El Greco Ship Manning and Management Corporation vs.

Commission of Customs
G.R. No. 177188
04 December 2008

Facts:
Upon the directive of then Commissioner Villanueva of the Bureau of Customs (BOC), a Warrant of Seizure and Detention, Seizure
Identification No. 06-2001, was issued by the Legaspi District Collector for the 35,000 bags of imported rice shipped by M/V Criston, on the ground
that it left the Port of Manila without the necessary clearance from the Philippine Coast Guard. Since the earlier Warrant covered only the cargo, but
not M/V Criston which transported it, a subsequent Warrant of Seizure and Detention, Seizure Identification No. 06-2001-A, was issued on 18
October 2001 particularly for the said vessel. The BOC District Collector of the Port of Legaspi thereafter commenced proceedings for the forfeiture
of M/V Criston and its cargo under Seizure Identification No. 06-2001-A and Seizure Identification No. 06-2001, respectively.

The Legaspi District Collector held in abeyance the proceedings for the forfeiture of M/V Criston and its cargo under Seizure Identification
No. 06-2001 and Seizure Identification No. 06-2001-A pending the resolution by the RTC of Civil Case No. T-2170. When the RTC granted the
Motion to Dismiss Civil Case No. T-2170 filed by the BOC, the Legaspi District Collector set the hearing of Seizure Identification No. 06-2001 and
Seizure Identification No. 06-2001-A. A notice of the scheduled hearing of the aforementioned seizure cases was sent to Glucer Shipping but it failed
to appear at the hearing so set. After a second notice of hearing was ignored by Glucer Shipping, the prosecutor was allowed to present his
witnesses.

Based on the above information and for failure of M/V Neptune Breeze to present a clearance from its last port of call, a Warrant of Seizure
and Detention under Seizure Identification No. 2001-208 was issued against the vessel by the BOC District Collector of the Port of Manila.

Acting favorably on the motion of El Greco, the Manila District Collector issued an Order quashing the Warrant of Seizure and Detention it
issued against M/V Neptune Breeze in Seizure Identification No. 2001-208 for lack of probable cause that the said vessel was the same one known as
M/V Criston which fled from the jurisdiction of the BOC Legaspi District after being seized and detained therein for allegedly engaging in smuggling
activities
On automatic review by BOC Commissioner Antonio Bernardo, the Order of the District Collector of the Port of Manila was reversed after finding
that M/V Neptune Breeze and M/V Criston were one and the same and that the Legaspi District Collector had already acquired prior jurisdiction over
the vessel.

Seeking the reversal of the Decision of the BOC Commissioner, El Greco filed a Petition for Review with the CTA which was lodged
before its Second Division as CTA Case No. 6618. El Greco averred that the BOC Commissioner committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering
the forfeiture of the M/V Neptune Breeze in the absence of proof that M/V Neptune Breeze and M/V Criston were one and the same vessel.
According to El Greco, it was highly improbable that M/V Criston was merely assuming the identity of M/V Neptune Breeze in order to evade
liability since these were distinct and separate vessels as evidenced by their Certificates of Registry. While M/V Neptune Breeze was registered in St.
Vincent and the Grenadines as shown in its Certificate of Registry No. 7298/N, M/V Criston was registered in the Philippines. Additionally, El Greco
argued that the Order dated 11 March 2002 of the Manila District Collector already became final and executory for failure of the BOC Commissioner
to act thereon within a period of 30 days in accordance with Section 2313 of the Tariff and Customs Code.

In a Resolution, the CTA Second Division denied the Motion for Reconsideration of El Greco for failure to present issues that had not been
previously threshed out in its earlier Decision.

Undaunted, El Greco elevated its case to the CTA En Banc through a Petition for Review, docketed as C.T.A. EB No. 162, this time
lamenting that it was being deprived of its property without due process of law. El Greco asserted that the CTA Second Division violated its
constitutional right to due process when it upheld the forfeiture of M/V Neptune Breeze on the basis of the evidence presented before the Legaspi
District Collector in Seizure Identification No. 06-2001 and Seizure Identification No. 06-2001-A, of which El Greco was not notified and in which it
was not able to participate.

