Bache & Co v Ruiz

Facts:

Respondent Misael Vera, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, wrote a

letter addressed to respondent Judge Vicencio Ruiz requesting the
issuance of a search warrant against petitioners for violation of the NIRC
and authorizing respondent de Leon to make and file the application for
the same.

In the afternoon of the following day, de Leon and his witness, Logronio,
went to the CFI of Rizal for the application for search warrant. Judge
Ruiz was able to take Logronio’s oath and signed the application. Thus,
the issuance of Search Warrant No. 2-M-70.

Thereafter the BIR agents served the search warrant at petitioner’s

corporate office in Ayala, Makati. Petitioners’ lawyers protested the
search on the ground that no formal complaint, transcript or testimony
was attached. The agents nevertheless proceeded with the search and
yielded 6 boxes of documents.

Petitioner filed a petition with the CFI of Rizal praying that the search
warrant be quashed and be considered null and void. But respondent
Judge dismissed the petition. Consequently, the BIR made tax
assessments against petitioners based on the seized documents.
Hence, this present petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners may object against search and

seizure?

RULING: YES.

Among others, the issue that a corporation is not entitled to protection

against unreasonable search and seizures is being raised in this case.

The Court ruled that although it is of the opinion that an officer of a

corporation which is charged with a violation of a statute of the state of
its creation, nevertheless, they do not wish to be understood as holding
a corporation not entitled to immunity against unreasonable search and
seizures. After all, a corporation is an association of individuals under an
assumed name and with a distinct legal entity. In organizing itself as a
collective body, it waives no constitutional immunities appropriate to
such body. Its property cannot be taken without compensation. It can
only be proceeded against by due process of law, and is protected under
the 4thamendment against unlawful discrimination.

In addition, the Court states, citing the case of Stonehill v. Diokno, the
imlied recognition on the right of a corporation to object against
unreasonable search and seizures, to wit:

“It is well settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by
the party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and that the
objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and
cannot be availed of by third parties. Consequently, petitioners may not
validly invoke object to the use as evidence against them of the
documents, papers and things seized from the offices and premises of
the corporation, since such right belongs exclusively to the corporations,
the whom the seized effects belong, and may not be invoked by the
corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual
capacity.”