FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-33471. January 31, 1972.]

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF

TAX APPEALS and EUSEBIO DICHOCO, respondents.

Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Assistant Solicitor General Hector C . Fule and
Solicitor Santiago M. Kapunan for petitioner.
Syquia & Aguilan for private respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. TAXATION; TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE; ARTICLES OF PROHIBITED

IMPORTATION; SEC. 102(k); GOOD IMPORTED WITHOUT THE RELEASE CERTIFICATE
REQUIRED BY THE CENTRAL BANK ARE GOODS OF PROHIBITED IMPORTATION. — The
importation of non-essential consumer goods, imported without the release certi cate
required by the Central Bank, is a prohibited importation under section 102(k) of the
Tariff and Customs Code which provides, in part, as follows:
"SECTION 102. Prohibited Importation. — The importation into the
Philippines of the following articles is prohibited:

xxx xxx xxx

k. All other article the importation of which is prohibited by law.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; EJUSDEM GENERIS CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THE

CONSTRUCTION OF SAID ARTICLE. — Respondent's contention that Sec. 102 (k) of the
Tariff and Customs Code must, by application of the principles of ejusdem generis, be
restricted only to those articles the importation of which is "absolutely prohibited," or to
contraband, is not acceptable. In the rst place, the speci c things enumerated in
paragraphs (a) to (j), inclusive, of Section 102 have no distinguishable common
characteristics and they differ greatly from one another and the rule of ejusdem generis
applies only where the speci c words preceding the general expression are of the
same nature. Where they are of different genera, the meaning of the general word
remains unaffected by its connection with them.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONTRABAND AS ONLY THINGS ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED BY
LAW; MISNOMER. — Calling contraband only the things "absolutely prohibited by law" is
a misnomer, as contraband means any article the importation or exportation of which is
prohibited by law.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; SECTION, 102 (k); ARTICLES OF PROHIBITED IMPORTATIONS
COVER BOTH ABSOLUTELY AND QUALIFIEDLY PROHIBITED ARTICLES. — Sec. 102,
when examined, shows that it prohibits the importation of two categories of articles,
namely those which are absolutely prohibited, for example, those enumerated in
paragraphs b, c, d, g, h and j, and those articles which are quali edly prohibited, that is,
those that may be imported subject to certain conditions or limitations, or example,
those enumerated in paragraphs a and i.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID., ID.; INTERPRETATION. — Accordingly, the general provision in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Sec. 102 paragraph k, Tariff and Customs Code to wit: "All other articles the
importation of which is prohibited by law" cannot be so restricted as to comprise only
those articles the importation of which is absolutely prohibited like explosives. Articles
of prohibited importation cover not only absolutely prohibited articles but also
quali edly prohibited articles. Paragraph (k) is comprehensive in the sense that it
prohibits the importation of all articles not mentioned in the preceding provision but
prohibited by other existing statutes. The legal effects of the importation of quali edly
prohibited articles are the same as those of absolutely prohibited articles.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CENTRAL BANK CIRCULARS ARE INCLUDED IN THE LAWS
WHICH PROHIBIT IMPORTATION. — The laws which prohibit importation mentioned in
section 102 (k) include the pertinent Central Bank Circulars which have the force and
effect of laws. "Customs Law" includes not only the provisions of the Tariff and
Customs Code but also all other laws and any regulation made pursuant thereto that is
subject to enforcement by the Bureau of Customs or otherwise subject to its
jurisdiction.
7. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; IMPORTATION MADE IN VIOLATION OF THE CENTRAL BANK
CIRCULARS IS PROHIBITED IMPORTATION. — If the importation in question was made
contrary to Central Bank circulars, then said importation is an importation prohibited by
law. The importation, even if it be termed "importation effected contrary to law," as
respondents call it, is nonetheless a "prohibited importation."
8. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; SETTLED RULE. — It is now settled that the goods imported
without release certi cates required in Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 are 'merchandise of
prohibited importation' as this expression is used in section 1363 (f):
9. ID., ID.; ID.; NO RELEASE CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED TO ARTICLES NOT
INCLUDED IN CIRCULAR 247; REASON. — No release certi cates may be issued to the
imported foodstuff's in the case at bar, although it is a no-dallar importation, because
Circular 295 provides that: No-dollar imports not covered by Circular No. 247 shall not
be issued any release certi cate . . .," and the foodstuffs imported by private
respondent are not among the items listed in Circular No. 247 for which no release
certi cates are needed. The reason for this is to protect the country's international
