ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10649 March 1, 1916 - BENITO AFRICA v. KURT W. GRONKE

    034 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 10838 March 1, 1916 - ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL. v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 11148 March 1, 1916 - LIM BUN SU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10563 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BONIFACIO

    034 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 11262 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ

    034 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 7676 March 3, 1916 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. ESTEBAN ARCENAS

    034 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 10265 March 3, 1916 - EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN v. ISIDORO SANTOS

    034 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10918 March 4, 1916 - WILLIAM FRESSEL ET AL. v. MARIANO UY CHACO SONS & COMPANY

    034 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10971 March 4, 1916 - BEAUMONT & TENNEY v. BERNARD HERSTEIN

    034 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 11216 March 6, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    034 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 8473 March 7, 1916 - SANTIAGO YASON v. JULIO MAGSAKAY

    034 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 10437 March 7, 1916 - JESUSA LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO

    034 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 10729 March 7, 1916 - UY PO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 10793 March 17, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO

    034 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 11196 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO YUMUL

    034 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 11321 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SY BUN KUE

    034 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 10051 March 9, 1916 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. SWEDISH EAST ASIATIC CO.

    034 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 11115 March 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE YU TUICO

    034 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10297 March 11, 1916 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK ET AL.

    034 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 8135 March 13, 1916 - FRED J. LEGARE ET AL. v. ANTONIA CUERQUES

    034 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 10449 March 13, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL

    034 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8092 March 14, 1916 - RUFINA BONDAD ET AL. v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL.

    034 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 10578 March 14, 1916 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. MAURICIA SOTTO

    034 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 11000 March 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MENDIETA

    034 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 9497 March 15, 1916 - SIMONA GALICIA v. TEODORA NAVARRO

    034 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 11467 March 15, 1916 - NG HIAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 10462 March 16, 1916 - ANDREA DUMASUG v. FELIX MODELO

    034 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 9164 March 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VY BO TEC

    034 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 10354 March 17, 1916 - FELIPE DORADO v. AGRIPINO VIRIÑA

    034 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 10718 March 17, 1916 - United States v. Ramon FERRER

    034 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 11464 March 17, 1916 - VICTOR BIUNAS v. BENITO MORA

    034 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 8954 March 21, 1916 - DOROTEA CABANG v. MARTIN DELFINADO

    034 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9340 March 21, 1916 - MARGARITO PENALOSA LO INTONG v. ISIDORA JAMITO ET AL.

    034 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 10889 March 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MARTINEZ

    034 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 11098 March 21, 1916 - CO PAIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 11154 March 21, 1916 - E. MERRITT v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    034 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 8979 March 22, 1916 - ADRIANO PANLILIO v. PROVICIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA ET AL.

    034 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 10978 March 22, 1916 - SIXTO MANLAGNIT v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO

    034 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 11315 March 22, 1916 - DIONISION CHANCO v. CARLOS IMPERIAL

    034 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 8941 March 23, 1916 - GUILLERMO VELOSO v. LORENZO BECERRA

    034 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 9984 March 23, 1916 - PETRONA JAVIER v. LAZARO OSMEÑA

    034 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10769 March 23, 1916 - RAYMUNDO MELLIZA v. F. W. TOWLE

    034 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 11119 March 23, 1916 - JUANA RIVERA v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 8642 March 24, 1916 - STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. ANTONIO BABASA ET AL.

    034 Phil 354

  • G.R. Nos. 8765 & 10920 March 24, 1916 - PEDRO DIMAGIBA v. ANSELMO DIMAGIBA

    034 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 8806 March 24, 1916 - ALEJANDRO BALDEMOR v. EUSEBIA MALANGYAON

    034 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 9919 March 24, 1916 - ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL.

    034 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 9974 March 24, 1916 - CANG YUI v. HENRY GARDENER

    034 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 10560 March 24, 1916 - IN RE: Tan Po Pic v. JUAN L. JAVIER

    034 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 10624 March 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 10663 March 24, 1916 - JOSEPH E. FOX v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11384 March 24, 1916 - ANTONIO GUEVARA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 10045 March 25, 1916 - PHIL. RAILWAY COMPANY v. WILLIAM T. NOLTING

    034 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 10777 March 25, 1916 - ALEJANDRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN

    034 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 11157 March 25, 1916 - POLICARPIO RAMIREZ v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO

    034 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 10510 March 27, 1916 - LEONCIO ZARATE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    034 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 10580 March 27, 1916 - TEODORO DE LOS REYES v. MAXIMINO PATERNO

    034 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 11607 March 27, 1916 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV. CO. (LTD.) v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS

    034 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 9845 March 28, 1916 - J. C. RUYMANN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    034 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 10054 March 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL

    034 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 10264 March 28, 1916 - CHOA TEK HEE v. PHIL. PUBLISHING CO.

