This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-06-11 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The CTA based its ruling on the following factual and legal findings: (1) that since there was no valid seizure proceeding ever conducted by petitioners against respondent's case, it therefore failed to comply with Section 2301 of the TCCP, as amended, which requires the Collector to issue a WSD upon making any seizure, and also with Section 2303 of the same, which provides the need of a prior written notice of seizure and opportunity to be heard on the part of the owner or importer in reference to the alleged delinquency, a clear violation of respondent's constitutional right to procedural due process;[16] (2) that since there was no valid seizure as adverted to above, the imposition of the 20% penalty under Customs Administrative Order (CAO) No. 4-94 is outright improper and without any legal basis; (3) that the subsequent issuance of the CRF over respondent's shipment under the provisions of Customs Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 9-95 satisfied the inspection and the CRF required under paragraph 12 of Joint Order No. 1-91 considering that it cleared the said shipment from automatic seizure. Nonetheless, even if the subject shipment of respondent may have been subjected to an alleged automatic seizure, the eventual issuance of the CRF covering the same shipment cured all deficiencies;[17] (4) that respondent's act of issuing a "STOP PAYMENT" order was justified considering petitioners' act of depositing the post-dated guarantee/security check being improper and without any legal basis;[18] and (5) that petitioner Collector acted beyond his mandate under Section 1508 of the TCCP when he withheld respondent's subsequent shipment of raw sugar considering that there was still no outstanding and demandable amount (penalty of fine) to be paid. The fine which is the subject matter of the instant case was precisely the one being questioned by respondent; hence, its liability has yet to be determined.[19] | |||||
|
2005-01-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The practice of forum shopping is proscribed because it unnecessarily burdens our courts with heavy caseloads, unduly taxes the manpower and financial resources of the judiciary and trifles with and mocks our judicial processes thereby affecting the efficient administration of justice. This condemnable conduct has prompted the issuance of circulars[20] penalizing violators with the dismissal of the case or cases without prejudice to the taking of appropriate action against the counsel or party concerned.[21] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| It is true that Supreme Court (SC) Circular No. 28-91,[6] as amended by SC Administrative Circular No. 4-94,[7] specifically states that the certification on non-forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs and failure to do so shall be a cause for the dismissal of the complaint upon motion and after hearing. | |||||