DIGEST/JAN CARLO A. TISO/ SEBASTIAN SARMIENTO, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. HON. ELEUTERIO CAPAPAS

 

G.R. No. L-15509             March 31, 1962

SEBASTIAN SARMIENTO, ET AL., petitioners-appellees,
vs.
HON. ELEUTERIO CAPAPAS, as Commissioner of Customs, et al., respondents-appellants,
GREGORIO GAMULO, ET AL., intervenors-appellees.

FACTS: On June 9, 1958 the petitioners filed a motion to be permitted to file new petition for declaratory relief, in substitution of the petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction. The principal allegations of the amended petition are as follows: .

That on May 1 to 6, 1958, shipments of 666 hogsheads of Virginia Type Leaf Tobacco, worth $314,675.62 were imported by the Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing and Redrying Corporation under the Barter Permit No. BT-1380 (SP) issued on January 21, 1958; .

That on May 8, 1958, the Collector of Internal Revenue issued an authority to release the said imported goods, which authority was addressed to his co-respondents Hon. Eleuterio Capapas, as Commissioner of Customs and/or Hon. Isidro Angangco as incumbent Collector for the Port of Manila, declaring that said 666 hogsheads of tobacco were imported under the Barter Permit No. BT-1380 (SP) dated January 21, 1958 by the No-Dollar Import Office; .

That on May 13, 1958 the administrator of ACCFA addressed a communication to the Commissioner of Customs, Manila, stating that he had no objection to the release of the imported Virginia leaf tobacco or the release of said 666 hogsheads of tobacco; .

That the said shipments of 666 hogsheads of tobacco form part of several other shipments of Virginia Type Leaf Tobacco, which are due to arrive at the Port of Manila under the same Barter Permit No. BT-1380 (SP) which tobacco will aggregate in value to the sum of $4,900,000.00; .

That the Barter Permit No. BT-1380 (SP) issued by the No-Dollar Import Office on January 21, 1958, in favor of the Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing and Redrying Corporation, was issued in violation of the provisions of existing laws, particularly Republic Act Nos. 1194 and 1410; .

That the certificates issued by the ACCFA and/or the Bureau of Internal Revenue were false because we have surplusage of indigenous production of Virginia type leaf tobacco in the Philippines, which is sufficient to maintain the manufacture of tobacco production; .

That the importations in question are not actually covered by any Central Bank license whatsoever; .

That as early as January, 1958, petitioners had already protested with the Secretary of Commerce and Industry against the issuance of barter permits for such kind of tobacco; .

That the Commissioner of Customs and the Collector of Customs for Manila are in possession, custody and control of any and all documents pertaining to the importations made under the aforesaid Barter Permit No. BT-1380 (SP); .

That the Commissioner of Customs and the Collector of Customs threaten to release the whole or part of said shipment to the Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing and Redrying Corporation, some 60 hogsheads having been already released in violation of existing laws, more specifically Republic Act Nos. 1194 and 1410.1äwphï1.ñët

ISSUES:

1. Whether an action for declaratory relief was proper.

HELD:

NO.

If an action for declaratory relief were to be allowed in this case, after a breach of the statute, the decision of the court in the action for declaratory relief would prejudge the action for violation of the barter law.

The institution of an action for declaratory relief after a breach of contract or statute, is objectionable on various grounds, among which is that it violates the rule on multiplicity of suits. If the case at bar were allowed for a declaratory relief, the judgment therein notwithstanding, another action would still lie against the importer respondent for violation of the barter law. So, instead of one case only before the courts in which all issues would be decided, two cases will be allowed, one being the present action for declaratory relief and a subsequent one for the confiscation of the importations as a consequence of the breach of the barter law.

The impropriety of allowing an action for declaratory relief, after a breach of the law, can be seen in the very decision of the court itself, which is now subject of the appeal. Whereas the case at bar was purported to bring about a simple declaration of the rights of the parties to the action, the judgment goes further than said declaration and decrees that the importation by the respondent corporation violates the law, and further directs that legal importation be confiscated under the provisions the law (Section 1 (c), R.A. No. 1194.) This confiscation directed by the court lies clearly beyond the scope and nature of an action for declaratory relief, as the judgment of confiscation goes beyond the issues expressly raised, and to that extent it is null and void.

That the proper remedy under the circumstances was an action for injunction, and not one for declaratory relief, is evident from the fact that the original petition was for injunction; petitioner herein only changed the nature of the action into one for declaratory relief when, as they explain, they found out that they did not have funds for the writ of preliminary injunction..

As a final reason for dismissing the present action, we have the undeniable fact that as of this date (March 1962) the permit had expired two years before (its life extended to January 21, 1960 only), and all the shipments under the permit had already been delivered to the consignee and used in the manufacture of tobacco. The petitioner did not secure a writ of preliminary injunction, as this remedy is not proper in an action for declaratory relief; as a result, aside from the complete violation of the barter law, the importations have already been completely used up in the manufacture of tobacco during the pendency of these proceedings.

Under the circumstances and at present, of what use will a declaration of the rights of the parties under the barter law be? In fact as of the date of this decision the issues have become moot and academic and the court can do no other than declare the action to be so and of no practical use or value.

FOR THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, judgment appealed from is set aside and the action for declaratory relief dismissed. Without costs.