Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
160270
April 23, 2010
(Smuggling, Jurisdiction Case)
SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY,
Petitioner,
- versus -
I - SC agreed with the petitioner that the case is not with in the jurisdiction of the
RTC.
II - SC agreed that through the WSD, the jurisdiction over the shipment still
remained to the BOC.
III - “Petitioner’s apparent neglect to mention the warrant of seizure and detention in
its Answer is insufficient to cast doubt on the existence of said warrant.” –SC
IV - The SC still agreed with the Petitioner that the exclusive original jurisdiction
over the shipment remained with the BOC, and the RTC had no jurisdiction over cases
involving said shipment.
RATIONALE
The
Was CAerred
theCA erredinin affirming theRTC
affirming the RTC
Orders. The issuance of the
Orders dated November 21 2002 RTC Order (27
November 2002) was improper due to the fact
and
the RTC had no jurisdiction to issue its Order
272002)
(27 November November
. 2002 ?
HOLDINGS
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We
REVERSE the Court of Appeals Decision dated
June 20, 2003 and Resolution dated October 8, 2003
in CA-G.R. SP No. 74989. We declare VOID the
Regional Trial Court Orders dated November 21, 2002
and November 27, 2002.
SO ORDERED.
REFERENCE
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/160270.htm
G.R. No. 160270
April 23, 2010
(Smuggling, Jurisdiction Case)
SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY,
Petitioner,
- versus -