Issue:
WON El Greco was denied of its right to due process

Ruling:

Well-entrenched is the rule that findings of facts of the CTA are binding on this Court and can only be disturbed on appeal if not
supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion.

The crime laboratory report of the PNP shows that the serial numbers of the engines and generators of the two vessels are identical. El
Greco failed to rebut this piece of evidence that decisively identified M/V Neptune Breeze as the same as M/V Criston. We take judicial notice that
along with gross tonnage, net tonnage, length and breadth of the vessel, the serial numbers of its engine and generator are the necessary information
identifying a vessel. In much the same way, the identity of a land motor vehicle is established by its unique motor and chassis numbers. It is, thus,
highly improbable that two totally different vessels would have engines and generators bearing the very same serial numbers; and the only logical
conclusion is that they must be one and the same vessel.

Neither can we permit El Greco to evade the forfeiture of its vessel, as a consequence of its being used in smuggling activities, by decrying
denial of due process.

In administrative proceedings, such as those before the BOC, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied and
administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense. The essence of due process is simply an
opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.

Although it was not able to participate in the proceedings in Seizure Identification No. 06-2001 and Seizure Identification No. 06-2001-A
before the Legaspi District Collector, it had ample opportunity to present its side of the controversy in Seizure Identification No. 2001-208 before the
Manila District Collector. To recall, full proceedings were held before the Manila District Collector in Seizure Identification No. 2001-208. Even the
evidence presented by El Greco in the latter proceedings fails to persuade. The only vital evidence it presented before the Manila District Collector in
Seizure Identification No. 2001-208 was the foreign registration of M/V Neptune Breeze. It was still the same piece of evidence which El Greco
submitted to this Court. Even when taken into consideration and weighed against each other, the considerably sparse evidence of El Greco in Seizure
Identification No. 2001-208 could not successfully refute the substantial evidence in Seizure Identification No. 06-2001 and Seizure Identification
No. 06-2001-A that M/V Neptune Breeze is the same as M/V Criston.

Moreover, the claim of El Greco that it was denied due process flounders in light of its ample opportunity to rebut the findings of the
Legaspi District Collector in Seizure Identification No. 06-2001 and No. 06-2001-A before the CTA Second Division in CTA Case No. 6618 and the
CTA En Banc in C.T.A. EB No. 162, and now before this Court in the Petition at bar. Unfortunately, El Greco was unable to make full use to its
advantage of these repeated opportunities by offering all possible evidence in support of its case. For example, evidence that could establish that M/V
Neptune Breeze was somewhere else at the time when M/V Criston was being held by customs authority at the Port of Legaspi, Albay, would have
been helpful to El Grecos cause and very easy to secure, but is glaringly absent herein.

After having established that M/V Neptune Breeze is one and the same as M/V Criston, we come to another crucial issue in the case at bar,
that is, whether the order of forfeiture of the M/V Neptune Breeze is valid.
 Civil Service Commission vs. Colanggo
G.R. No. 174935
30 April 2008
FACTS:

Tristan C. Colanggo took the Professional Board Examination for Teachers (PBET) and obtained a passing rate of 75.98%. He was
appointed Teacher I. A complaint questioning the eligibility of teachers in Surigao del Norte was filed in the Civil Service Commission. The CSC-
CARAGA immediately investigated the matter. CSC-CARAGA discovered significant irregularities in respondents documents. The photographs of
Tristan C. Colanggo attached respectively to the PBET application form and to the October 25, 1992 picture seat plan did not resemble respondent.
Furthermore, the signature found in the PBET application form was markedly different from that affixed on respondents personal data sheet (PDS). It
appeared that someone other than respondent filed his PBET application and still another person took the exam on his behalf.
Thus, the CSC-CARAGA filed a formal charge for dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service against respondent.
Respondent filed an answer denying the charges against him and moved for a formal hearing and investigation. The CSC granted the motion and
scheduled a hearing. Respondent failed to appear on the said date but subsequently filed an omnibus motion for the production of original documents
relative to the charges against him and the presentation of persons who supervised the October 25, 1992 PBET. His motion was granted and the
concerned proctor and examiners were subpoenaed. Thee CSC found:

On the basis of the photographs attached [to] the PBET application form and the picture seat plan, it is evident that the
person who filed the application form for the PBET is not the same person who actually took the said examination on October 25,
1992. This disparity of physical features of the former and latter are evident. The person who filed the PBET has fuller
cheekbones and slanted eyes, thinner lips and has a different hairstyle from that of the John Doe who took the said examination.
On the other hand, the latter has thinner cheekbones, elongated chin, full lips with a moustache and round eyes. Also, the
signatures appearing of the PBET applicant and that of the PBET examinee are also in different strokes, curves and slants.

In other words, the picture and signatures affixed on the PBET application form, picture seat plan and PDS undoubtedly belong to
three different personswhich clearly serve a ground to establish a just cause for CSC-CARAGA to issue a formal charge.
The CSC concluded that respondent did not apply for and take the PBET exam. Thus, in Resolution No. 021412, the CSC found respondent guilty of
dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service and ordered his dismissal. MR: denied. Thus, he filed a petition for certiorari in the
CA alleging that the CSC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing REso dismissing him. He pointed out that the pieces of evidence against
him were inadmissible as they were unauthenticated photocopies of the PBET application form, picture seat plan and PDS.

CA: the CA granted the petition. It ruled that the photocopies of the PBET application form, picture seat plan and PDS should have been
authenticated.[10] Only documents or public records duly acknowledged or certified as such in accordance with law could be presented in evidence
without further proof.[11] Consequently, the CA annulled and set aside Resolution No. 021412 and ordered the dismissal of charges against
respondent.

The CSC essentially avers that the CA erred in finding that it committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering Resolution No.
021412.[15] The Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service[16] (Uniform Rules) does not require strict adherence to technical rules of
evidence. Thus, it validly considered the photocopies of the PBET application form, picture seat plan and PDS in resolving the formal charge against
respondent in spite of the fact that they were not duly authenticated.

RULING:
Administrative rules of procedure are construed liberally to promote their objective and to assist parties in obtaining just, speedy and
inexpensive determination of their respective claims and defenses.[17] Section 39 of the Uniform Rules provides:

Section 39. The direct evidence for the complainant and the respondent consist of the sworn statement and documents
submitted in support of the complaint or answer as the case may be, without prejudice to the presentation of additional evidence
deemed necessary but was unavailable at the time of the filing of the complaint and the answer upon which the cross-
examination, by the respondent and the complainant respectively, shall be based. Following the cross-examination, there may be
re-direct or re-cross examination.
Either party may avail himself of the services of counsel and may require the attendance of witnesses and the
production of documentary evidence in his favor through the compulsory process of subpoena or subpoena duces tecum.

The investigation shall be conducted for the purpose of ascertaining the truth without necessarily adhering to
technical rules applicable in judicial proceedings. It shall be conducted by the disciplining authority concerned or his
authorized representatives. (emphasis supplied)

The provision above clearly states that the CSC, in investigating complaints against civil servants, is not bound by technical rules of
procedure and evidence applicable in judicial proceedings.

The CSC correctly appreciated the photocopies of PBET application form, picture seat plan and PDS (though not duly authenticated) in
determining whether there was sufficient evidence to substantiate the charges against the respondent. Worth noting was that respondent never
objected to the veracity of their contents. He merely disputed their admissibility on the ground that they were not authenticated.
 As a general rule, a finding of guilt in administrative cases, if supported by substantial evidence (or that amount of evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion),[18] will be sustained by this Court.[19]

The CSC graciously granted respondents motions to ensure that he was accorded procedural due process. Moreover, it exhaustively
discussed the differences in appearances of respondent and the persons whose photographs were attached to the PBET application form and the
picture seat plan. It likewise compared the various signatures on the said documents.

Resolution No. 021412 reveals that the CSC carefully evaluated the allegations against respondent and thoroughly examined and weighed
the evidence submitted for its consideration. The penalty (of dismissal) imposed on respondent was therefore fully in accord with law[20] and
jurisprudence.[21] We find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CSC.