reserve because every import of goods or merchandise requires an immediate or future
demand for foreign exchange.
10. ID.; ID.; ID.; ARTICLES OF PROHIBITED IMPORTATION CANNOT BE
RELEASED UNDER BOND; LAWS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER APPLICABLE. — The
law prohibits the release under bond of the imported foodstuffs in question. This is
provided in Section 2301 of the Tariff and Customs Code, Customs Administrative
Order Nos. 19-70, dated October 20, 1970, and Section 3 of R.A. No. 1410. "An act to
Prohibit the so-called 'No Dollar Imports' except under certain conditions."
11. ID.; ID.; ID.; ARTICLES COVERED BY "RELEASE CERTIFICATES" NOT ARTICLES
OF PROHIBITED IMPORTATION. — The importations of non-essential consumer goods
which private respondent claims to have been released to Savoy Hotel Philippines,
cannot be said to have been made "contrary to law" and were prohibited importations,
because they were authorized and covered by "release certi cates" approved pursuant
to M. B. Resolution No. 383 dated March 4, 1970.
12. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; JUSTIFICATION. — The authority granted to the importation of
non-essential consumer goods that were released to Savoy Philippines Hotel may be
justi ed because it was given to hotels that catered to tourists visiting the country and
are, therefore, dollar earners.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 13. ID.; ID.; ID.; LEGITIMATE PURPOSE CANNOT JUSTIFY PROHIBITED
IMPORTATION. — The reason advanced by private respondent for the release of the
importation in question that foodstuffs are intended to be eaten, and eating is always
legitimate, is beside the point. The issue in the present case is whether or not the
foodstuffs were imported contrary to law, and not whether the purpose for which the
articles were imported is licit or illicit. Even if the purpose of importing the foodstuffs
be legitimate, the purpose alone will not justify the prohibited importation because this
is a case where the end does not justify the means.
14. ID.; ID.; ID.; BENEFIT TO ALL PARTIES CONCERNED DOES NOT JUSTIFY
RELEASE UNDER BOND OF PROHIBITED IMPORTATION; REASON THEREFOR. — The
nal reason advanced by private respondent, that the release under bond of the
deteriorating foodstuffs would be bene cial to all parties concerned, does not cleanse
the importation of its illegality and will not justify their release under bond. The Tariff
and Customs Code expressly prohibits the release under bond of articles of prohibited
importation, because, "articles of prohibited importation" are not allowed to be
imported, the government expects no revenue from such banned articles.
15. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT. — The government
expects no revenue from such banned articles, since they are not allowed to be
imported. Otherwise, the law's prohibition would be rendered totally nugatory, since
such banned articles, which are mostly luxury items, are in great demand and command
sky-high prices assuring great pro t to the smuggler. The smuggler would have the
greatest pro t to wreak havoc upon our currency by purchasing dollars at the highest
black market rates to purchase and bring in these high-pro t luxury items. Should he
succeed in smuggling them in, his venture is a complete success. If he is caught, then
all he has to do is put up a bond for the release of the goods to secure payment of the
appraised value thereof to the government, and he can still realize a substantial pro t
from the sale of banned goods thus released to him. All the measures designed to
strengthen and stabilize our peso and to check the unregulated ow of foreign
exchange from the country with the ultimate end of setting right the country's economy
and financial position would thereby be set at naught.
16. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEALS; FAILURE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION; FINALITY OF APPEALED ORDER; NOT APPLIED TO
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. — Regarding the point that he instant petition for certiorari is
procedurally defective on the ground that the disputed resolution of March 24, 1951
was already nal and unappealable for the failure of petitioner to le a timely motion for
reconsideration. Held: The order complained of is interlocutory, and in interlocutory
order is such that it is always subject to correction and amendment before nal
judgment is rendered in the case.
17. ID.; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; CERTIORARI; WHEN PROPER. — Under Section
1 of Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, certiorari may issue not only when the
inferior court has acted with grave abuse of discretion, but also when it has acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction.
18. ID.; ID.; ID.; RELIEF GRANTED NOT WITHIN COURTS POWER; EQUIVALENT TO
ACTING WITHOUT JURISDICTION. — Although a court has jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the parties, it has been held that if a court has no power to give certain kinds
of relief, and it acts otherwise it is acting without jurisdiction.
19. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; INSTANT CASE. — Under the law and decisions of this Court,
the trial court could not order the release of the forfeited imported foodstuffs under
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 bond, and in ordering its release, it had acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction.

20. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROPER RELIEF FROM INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. — A petition for
certiorari is the proper procedure for obtaining a relief from, or review of, an
interlocutory order.
21. ID.; RULES OF COURT; LIBERAL INTERPRETATION; PETITION NOT
DEFECTIVE EVEN IF COPIES OF SUBJECT ORDERS NOT CERTIFIED. — The contention
that the instant petition for certiorari is defective in that the copies of the orders
subject thereof were not certi ed, has no merit. The Rules of Court should be liberally
construed, for they are intended to secure a method by which the issues may be
properly laid before the court. When these issues are already clear before the court the
deficiency in the observance of the rules should not be given undue importance.

DECISION

ZALDIVAR , J : p

Petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, to annul and set aside two
resolutions of respondent Court of Tax Appeals in CTA Case No. 2206, the rst dated
March 24, 1911, ordering petitioner Commissioner of Customs to release under bond
to respondent Eusebio Dichoco the shipment of 438 packages of foodstuffs; and the
second, dated April 19, 1971, denying the motion of petitioner for reconsideration of
the order of March 24, 1971 and giving him three days within which to comply with said
order.
A shipment of 438 packages of foodstuffs, declared in the name of respondent
Eusebio Dichoco, hereinafter referred to as private respondent, under Entry No. 109924
(70) arrived on December 16, 1970 at the Port of Manila on board the S/S "St. Isidro".
The shipment was covered by a "Customs No-Dollar Declaration", dated December 15,
1970. Against this shipment the Collector of Customs of Manila issued, on December
28, 1970, in S. I. Case No. 12055, a warrant of seizure and detention for violation of
Section 2530 (f) of the Tariff and Customs Code, in relation to Central Bank Circulars
Nos. 247, 289, 294, and 295 and section 102 (k) of the said Code. On the same date,
private respondent requested the release of the shipment upon the posting of a cash
bond, which request, although favorably recommended by the Collector of Customs,
was denied by the Commissioner of Customs. However, the proper taxes and duties
amounting to P25,998.00 were imposed on the shipment and paid by private
respondent. After hearing, the Collector of Customs issued his decision, on January 19,
1971, decreeing the seizure and forfeiture of the shipment "for the simple reason that
claimants failed to comply with the regulations, that is, with the Central Bank circulars
requiring the production of release certi cates for importations similar to the subject
articles." On appeal, the Commissioner of Customs a rmed the decision on January
21, 1971.
On January 27, 1971 private respondent led before respondent court a "petition
for review, with a motion for release of goods under bond", upon the grounds that the
decision appealed from was not supported by substantial evidence and that the goods
seized did not constitute prohibited importation as contemplated in Sections 2530 (f)
and 102 (k) of the Tariff and Customs Code. In his answer led before respondent
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 court, the Commissioner of Customs alleged that "the goods having been imported
without the release certi cate required by the Central Bank", are "subject to forfeiture"
and the goods being of "prohibited importation," may not be released under bond
pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 2301 of the Tariff and Customs Code.
The respondent Court, in its resolution of February 3, 1971, granted the motion to
release the goods subject to the condition that a cash bond in the sum of P43,854.59
be led by private respondent with the Bureau of Customs. The bond having been led,
respondent Court issued an order, dated February 9, 1971, directing petitioner to
