Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1959 > April 1959 Decisions > G.R. No. L-11719 April 29, 1959 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. AUYONG HIAN

105 Phil 561:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-11719. April 29, 1959.]

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Petitioner, v. AUYONG HIAN (HONG WHUA HANG), Respondent.

Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Felicisimo R. Rosete for Petitioner.

Eduardo D. Gutierrez for the Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. PRESIDENT; CABINET; POWER ON VALIDITY OF LICENSE ISSUED BY IMPORT CONTROL COMMISSION. — The Cabinet may under Section 2 of Republic Act 650 pass on the validity of any license that may be issued by the Import Control Commission subject to such action as may be taken by the President, and it is only the latter on appeal who can determine the validity of any license that may be issued by the Import Control Commission.

2. ID.; MAY ACT THRU THE CABINET; LIMITATION OF THE LATTER’S POWER. — The President can act through his Cabinet and the acts of the latter may be considered as those of the former unless they are disapproved. But while the Cabinet acting for the President, can pass on the validity of a license issued by the Import Control Commission, that power cannot be arbitrarily exercised. The action must be founded on good ground or reason and must not be capricious or whimsical.

3. LICENSE; IMPORTATION; CANCELLATION AFTER SHIPMENT. — If it appears that a license issued to an importer to import certain goods is cancelled on the only ground that it does not bear any expiry date even if the importation had already been made and the shipment had already reached the port of Manila, the power of cancellation by the Cabinet would be improperly exercised. Had the license been cancelled on that ground before the importation had been effected, the same may be justified, for indeed a license as a rule must be limited in point of time, but not when the importation has been accomplished and the importer had made commitments with the dealer and assumed other obligations incident thereto.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


On June 12, 1953, respondent was issued by the Import Control Commission License No. 16679 giving him authority to import goods under "no dollar remittance basis." On the strength of said license, he effected the importation of old newspapers in four shipments: the first in July, 1953, the second in September, 1953, the third in May, 1954 and the fourth in November, 1954. The last shipment arrived in Manila on November 7, 1954 and the same was seized by the customs authorities on the ground that the importation was made without the license required by Central Circular No. 45. While the seizure case was pending before the Collector of Customs, the President of the Philippines, acting through his Cabinet, in a meeting held on January 26, 1955, cancelled the aforesaid License No. 16679 on the ground that it was illegally issued "in that no fixed date of expiration is stipulated.

After considering the case relative to the seizure of the shipment, the Collector of Customs found that the same was not covered by a valid license as required by Central Bank Circular No. 45 and, consequently, he decreed its forfeiture to the Government. Not satisfied with his decision, respondent appealed to the Commissioner of Customs, who affirmed the decision of the Collector of Customs. In due time, respondent appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals by filing a petition for review. The Court of Tax Appeals, after due hearing, rendered decision reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Customs and ordering the cancellation of the surety bond filed in substitution of the shipment. This is an appeal from said decision.

It appears that the shipment in question was imported by respondent on the strength of Import License No. 16679 issued by the Import Control Commission on June 12, 1953 under Republic Act No. 650. The shipment arrived in Manila on November 7, 1954 and immediately was seized by the customs authorities on the ground that it is not covered by a license as required by Central Bank Circular No. 45. It also appears that after said shipment arrived in Manila and while the seizure case was pending investigation by the Commissioner of Customs, the Cabinet in a meeting held on January 26, 1955, cancelled the aforesaid license on the only ground that "no fixed date of expiration is stipulated therein." The issue now to be determined is, is this cancellation justified.

It is not disputed that the Cabinet may under the law pass on the validity of any license that may be issued by the Import Control Commission. It may also action as may be taken by the President. This is clearly inferred from Section 2, Republic Act No. 650 which provides that the import license therein authorized shall be issued by the President through any instrumentality he may choose to assist him in carrying out the provisions of said Act and that such instrumentality can question the validity of the license so issued, the only limitation being that the same may be appealed to the President. In other words, it is only the President, on appeal, who can determine the validity of any license that may be issued by the Import Control Commission. It may also be admitted that the President can act through his Cabinet and that the acts of the latter may be considered as those of the former unless they are disapproved. 1 But while the Cabinet, acting for the President, can pass on the validity of a license issued by the Import Control Commission, that power cannot be arbitrarily exercised. The action must be founded on good ground or reason and must not be capricious or whimsical. This principle is so clear to require further elaboration.

Was this power properly exercised in the instant case. The answer must of necessity be in the negative, for it appears that the license issued to respondent to import the shipment in question was cancelled on the only ground that it does not bear any expiry date even if the importation had already been made and the shipment had already reached the port of Manila. Had the license been cancelled on the ground before the importation had been effected, the same may be justified, for indeed a license as a rule must be limited in point of time, but not when the importation has been accomplished and the importer had made commitments with the dealer and assumed other obligations incident thereto. In fact, if the cancellation were to prevail, the importer would stand to lose the license fee he paid amounting to P12,000.00, plus the value of the shipment amounting to P21,820.00. This is grossly inequitable. Moreover, "it has been held in a great number of cases that a permit or license may not arbitrarily be revoked . . . where, on the faith of it, the owner has incurred material expense." 2

It has also been held that "where the licensee has acted under the license in good faith, and has incurred expense in the execution of it, by making valuable improvements or otherwise, it is regarded in equity as an executed contract and substantially an easement, the revocation of which would be a fraud on the licensee, and therefore the licensor is estopped to revoke it, . . . . It has also been held that the license cannot be revoked without reimbursing the licensee for his expenditures or otherwise placing him in status quo." (53 C. J. S., 816-817)

Having reached the conclusion that the license of respondent has been improperly cancelled, there is no need for him to obtain another license under Central Bank Circular No. 15. Consequently, the seizure of said shipment is unjustified.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without costs.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Labrador and Endencia, JJ., concur.