    034 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 10595 March 28, 1916 - TEODORO KALAMBAKAL v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL.

    034 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 10810 March 28, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO v. GABRIEL TAVORA

    034 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10902 March 28, 1916 - SERAPIA DE JESUS v. PABLO PALMA

    034 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 11156 March 28, 1916 - IN RE: DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO

    034 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 11363 March 28, 1916 - BERNARDO MOLDEN v. INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 11366 March 28, 1916 - INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GOERGE R. HARVEY

    034 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9550 March 29, 1916 - BACHRACH GARAGE v. HOTCHKISS & CO.

    034 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 10019 March 29, 1916 - THOMAS A. WALLACE v. PUJALTE & CO.

    034 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS Ex Rel. MUN. OF CARDONA v. MUN. OF BINANGONAN ET AL.

    034 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 10474 March 29, 1916 - FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA v. SOLEDAD OSORIO

    034 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 10493 March 29, 1916 - FREDERICK L. COHEN v. BENGUET COMMERCIAL CO. (Ltd.)

    034 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 10751 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIA CABALLERO Y APARICI

    034 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 10778 March 29, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    034 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 11008 March 29, 1916 - MARIANO REAL ET AL. v. CESAREO MALLARI

    034 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11068 March 29, 1916 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. HAROLD M. PITT

    034 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 11274 March 29, 1916 - RAFAELA DALMACIO v. ALBERTO BARRETTO

    034 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 11585 March 29, 1916 - PABLO PERLAS v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    034 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 8697 March 30, 1916 - M. GOLDSTEIN v. ALIJANDRO ROCES ET AL.

    034 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 8988 March 30, 1916 - HARTFORD BEAUMONT v. MAURO PRIETO, ET AL.

    041 Phil 670

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 10624   March 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS<br /><br />034 Phil 385

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 10624. March 24, 1916. ]

    THE MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Defendant-Appellant.

    Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellant.

    William A. Kincaid and Thomas L. Hartigan for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    CUSTOMS DUTIES; FREE ENTRY OF RAILROAD MATERIALS. — Held: That "equipment" admitted free of duty under Act No. 1510, as amended by Act No. 1905, for a particular branch of the Manila railroad systems, may be used upon any other branch of said system until the entire system is completed and equipped, without the necessity of paying duty. The various branches of the Manila Railroad Co. are considered as but one system; equipment for one : "branch" is equipment for the "system" and may be admitted free of duty until the system is fully constructed and equipped.


    D E C I S I O N


    JOHNSON, J. :


    It appears from the record that the Manila Railroad Company imported a locomotive into the Philippine Islands for the purpose of equipping its railroad. The locomotive arrived on the steamship Fernando Poo on the 11th of February, 1914. An application for free entry was made on the proper customs form and said locomotive was passed free of duty under section 10 [section 1, No. 10] of Act no. 1510. The locomotive was assembled and given its trial on the 28th of April, 1914. On the 1st of May, 1914, it was put into regular service, running on the Manila-Antipolo run until the 15th of June, 1914. From that date until the day of the hearing of the protest, it has been used continuously on the Manila-San Pablo-Lucena run.

    In September, 1914, the Insular Collector of Customs ordered a reliquidation of said locomotive (entry) and assessed duty thereon under paragraph 191-a of the Philippine Tariff Law of 1909. Against that assessment the plaintiff protested, after having paid the duties imposed, under protest. After hearing the plaintiff on said protest, the Honorable B. Herstein, Insular Collector of Customs, denied said protest. From that decision the plaintiff appealed to the Court of First Instance where, after hearing the evidence adduced by the respective parties, the Honorable James A. Ostrand, judge, rendered the following decision:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The evidence shows that the locomotive is a Kitson Meyer engine purchased for service on the Antipolo hill section and for banking purposes on the Calamba-San Pablo and Luta-Batangas sections. It arrived in Manila February 11, 1914, and was then passed free of duty under railway free entry No. 601. On the 1st of May it was put into regular service on the Manila -Antipolo branch, where it remained until June 15. From that date until the day of the hearing of the protest in this case it was used on the Manila-San Pablo- Lucena run. In the month of September the defendant ordered the reliquidation of the entry of the locomotive and assessed duties thereon, which were paid under protest, and which gave rise to the present case.

