 34-
35.)
16 “x x x x A temporary restraining injunction/writ of preliminary injunction be
issued against x x x x (d)efendant A.J. International Corporation, commanding and/or
ordering said defendant to cease and desist from importing matches and/or wood
derivated products in violation of the Forestry Code x x x x After hearing, that said
injunction be made permanent x x x x” (Complaint, pp. 5-6, Rollo, pp. 34-35.)
17 Sec. 608, Tariff and Customs Code.
18 2 Am Jur 2d § 340, pp. 155-156, citing Douglas County v. State Bd. of
Equalization & Assessment, 158 Neb 325, 63 NW 2d 449; State ex rel. York v. Walla
Walla County, 28 Wash 2d 891, 184 P 2d 577, 172 ALR 1001.
19 Annex “A”, Memorandum for Private Respondent, Rollo, p. 138-139. In part
the letter of Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako in behalf of PTFI to the Bureau
of Customs, Collection District II-B, dated 10 January 1990 reads: “We refer to your
letter December 7, 1989, which is in reply to our letter of November 4, 1989
requesting for the implementation of Section 36 (1) of the Forestry Code., i.e.,
prohibition on importation of safety matches. With due respect to the opinion
rendered by your office that’. . . there is no law or regulation prohibiting the
importation of matches,’ we wish to reiterate that Section 36 (1)

470

470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Provident Tree Farms, Inc. vs. Batario, Jr.

tations may already take the nature of an administrative proceeding

the pendency of which would preclude the court from interfering
with it under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. In Presidential
20
Commission on Good Government v. Peña, we held that—

x x x x under the ‘sense-making and expeditious doctrine of primary

jurisdiction x x x the courts cannot or will not determine a controversy
involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative
tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative
discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience, and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact,
and a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the purposes of the
regulatory statute administered (Pambujan Sur United Mine Workers v.
Samar Mining Co., Inc., 94 Phil. 932, 941 [1954].)
In this era of clogged court dockets, the need for specialized
administrative boards or commissions with the special knowledge,

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017476e6ca5cb9886f42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/9
9/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 231

experience and capability to hear and determine promptly disputes on

technical matters or essentially factual matters, subject to judicial review in
case of grave abuse of discretion, has become well nigh indispensable x x x
x

Moreover, however cleverly the complaint may be worded, the

ultimate relief sought by PTFI is to compel the Bureau of Customs
to seize and forfeit the match importations of AJIC. Since the
determination to seize or not to seize is discretionary upon the
Bureau of Customs, the same cannot be subject of mandamus. But
this does not preclude recourse to the courts by way of the
extraordinary relief of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
if the Bureau of Customs should gravely abuse the exercise of its
jurisdiction. Otherwise stated, the court cannot compel an agency to
do a particular act or to enjoin such act which is

_______________

of the Forestry Code clearly prohibits the importation of ‘wood, wood products or
wood derivated products.’ x x x x With respect to your opinion that ‘what is being
protected is the matchwood timber industry, not the match industry,’ we wish to
emphasize that the survival of the match wood timber industry depends upon the
survival of the local match industry the existence of which is gravely threatened by
the importation of matches x x x x”.
20 No. L-77663, 12 April 1988, 158 SCRA 556, 567-568.

471

VOL. 231, MARCH 28, 1994 471

Provident Tree Farms, Inc. vs. Batario, Jr.

within its prerogative, except when in the exercise of its authority it

gravely abuses or exceeds its jurisdiction. In the case at bench, we
have no occasion to rule on the issue of grave abuse of discretion or
excess of jurisdiction as it is not before us.
The petitioner’s claim for damages against AJIC being
inextricably linked with the legality of the importations, must
necessarily rise or fall with the main action to bar the questioned
importations. Petitioner’s allegation that “(e)very importation of
matches by said defendant is a denial to plaintiff of the protection
21
and incentives granted it by Sec. 36 (1) of the Forestry Code,”
merely indicates its reliance on the illegality of the importations for
its prayer for damages. In other words, if the importations were
authorized, there would be no denial of the plaintiff’s protection and
incentives under the Forestry Code. Necessarily, the claim for
damages must await the decision declaring the importations
unlawful.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017476e6ca5cb9886f42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/9
9/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 231

In Rosales v. Court of Appeals, we categorized a similar case for

damages as premature since “(t)he finality of the administrative case
which gives life to petitioners’ cause of action has not yet been
22
reached.” The pendency of petitioner’s request to the Bureau of
Customs for the implementation of the ban against the importation
of matches under the Forestry Code is impliedly admitted; in fact, it
is apparent from the correspondence of counsel for petitioner that
23
the Bureau is inclined to sustain the validity of the importations.
Hence, as in Rosales, the order of the trial court granting the
dismissal of the civil case must be upheld.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the appealed Order
of the Regional Trial Court of Manila in Civil Case No. 89-48836
dated 8 February 1990, the same is AFFIRMED and, consequently,
the instant petition for review is DENIED.

     Davide, Jr., Quiason and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

     Cruz (Chairman), J., No part. Related to plaintiffs’ counsel.

_______________

21 Par. 10, Complaint, Annex “B,” Petition, Rollo, p. 32.

22 No. L-47821, 15 September 1988, 165 SCRA 344, 350.
23 See note 19.

472

472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

China Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

Petition denied; Appealed order affirmed.

Note.—Jurisdiction over action for enforcement of mining

contracts is exclusive with the Director of Mines (United Paracale
Mining Company, Inc. vs. Dela Rosa, 221 SCRA 108 [1993]).

——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017476e6ca5cb9886f42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/9