release the shipment. Petitioner led on March 2, 1971 a motion for reconsideration
upon the ground that the importation in question, classi ed as non-essential consumer
goods, is banned by Central Bank Circulars No. 289, dated February 21, 1970, No. 294
of March 10, 1970, and No. 295 of March 20, 1970, and "acquired the status of
prohibited importation or importation contrary to law" and can not be released under
bond. Private respondent led his opposition dated March 4, 1971. Respondent court
in its resolution dated March 8, 1971, granted the motion for reconsideration, declaring
that "Section 2301 of the Tariff and Customs Code provides that articles the
importation of which is prohibited by law can not be released under bond" and set aside
its resolutions of February 3 and February 9, 1971. Private respondent led a motion
for reconsideration of respondent court's resolution of March 8, 1971, and said court, in
its resolution of March 24, 1971, reversed its resolution of March 8, 1971 and
reinstated the resolution of February 3, 1971, ordering the immediate release of the
foodstuffs.
Upon motion of private respondent dated April 6, 1971, respondent court issued
an order, dated April 12, 1971, requiring petitioner to appear on April 16, 1971 and
show cause why he should not be declared in contempt of Court for non-compliance
with the resolution of March 24, 1971. Petitioner led on April 16, 1971 his "Motion for
Reconsideration and Explanation", explaining why he should not be held in contempt
and at the same time praying for the reconsideration of the order of March 24, 1971,
which ordered the release of the goods upon the ground that goods imported without
release certi cates required by the Central Bank are "merchandise of prohibited
importation" and cannot therefore be released under any kind of bond.
In its resolution, dated April 19, 1971, respondent court found petitioner's
explanation for his failure to comply with the order of March 24, 1971 satisfactory, but
denied the motion for reconsideration upon the ground that it was led 23 days after
his receipt of the resolution, and ordering him to comply, within three days, with the
order of March 24, 1971.
On April 22, 1971 petitioner led an "Urgent omnibus Motion and Manifestation",
praying the respondent Court to reconsider and set aside its order of March 24 and
April 19, 1971 and reinstate its order of March 8, 1971; that the case be immediately
set for hearing on the merits; and to excuse him from complying with the order of April
19, 1971. Respondent court denied the omnibus motion in its order dated April 27,
1971.
Hence the present petition before this Court.
Herein petitioner contends that the importation of the foodstuffs in question is
prohibited and the articles thus imported may be subject to forfeiture under Section
2530 (f) and 102 (k) of the Tariff and Customs Code; that the foodstuffs in question
being articles of prohibited importation cannot be released under bond; and that
respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 jurisdiction, in ordering the release of the foodstuffs in question. The petitioner prays
that pending the determination of this case on its merits, a writ of preliminary injunction
be issued ex parte enjoining the implementation of respondent court's resolutions
dated March 24, 1971 and April 19, 1971; and that after due proceedings said
resolutions be declared null and void and ordered set aside.
This Court, by resolution dated May 5, 1971, issued a temporary restraining
order, and required respondents to le an answer. On May 6, 1971 a temporary
restraining order was issued restraining respondent Court of Tax Appeals, its agents,
representatives, etc. from enforcing the resolutions dated March 24, 1971 and April 19,
1971 issued in its C.T.A. Case No. 2206; more speci cally from directing petitioner
Commissioner of Customs to release under bond to respondent Eusebio Dichoco the
shipment of foodstuffs in question pending nal judgment of the case and from citing