Bengzon, J., concurs in the result.

Endnotes:



1. Villena v. Secretary of Interior, 67 Phil., 451, 453; Mare Donnelly & Associates, Inc. v. Agregado, Et Al., 95 Phil., 142.

2. Francis Dainese v. The Board of Public Works of the District of Columbia, 91 U. S., 580, 23 L. ed. 251; Pratt v. City and Country of Denver, Et Al., 209 P. 508; Williams v. Smith, 230 P. 395; See also Williams v. Smith, 238 P. 40; City of Lowell v. Amadee Archambault, 1 L. R. A. (NS) 458; Lerch v. City of Duluth, 92 N. W. 1116; City of Buffalo v. Chadeayne, 31 N. E. 442; Dobbins v. City of Los Angeles, 49 L. ed., 169.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1959 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12409 April 1, 1959 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. TAN BEED CHIU

    105 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. L-11993 April 13, 1959 - CONSORCIO MEDRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. L-12301 April 13, 1959 - RIO Y COMPANIA v. DATU JOLKIPLI

    105 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. L-12302 April 13, 1959 - RIO Y COMPANIA v. ELVIRA MASLOG

    105 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. L-12471 April 13, 1959 - ROSARIO L. DE BRAGANZA v. FERNANDO F. DE VILLA ABRILLE

    105 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. L-12828 April 13, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENA C. FOSTER

    105 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. L-12240 April 15, 1959 - BORROMEO BROS. ESTATE v. COURT OF APPEALS

    105 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. L-9757 April 16, 1959 - SVERIGES ANGFARTYGS ASSURANS FORENING v. QUA CHEE GAN

    105 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-11922 April 16, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO MAMATIK

    105 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-14043 April 16, 1959 - BELEN UY TAYAG, ET AL. v. ROSARIO YUSECO, ET AL.

    105 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. L-11028 April 17, 1959 - LAO CHIT v. SECURITY BANK & TRUST CO., ET AL.

    105 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. L-11166 April 17, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO OLAES

    105 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. L-11557 April 17, 1959 - IGNACIO E. RECIO v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    105 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. L-12593 April 17, 1959 - BLUE BAR COCONUT COMPANY v. CLEMENTE C. LUGOD

    105 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. L-12940 April 17, 1959 - NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS v. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL.

    105 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-12300 April 24, 1959 - VENANCIO POTENTE v. SAULOG TRANSIT, INC.

    105 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. L-7973 April 27, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CENON SERRANO, ET AL.

    105 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. L-8228 April 29, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR M. CAMERINO

    105 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. L-11154 April 29, 1959 - TOMAS GROCERY v. DELGADO BROTHERS, INC., ET AL.

    105 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. L-11260 April 29, 1959 - OCAMPO v. MARIA GARCIA

    105 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. L-11426 April 29, 1959 - IN RE: YU SOON SENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    105 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. L-11719 April 29, 1959 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. AUYONG HIAN

    105 Phil 561

  • G.R. Nos. L-11891 & L-11913 April 29, 1959 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ETERNIT CORPORATION

    105 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. L-11977 April 29, 1959 - LEONARDO AZARCON, ET AL. v. VICTOR EUSEBIO

    105 Phil 569

  • G.R. Nos. L-11997 & L-12042 April 29, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SY BENG GUAT

    105 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-12140 April 29, 1959 - IN RE: ALFONSO TAN SU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    105 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-12156 April 29, 1959 - MANILA TRADING AND SUPPLY CO. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    105 Phil 581

  • G.R. No. L-12732 April 29, 1959 - PABLO SOTTO v. ABELARDO VALENZUELA

    105 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. L-4467 April 30, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTER DEL ROSARIO MURRAY

    105 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. L-10378 April 30, 1959 - ANDRESA FUERTES v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    105 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. L-10519 April 30, 1959 - EUGENIA R. MENDOZA v. SOLOMON S. ABRERA, ET AL.

    105 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. L-11189 April 30, 1959 - IN RE: MANUEL SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    105 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. L-11291 April 30, 1959 - JOSE DEL CASTILLO v. DELFIN S. SIAN

    105 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. L-11638 April 30, 1959 - APOLONIO PANER v. GAVINO SEPULVEDA, ET AL.

    105 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-11716 April 30, 1959 - ENCARNACION BACANI v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL.

    105 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. L-11936 April 30, 1959 - ATKINS, KROLL & CO., INC. v. CELIA REYES, ET AL.

    105 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. L-11995 April 30, 1959 - ROSENDO LEQUIGAN v. PEDRO R. KATALBAS

    105 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. L-12029 April 30, 1959 - NATIVIDAD LOPEZ v. BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO., ET AL.

    105 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. L-12309 April 30, 1959 - JUANA ALONZO, ET AL. v. VALENTINA ROSARIO, ET AL.

    105 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. L-12515 April 30, 1959 - JUANA FARIÑAS VDA. DE BACLIG v. EXTOR SERRANO

    105 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. L-12580 April 30, 1959 - TOMASA AGUILAR, ET AL. v. EMILIANO CAOAGDAN

    105 Phil 661

  • G.R. No. L-12668 April 30, 1959 - LIM SIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    105 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. L-13063 April 30, 1959 - FELIX DE VILLA v. CESARIO A. FABRICANTE, ET AL.

    105 Phil 672