DOJ Opinion No. 069, s. 1992

DOJ OPINION NO. 069 , s. 1992 June 3, 1992 Mr. Rogelio A. Dayan General Manager Philippine Ports Authority Marsman Bldg., South Harbor Port Area, Manila Sir : This has reference to your request for a "definitive interpretation" of the second paragraph of Section 2307 of the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended by Executive Order No. 38, dated August 6, 1986, which reads: "Upon payment of the fine as determined by the district collector which shall be in an amount not less than twenty percentum (20%) not more than eighty percentum (80%) of the landed cost of the seized imported article or the F. O. B. value of the seized article for export, or payment of the domestic market value, the property shall be forthwith released and all liabilities which may or might attach to the property by virtue of the offense which was the occasion of the seizure and all liability which might have been incurred under any cash deposit or bond given by the owner or agent in respect to such property shall thereupon be deemed to be discharged." prcd Your specific query is whether or not the release of cargo pursuant to the abovequoted legal provision discharges such cargo from the payment of storage charges otherwise collectible by the lessee of storage facilities under its contract. Your Office, as well as shippers and consignees, is of the views that seized cargoes released by the Bureau of Customs are discharged from all forms of liabilities. On the other hand, the lessee of PPA's storage facilities at the Port of Manila believes otherwise, on the argument that under the lease agreement executed with your Office, the lessee is authorized to charge and collect storage fees on cargoes kept in port beyond the free storage period, except for those cargoes exempted by law, and that such fees may not be waived by a general legislation. This Department is constrained to decline from rendering opinion on the matter. The primary function of providing legal services, including rendition of legal opinions, to government owned and/or controlled corporations pertain to the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, which by explicit provision of law, is the legal adviser of government-owned and controlled corporations without exception. In fact, the law makes it the duty of all said corporations to refer to said Office all important legal questions for opinion, advice and determination (Sec. 1, R.A. No. 3838; Sec. 1, P.D. No. 1415; Sec. of Justice Opn. No. 36, s. 1971). LLjur Besides, it is the Bureau of Customs which is tasked to implement the Tariff and Customs Code. By settled policy and practice, the Secretary of Justice does not render opinion on matters falling within the primary jurisdiction of another office or agency over which he possesses no revisory authority (Sec. of Justice Ops. No. 1, s. 1983; Nos. 6 and 11 s. 1987; and No. 140, s. 1988). It is suggested that you raise your query with either of the abovestated agencies. Very truly yours, (SGD.) EDUARDO G. MONTENEGRO Acting Secretary