or declaring said petitioner in contempt of court for failure to release said foodstuffs,
etc.
An answer was led, by counsel, for both respondent Court of Tax Appeals and
Eusebio Dichoco. In their answer, respondent allege special and a rmative defenses,
contending that the instant petition is fatally defective, and certiorari does not lie; that
there is no legal basis for the injunction; and that the importation was not a "prohibited
importation" and can be released under bond pursuant to Section 2301 of the Tariff and
Customs Code. Respondents pray for the dismissal of the petition and the dissolution
of the temporary restraining order.
Private respondent Eusebio Dichoco, in contending that the instant petition is
without basis in fact and in law, does not deny that "articles of prohibited importation
cannot be released under bond" as provided in section 2301 of the Tariff and Customs
Code. He, however, vigorously denies that the "foodstuffs in question are articles of
prohibited importation." He argues that the Tariff and Customs Code distinguishes
articles of "prohibited importation" from those that can be imported "only upon
conditions prescribed by law" or "importation effected contrary to law". He further
argues that Section 102 of the Tariff and Customs Code, which enumerates the articles
of "prohibited importations", refers to contraband or absolutely prohibited articles and
concludes in its sub-paragraph (k) with a general statement, "all other articles the
importation of which is prohibited by law". Respondent maintains that under the well
known rule of ejusdem generis, this general statement must be restricted only to those
articles which are absolutely prohibited or those considered contraband. Respondent
then insists that foodstuffs belong to that kind of importation that are, under Section
1207 of the Tariff and Customs Code, "subject to importation only upon conditions
prescribed by law", as distinguished from articles "of prohibited importation,"
mentioned in the same section; that said foodstuffs, furthermore, can be classi ed
under "importation effected contrary to law" as distinguished from "prohibited
importation" mentioned in section 2530 of the same Code. Respondent likewise argues
that section 2307 also distinguishes different kinds of importations when it provides
that there can be no redemption "where the importation is absolutely prohibited", but
allows redemption of other kinds of importation including forfeited foodstuffs.
Respondent claims that section 2601 also makes the same distinction when it provides
that "seized property, other than contraband" shall be subject to sale. Respondent
points out that both the Central Bank and the Bureau of Customs, through their
authorized counsel, admitted that the foodstuffs are "not prohibited importation under
section 102 of the Tariff and Customs Code," which admission bars them from
asserting the contrary. 1 It is, therefore, asserted by respondent that the imported
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 foodstuffs in question are not contraband, and are not, as stated by respondent court,
among the prohibited importations enumerated in Section 102 of the Tariff and
Customs Code, 2 and so said foodstuffs may be released under bond as provided in
Section 2301 of the same Code. Respondent likewise points out that both the Central
Bank and the Bureau of Customs have been releasing outright imported foodstuffs to
selected importers. Respondent also urges that the purpose of the release of the
importation in question is legitimate, for said foodstuffs are intended to be eaten, and
eating is always legitimate; and that the release under bond of the foodstuffs which are
fast deteriorating would be bene cial for all parties concerned. Petitioner argues,
nally, that Customs Administrative Order No. 19-70, dated October 20, 1970,
contravenes the Tariff and Customs Code. 3