    "The plaintiff claims the right of free entry for the locomotive under paragraph 10 section 1 of Act No. 1510, which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "‘All material imported into the Philippine Archipelago for the construction and equipment of the railways under taken by the grantee pursuant to authority conferred by this concessionary contract or grant shall be admitted free of duty, under such rules and regulations as shall be prescribed by the Philippine Government: Provided, That this provisions shall not extend or apply to any portion of such lines, or to any material or supplies therefor, after the same shall be constructed and equipped: Provided further, That if any material so admitted free of duty shall not in fact be used for the construction and equipment of said railroads the duty shall become payable thereon whenever it is ascertained that it has been used or disposed of or is held for other purposes: And provided further, That this exemption shall extend to port charges upon vessels whose entire cargo consists of material for the construction or equipment of the railways, and to such proportion of the prescribed port charges on other vessels as the tonnage of material for such construction or equipment may bear to the tonnage of the entire cargo vessel.’

    "The defendant maintains that the lines on which the locomotive has been running since its important have for some time been in full commercial operation and therefore must be considered ’constructed and equipped’ within the meaning of the paragraph quoted. It is argued that if a different interpretation is placed upon the law the railroad company could keep its lines partly under construction indefinitely in order to avoid payment of duties.

    "Though the matter is not free from doubt, the court is of the opinion that the plaintiff’s protest should have been sustained. The railway lines on which the locomotive is being used are parts of the lines provided for in Act No. 1510 as amended by Act No. 1905, and a time limit is there fixed for their completion. They are treated as a whole systems rather than as separate lines independent of each other; the railroad company is under no obligation to commence or complete construction at any particular point before commencing or completing other sections, and the only limitation as to time of completion refers to the system as a whole. Rolling stock given free entry and originally put into service on one section may, undoubtedly, later on be transferred to another section of the system and maybe used on any section or line of the same without liability to reliquidation or assessment for customs duties; its use cannot very well be confined to any special section of the system. It would seem to follow logically that no matter whether the rolling stock is purchased for the equipment of a particular section, the construction of which is already completed, or whether it is expressly designated as for the use of the whole system, including the incomplete parts thereof, it should be admitted free of duty if put into service before the expiration of the time limit fixed for the equipment of the lines and if necessary for the proper handling of the traffic of the system. This does not, of course, apply to importation for replacing original equipment, and some little difficulty may, perhaps, be experienced in properly classifying the importations with reference to this point, but such difficulties are by no means insurmountable and are not nearly as serious as those presenting themselves if the contention of the defendant is carried to its logical conclusions. The time limit fixed for construction and equipment would prevent the railroad company from enjoying the privilege of free entry indefinitely. (In this connection see penultimate paragraph of Commission Resolution No. 14, April 4, 1910.)

    "The court takes judicial notice of the fact that neither one of the railroad systems designated as ’northern lines’ and southern lines’ and described in paragraph 5 of section 1 of Act No. 1905 have as yet been fully constructed, and that the five years’ extention of the time for the construction and equipment had not expired at the time the locomotive in question was placed in service.

    "Wherefore, the decision of the Insular Collector of Customs hereinbefore mentioned is hereby reversed, and it is ordered that the customs duties paid for the locomotive in question be refunded to the plaintiff. No costs will be allowed. So ordered."cralaw virtua1aw library

    From said decision of the Court of First Instance the defendant appealed to this court and made several assignments of error.

    Without giving our conformity to all of the reasoning of the court a quo, and without discussing at this time the assignments of error presented by the appellant, we find that the lower court had stated the facts correctly and has arrived at a correct conclusion under the law. Therefore, without prejudice to the writing of a decision hereafter in which may be discussed the facts and the law more in extenso, the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed with costs. So ordered.

    Torres, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    Moreland, J., dissents.

    G.R. No. 10624   March 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS<br /><br />034 Phil 385




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED