COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF MANILA v IAC
FACTS
Initially, there was a Civil Case wherein cases of rayon and synthetic textiles were garnished and consigned to Cotabato Palay and Corn Producers, Inc. The textiles were with the Customs of Manila, and was then transferred to a bonded warehouse by the Sheriff, specifically reminding the warehouseman that no release shall be made without his written authorization. However, 9 days later, through the purported customs agent of Cotabato Palay, the textiles were released, allegedly with clearance from the shipping agent and the sheriff. It was found that the authorizations were forgeries. Thus, when judgment in the Civil Case was rendered, and the textiles were ordered to be released, Customs Collector Jose Viduya found that said items were no longer in the possession of the warehouseman. The garnishers, Bravo and Ferrer, filed a motion to hold the sheriff and the Customs Collector personally liable for the value of the textiles. RTC ruled against them, but the CA ruled in their favor, stating that the Collector of Customs is liable for the misdelivery of goods either by himself or by his subordinates. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration through then SolGen Mendoza who averred that the Customs Collector is not personally liable, but is only officially liable. Judgment, however, became final, and was served upon the successor of Viduya, who claimed that the liability is official, and must be satisfied by the Bureau itself. The Customs Commissioner, however, maintained that the liability of Viduya is personal. The same was opined by the SolGen Ordonez (successor of SolGen Mendoza).
ISSUE
Whether the Collector of Customs can be held personally liable?
HELD
YES. The Tariff and Customs Code provide that a collector shall not be personally liable for any official ruling, and that in the absence of his own abuse of authority, he shall not be liable ‘to any person for a loss occasioned either by his own official act or the act of his subordinates.’ But it will be noted that an exception for such liability is made ‘for a misdelivery of merchandise.’ Thus, Viduya should be held personally liable, specially due to his negligence in the misdelivery of the goods, whose burden should not be shouldered by the Government.