We cannot sustain the stand of the respondents.

The importation in question is a prohibited importation under Section 102 (k) of
the Tariff and Customs Code which provides, in part, as follows:
"SEC 102. Prohibited Importations. — The importation into the Philippines
of the following articles is prohibited:
xxx xxx xxx
k. All other articles the importation of which is prohibited by law."

Respondents contend that this last paragraph must, by application of the

principles of ejusdem generis, be restricted only to those articles the importation of
which is "absolutely prohibited," or to contraband. This contention is not acceptable. In
the rst place, the speci c things enumerated in paragraphs (a) to (j), inclusive, of
Section 102 have no distinguishable common characteristics and they differ greatly
from one another, and the rule of ejusdem generis "applies only where the speci c
words preceding the general expression are of the same nature. Where they are of
different genera, the meaning of the general word remains unaffected by its connection
with them." (Black, On Interpretation of Laws, 2nd ed., p. 218; 50 Am. Jur., p. 248).
Moreover, calling contraband only the things "absolutely prohibited by law" is a
misnomer, for contraband means any article the importation or exportation of which is
prohibited by law (Black, Law Dictionary).
Section 102, when examined, shows that it prohibits the importation of two
categories of articles, namely those which are absolutely prohibited, for example, those
enumerated in paragraphs b, c, d, f, h, and j, and those articles which are qualifiedly
prohibited, that is, those that may be imported subject to certain conditions or
limitations, for example, those enumerated in paragraphs a and i. Accordingly the
general provision in paragraph k, to wit: "all other articles the importation of which is
prohibited by law" cannot be so restricted as to comprise only those articles the
importation of which is absolutely prohibited like explosives. Articles of prohibited
importation cover not only absolutely prohibited articles but also quali edly prohibited
articles. Paragraph (k) is comprehensive in the sense that it prohibits the importation of
all articles not mentioned in the preceding provision but prohibited by other existing
statutes (Tejam, Commentaries on the Tariff Code of the Philippines, Vol. I, p. 6A). The
legal effects of the importation of quali edly prohibited articles are the same as those
of absolutely prohibited articles. (Geotina v. Court of Tax Appeals, No. L-33500, August
30, 1971, 40 SCRA 362, 379, 383.)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 The laws which prohibit importation mentioned in Section 102 (k) include the
pertinent Central Bank Circulars which have the force and effect of laws. "Customs law"
includes not only the provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code but also all other laws
and any regulation made pursuant thereto that is subject to enforcement by the Bureau
of Customs or otherwise subject to its jurisdiction (Sec. 3514 of Tariff and Customs
Code) and articles imported in violation of Central Bank Circulars have the status of
"merchandize of prohibited importation" (Chan Kian v. Collector of Customs of Manila,
Jan. 31, 1966, No. L-20803, 16 SCRA 133, 136; Seree Investment Co. v. Commissioner
of Customs, No. L-21217, Nov. 29, 1965,15 SCRA 431, 434; Bombay Department Store
v. Commissioner of Customs, No. L-20460, Sept. 30, 1965, 15 SCRA 104, 107-108). It
cannot be gainsaid that the importation in question violated Central Bank Circulars,
inasmuch as in the words of petitioner Commissioner of Customs in its decision of
January 21, 1971, "it was established thru the admission of claimant (Dichoco) that the
necessary release certi cate in connection with his importation was not secured from
the Central Bank. In view thereof, the collector after instituting the necessary seizure
proceedings forfeited the 438 packages of foodstuffs for alleged violation of Central
Bank Circulars Nos. 247, 289, 294 and 295 in relation to Section 2530 (f) and Section
102 (k) of the Tariff and Customs Code." 4 If the importation in question was made
contrary to Central Bank circulars, then said importation is an importation prohibited by
law. That importation, even if it be termed "importation effected contrary to law", as
respondents call it, is nonetheless a "prohibited importation."
This Court had held:
"Thus, it is now settled that the goods imported without release certi cates
required in Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 are 'merchandise of prohibited importation'
as this expression is used in said section 1363 (f). To this effect have been,
among others, Commissioner vs. Eastern Sea Trading, Commissioner vs. Santos,
Commissioner vs. Nepomuceno, Pascual vs. Commissioner of Customs, Seree
Investment Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs, and Lazaro vs. Commissioner of
Customs." (Sare vs. Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. L-22988, June 30, 1969,
28 SCRA 715, 718.) 5

As a matter of law, no release certi cate may be issued to such importation,

although it is a no-dollar importation, because Circular No. 295 provides that:
"'No-dollar' imports not covered by Circular No. 247 shall not be issued any
release certificate . . ."

and the foodstuffs imported by private respondent Dichoco are not among the items
listed in Circular No. 247 for which no release certi cates are needed. The reason for
this is to protect the country's international reserve, because every import of goods or
merchandise requires an immediate or future demand for foreign exchange (Pascual v.
Commissioner of Customs, 105 Phil. 1039, 1045).
The law also prohibits the release under bond of the imported foodstuffs in
question. This is provided in Section 2301 of the Tariff and Customs Code which
provides:
"Sec. 2301. Warrant for Detention of Property — Bond. — Upon making any
seizure, the Collector shall issue a warrant for the detention of the property; and if
the owner or importer desires to secure the release of the property for legitimate
use, the Collector may surrender it upon the ling of su cient bond, in an amount
to be xed by him, conditioned for the payment of the appraised value of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 article and/or any ne, expenses and costs which may be adjudged in the case:
Provided, That articles the importation of which is prohibited by law shall not be
released under bond." (Emphasis supplied.)
Customs Administrative Order No. 19-70, dated October 20, 1970, also provides
that "all importations seized and forfeited for violation of Central Bank circulars shall
not be allowed to be released under bond, either surety or cash, nor allowed to be
redeemed . . ." This order cannot be said to contravene section 2301 or the Tariff and
Customs Code, as contended by private respondent. Anent this matter, this Court has
held that:
"Respondent importer's petition before the tax court was led to seek
judgment 'sustaining [the importer's] right to the discharge of its importation from
the carrying vessel and its release under bond to it and declaring Customs
Administrative Order No. 19-70 null and void' as an alleged unauthorized and
arbitrary modi cation or amendment of the provisions of section 2301 of the
tariff and customs code. As already shown above, the said administrative
reiteration of the express prohibition of the cited section against the release under
bond of prohibited articles seized and held for forfeiture by the customs
authorities. The tax court of course made no pronouncement of the alleged nullity
of the said administrative order, the validity of which cannot be gainsaid . . ."
(Geotina v. Court of Tax Appeals, L-33500, August 30, 1971, 40 SCRA 362, 384-
385).

It may be pertinent to note that Sec. 3 of Republic Act No. 1410 "An Act to
prohibit the so called 'No-dollar Imports' except under certain conditions" also provides
that "any violation of this law or any provision hereof shall subject the articles imported
to seizure and con scation without any right of redemption or release under bond,
existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding."
Private respondent also contends that there were some importations of non-
essential consumer goods that were released by the Bureau of Customs and the
Central Bank. This is true. In the record We nd, for example, that an importation of
fresh oranges, lemons and grapefruits by Savoy Philippines Hotel was issued Release
Certificate No. 20134, dated March 31, 1971 by the Central Bank of the Philippines; that
an importation of cheese by Savoy Philippines Hotel was also issued Release
Certi cate No. 19980 dated January 20, 1971; and that an importation of Danish
cheese by Hotel Intercontinental, Manila, was also issued Release Certi cate No.
39704, dated March 4, 1971. 6 These importations, however, cannot be said to have
been made "contrary to law" and were prohibited importations, because the
importations were authorized and were covered by "release certi cates," approved
pursuant to M. B. Resolution No. 383 dated March 4, 1970. 7 The authority granted may
be justi ed because it was given to hotels that cater to tourists visiting the country and
are, therefore, dollar earners. In order that the Central Bank might not be accused of
arbitrarily favoring certain importers, this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice
Teehankee, has suggested:
"But it might perhaps be desirable that the Central Bank spell out such
exceptions and the cases where it will grant 'prior speci c approvals' as against
the standing prohibition for the guidance of all concerned, so that it may not be
charged with acting arbitrarily and without any de nite set of rules and guidelines
that assures equal treatment and equal application its circulars to all." (Geotina v.
Court of Tax Appeals, No. L-33500, August 31, 1970, 40 SCRA 362, 380-381.)

