Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
ATTENTION : OFFICE OF
THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS
COMMISSIONER NICANOR
E. FAELDON,
Complainant.
x----------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
Complainant COMMISIONER NICANOR E. FAELDON
(FAELDON) OF THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS (BOC),
respectfully states:
CANON 1
INDEPENDENCE
1 See Sections 8 (3) and (9), and 9 (4) of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by
A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC.
2
SECTION 6. Judges shall be independent in
relation to society in general and in relation to the
particular parties to a dispute which he or she has to
adjudicate.
CANON 3
IMPARTIALITY
CANON 2
INTEGRITY
3
CANON 4
PROPRIETY
CANON 6
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
PARTIES
4
STATEMENT OF FACTS
5
accordance with existing laws, rules
and regulations.
6
Section 219. Authority to Enter
Properties. Any person exercising police
authority may, at any time, enter, pass
through, and search any land, enclosure,
warehouse, store, building or structure
not principally used as a dwelling house.
7
Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction) dated
March 2, 2017 (Complaint for Injunction) with the respondent
Judge to enjoin the BOC and complainant Commissioner
Faeldon, among others, from conducting illegal raids or
inspection on the basis of BOCs LOAs now or hereafter issued
upon an unverified complaint, thus.4 Mighty Corporation
likewise prayed for the return of all the seized property. A copy
of the Complaint for Injunction dated March 2, 2017 is attached
as Annex E.
GROUNDS
8
RESPONDENT JUDGE SHOULD BE HELD
ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE FOR GROSS
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW TANTAMOUNT TO
GROSS MISCONDUCT CONSIDERING THAT SHE
ISSUED THE ORDER DATED MARCH 6, 2017
DESPITE THE CLEAR AND UNQUESTIONABLE
FACT THAT SHE HAD NO AUTHORITY NOR
JURISDICTION TO DO SO.
II
DISCUSSION
9
CANON 6
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
10
more than just a cursory acquaintance
with statutes and procedural rules. He
must be conversant with basic legal
principles and well-settled doctrines. He
should strive for excellence and seek the
truth with passion. The failure to observe
the basic laws and rules is not only
inexcusable, but renders him susceptible
to administrative sanction for gross
ignorance of the law from which no one is
excused, and surely not a judge.
11
Despite the issuance of said circular, and the
passage of several laws prohibiting the issuance of
TRO or the grant of writs of preliminary injunctions,
complaints against judges with respect to issuance of
TROs remain unabated. Records of the Office of the
Court Administrator show numerous complaints
against judges for arbitrary issuance of TRO and
injunctive writ and for violation of the various laws
and Supreme Court circulars that prohibit such
issuance. Records likewise show that there were
judges that were in fact administratively
sanctioned for such offense.
xxx
12
forfeiture of dutiable goods. The Regional Trial
Courts are precluded from assuming cognizance over
such matters even through petitions of certiorari,
prohibition or mandamus.
13
[S]uch jurisdiction of the customs authorities
is exclusive was made clear in Pacis v. Averia,
decided in 1966. This Court, speaking through
Justice J. P. Bengzon, realistically observed: This
original jurisdiction of the Court of First
Instance, when exercised in an action for
recovery of personal property which is a subject
of a forfeiture proceeding in the Bureau of
Customs, tends to encroach upon, and to render
futile, the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs
in seizure and forfeiture proceedings. The court
should yield to the jurisdiction of the Collector
of Customs. x x x [Emphasis and underscoring
supplied]
14
to enjoin. This is clearly seen by the fact that in the subject
Mission Orders, it expressly provides that properties can be
seized by agents of the BOC:
15
The Mission Orders (Exhibit A) and Letter of
Authority (Exhibit B) were issued for the purpose of
the inspection of all warehouses that stored
cigarettes which are allegedly counterfeit and
smuggled and to seize it. [At p. 5 of the Order]
3.15. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that judges who
violate the foregoing established precepts, such as the
respondent Judge, are liable for gross ignorance of the law.
3.16. The facts of the case of Zuo vs. Cabredo, 402 SCRA
75 (2003) (the Cabredo Case) fall squarely with the instant
case. In the Cabredo Case, supra, Judge Cabredo issued 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. The
Supreme Court held that Judge Cabredo went against a settled
doctrine, an act constituting gross ignorance of the law. The
Supreme Court pointed out that 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. In the Cabredo Case, supra, the Supreme
Court thus ordered the dismissal of Judge Cabredo, thus:
16
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.
17
re-employment in any branch or agency of the
government, including government-owned or
controlled corporations. [Emphasis and
underscoring supplied]
CANON 1
INDEPENDENCE
18
SECTION 6. Judges shall be independent in
relation to society in general and in relation to the
particular parties to a dispute which he or she has to
adjudicate. x x x
CANON 3
IMPARTIALITY
19
3.21. The manifest bias and partiality of respondent Judge
in gross violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct was
immediately apparent the moment she issued the Order
granting the TRO prayed for by Mighty Corporation.
20
3.25. What makes this more dastardly is the fact that the
respondent Judge does not even know of any future Letters of
Authority of the, and yet, she has already prejudged even these
future Letters of Authority and as early as now, already enjoins
raids or inspections arising therefrom.
3.29. Time and again, the Supreme Court has held that a
judge must not be impartial but must likewise appear impartial:
21
Respondent judge violated Canon 1 and Rule
1.02, as well as Canon 2 and Rule 2.01 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct. Thus, he must be sanctioned. In
this connection, we have said: Well-known is the
judicial norm that judges should not only be
impartial but should also appear impartial.
Jurisprudence repeatedly teaches that litigants are
entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality
of an impartial judge. The other elements of due
process, like notice and hearing, would become
meaningless if the ultimate decision is rendered
by a partial or biased judge. Judges must not only
render just, correct and impartial decisions, but
must do so in a manner free of any suspicion as
to their fairness, impartiality and integrity. This
reminder applies all the more sternly to municipal,
metropolitan and regional trial court judges like
herein respondent, because they are judicial front-
liners who have direct contact with the litigating
parties. They are the intermediaries between
conflicting interests and the embodiments of the
peoples sense of justice. Thus, their official
conduct should remain free from any appearance
of impropriety and should be beyond
reproach. [Rallos vs. Gako, A.M. No. RTJ-99-
10
PRAYER
22
and for violating the Supreme Courts rules, directives, and
circulars.
NICANOR E. FAELDON
COMMISSIONER
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS
OCOM Building, BOC
Port Area, Manila City
23
NICANOR E. FAELDON
Affiant
24