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 The reason advanced by private respondent for the release of the importation in
question is that foodstuffs are intended to be eaten, and eating is always legitimate.
This argument is beside the point. The issue in the present case is whether or not the
foodstuffs were imported contrary to law, and not whether the purpose for which the
articles were imported is licit or illicit. Even if the purpose of importing the foodstuffs
be legitimate, that purpose alone will not justify the prohibited importation, because
this is a case where the end does not justify the means.
The nal reason advanced by private respondent, that the release under bond of
the deteriorating foodstuffs would be bene cial to all parties concerned, does not
cleanse the importation of its illegality and will not justify their release under bond. The
Tariff and Customs Code expressly prohibits the release under bond of articles of
prohibited importation. Because "articles of prohibited importation" are not allowed to
be imported, the government expects no revenue from such banned articles. Regarding
this point, this Court has held:
"It is utterly fallacious, therefore, when such banned goods are nevertheless
sought to be imported in violation of law, to assume that it is to the interest of the
Government, where the goods are perishable to release them to the importer under
bond to secure payment of the appraised value thereof in case they are nally
declared forfeited in favor of the Government.
"For the code expressly prohibits the release under bond of such articles of
prohibited importation. The Government expects no revenue from such banned
articles, since they are not allowed to be imported. Otherwise, the law's prohibition
would be rendered totally nugatory, since such banned articles, which are mostly
luxury items, are in great demand and command sky-high prices assuring great
pro t to the smuggler. The smuggler would have the greatest pro t motive to
wreak havoc upon the currency by purchasing dollars at the highest black market
rates to purchase and bring in these high-pro t luxury items. Should he succeed
in smuggling them in, his venture is a complete success. If he is caught, then all
he has to do is put up a bond for the release of the goods 'to secure payment of
the appraised value thereof' to the Government, and he can still realize a
substantial pro t from the sale of the banned goods thus released to him. All the
measures designed by the Central Bank to strengthen and stabilize our peso and
to check the unregulated ow of foreign exchange from the country with the
ultimate end of setting aright the country's economy and nancial position would
thereby be set at naught." (Geotina vs. Court of Tax Appeals, No. L-33500, August
30, 1971, 40 SCRA 362, 383-384.)

Another issue raised by private respondent is that the instant petition for
certiorari is procedurally defective upon the grounds that the disputed resolution of
March 24, 1971 was already nal and unappealable because of the failure of petitioner
to le a timely motion for reconsideration. Regarding this point, it may be said that if
private respondent meant that the order of March 24, 1971 had become unassailable
and the lapse of fteen days had given it conclusiveness, said contention can not be
sustained because the order complained of is interlocutory, and an interlocutory order
is such that it is always subject to correction and amendment before nal judgment is
rendered in the case.
Private respondent also argues that petitioner has not shown that respondent
court committed grave abuse of discretion or error of jurisdiction in issuing the order
complained of. Under Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, certiorari may issue
not only when the inferior court has acted with grave abuse of discretion, but also when
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 it has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Although a court has jurisdiction
over the subject matter and the parties it has been held that if a court has no power to
give certain kinds of relief, and it acts otherwise, it is acting without jurisdiction (14 Am.
Jur. 2d., p. 786). It has been shown that the trial court could not, under the law and
decisions of this Court, order the release of the forfeited imported foodstuffs, under
bond, and in ordering its release it had acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction.
Private respondent furthermore contends that petitioner had an adequate
remedy, that is appeal. Su ce it to state that a petition for certiorari is the proper
procedure for obtaining a relief from, or review of, an interlocutory order. (14 Am. Jur.
2d., p. 789.)
Private respondent nally urges that the instant petition is defective in that the
copies of the orders subject thereof were not certi ed. This contention has no merit.
The Rules of Court should be liberally construed, for they are intended to secure a
method by which the issues may be properly laid before the court. When those issues
are already clear before the court, the de ciency in the observance of the rules should
not be given undue importance. What is important is that the case is decided upon the
merits and that it should not be allowed to go off on procedural points. (Co Tiamco v.
Diaz, 75 Phil. 672.)
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the questioned resolutions of respondent Court of
Tax Appeals, dated March 24, 1971 and April 19, 1971 in its CTA Case No. 2206
entitled "Eusebio Dichoco, petitioner, versus Commissioner of Customs, respondent"
are annulled and set aside, and the restraining order issued by this Court on May 5,
1971 is made permanent. No pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.
Concepcion, C . J ., Reyes, J.B.L., Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor
and Makasiar, JJ ., concur.
Makalintal, J ., did not take part.

Footnotes
1. Annex 11 of the Answer, p. 207, Record.

2. Resolution of February 3, 1971 in CTA Case No. 2206; Record, p. 37.

3. Memorandum for respondents, pp. 251-258, Record.

4. Annex C of petition, pp. 32-33, Record.

5. Section 1363 (f) of the Revised Administrative Code is now Section 2530 (f) of the Tariff and
Customs Code.
6. See Annexes 15, 16 and 17 to the Answer, pp. 212, 213 and 214, Record.

7. Record, pp. 287-289.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com