Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > October 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17888 October 29, 1968 - RESINS INCORPORATED v. AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17888. October 29, 1968.]

RESINS INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

Lichauco, Picazo & Agcaoili, for Petitioners.

Assistant Solicitor General Jose P. Alejandro, Solicitor Jorge R. Coquia and Central Bank Legal Counsel for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; INDIVIDUAL STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ON THE FLOOR; LEGISLATIVE INTENT NOT NECESSARILY REFLECTED. — Petitioner contends that the bill approved in Congress contained the copulative conjunction ‘and’ between the terms ‘urea’ and `formaldehyde’, and that the members of Congress intended to exempt ‘urea’ and ‘formaldehyde’ separately as essential elements in the manufacture of the synthetic resin glue called ‘urea formaldehyde’ not the latter as a finished product, citing in support of this view the statements made on the floor of the Senate, during the consideration of the bill before said House, by members thereof. But, said individual statements do not necessarily reflect the view of the Senate. Much less do they indicate; the intent of the House of Representatives.

2. ID.; ID.; ENROLLED BILL CONCLUSIVE UPON THE COURTS; REMEDY IN CASE OF MISTAKE IN THE PRINTING OF BILLS. — It is well settled that the enrolled bill is conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by Congress and approved by the President. If there has been any mistake in the printing of the bill before it was certified by the officers of Congress and approved by the Executive - on which we cannot speculate, without jeopardizing the principle of separation of powers and undermining one of the cornerstones of our democratic system — the remedy is by amendment or curative legislation, not by judicial decree.

3. ID.; SEPARATION OF POWERS; DUTY OF THE COURTS TO APPLY THE LAW AS IS. — Nothing is better settled than the first and fundamental duty of courts is to apply the law as they find it, not as they would like it to be. Fidelity to such a task precludes construction or interpretation, unless application is impossible or inadequate without it.

4. ID.; PUBLIC OFFICERS; AUDITOR GENERAL; DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY. — The authority of the Auditor General, in connection with expenditures of the Government is limited to the auditing of expenditures of funds or property pertaining to, or held in trust by, the Government or provinces or municipalities thereof. Such function is limited to a determination of whether there is a law appropriating funds for a given purpose; whether a contract, made by the proper officer, has been entered into in conformity with said appropriation law; whether the goods or services covered by said contract have been delivered or rendered in pursuance of the provisions thereof, as attested to by the proper officer; and whether payment therefor has been authorized by officials of the corresponding department or bureau. If these requirements have been fulfilled, it is the ministerial duty of the Auditor General to approve and pass in audit the voucher and treasury warrant for said payment.

5. TAXATION; REFUND IN THE NATURE OF EXEMPTION EXEMPTING PROVISION STRICTLY CONSTRUED. — There is merit in the contention of the Solicitor General, as counsel for respondent Central Bank, and the Auditor General, that as a refund partakes of a nature of exemption, it cannot be allowed unless granted in the most explicit and categorical language. It has been the constant and uniform holding of this Court, that exemption from taxation is not favored and is never presumed, so that if granted it must be strictly construed against the taxpayer. Affirmatively put, the law frowns on exemption from taxation, hence, an exempting provision should be construed strictissimi juris.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


Petitioner here, as did petitioner in Casco Philippine Chemical Co., Inc. v. Gimenez, 1 would seek a refund 2 from respondent Central Bank on the claim that it was exempt from the margin fee under Republic Act No. 2609 for the importation of urea and formaldehyde, as separate units, used for the production of synthetic glue, of which it was a manufacturer. Since the specific language of the Act speaks of "urea formaldehyde", 3 and petitioner admittedly did import urea and formaldehyde separately, its plea could be granted only if we could construe the above provision of law to read "urea and formaldehyde." In the above Casco decision, we could not see our way clear to doing so. We still cannot see it that way. Hence, this petition must.

Our inability to indulge petitioner in the aforecited Casco petition was made clear by the present Chief Justice. Thus: "Hence, `urea formaldehyde’ is clearly a finished product, which is patently distinct and different from `urea’ and `formaldehyde’, as separate articles used in the manufacture of the synthetic resins known as `urea formaldehyde’. Petitioner contends, however, that the bill approved in Congress contained the copulative conjunction `and’ between the terms `urea’ and `formaldehyde,’ and that the members of Congress intended to exempt `urea’ and `formaldehyde’ separately as essential elements in the manufacture of the synthetic resin glue called `urea formaldehyde’, not the latter as a finished product, citing in support of this view the statements made on the floor of the Senate, during the consideration of the bill before said House, by members thereof. But, said individual statements do not necessarily reflect the view of the Senate. Much less do they indicate the intent of the House of Representatives . . . Furthermore, it is well settled that the enrolled bill — which uses the term `urea formaldehyde’ instead of `urea and formaldehyde’ — is conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by Congress and approved by the President.. If there has been any mistake in the printing of the bill before it was certified by the officers of Congress and approved by the Executive — on which we cannot speculate, without jeopardizing the principle of separation of powers and undermining one of the cornerstones of our democratic system — the remedy is amendment or curative legislation, not by judicial decree."cralaw virtua1aw library

To which we can only add the deference to the scope and implication of the function entrusted by the Constitution to the judiciary leaves us no other alternative. For nothing is better settled than that the first and fundamental duty of courts is to apply the law as they find it, not as they would like it to be. Fidelity to such a task precludes construction or interpretation, unless application is impossible or inadequate without it. 4 Such is not the case in the situation presented here. So we have held in Casco Philippine Chemical Co., Inc. v. Gimenez. We do so again.

Then, again, there is merit in the contention of the Solicitor General, as counsel for respondent Central Bank, and the Auditor General, that as a refund undoubtedly partakes of a nature of an exemption, it cannot be allowed unless granted in the most explicit and categorical language. As was held by us in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Guerrero: 5 "From 1906, in Catholic Church v. Hastings to 1966, in Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. v. Acting Commissioner of Customs, it has been the constant and uniform holding that exemption from taxation is not favored and is never presumed, so that if granted it must be strictly construed against the taxpayer. Affirmatively put, the law frowns on exemption from taxation, hence, an exempting provision should be construed strictissimi juris." Certainly, whatever may be said of the statutory language found in Republic Act 2609, it would be going too far to assert that there was such a clear and manifest intention of legislative will as to compel such a refund.

One last matter. Petitioner would assail as devoid of support in law the action taken by respondent Auditor-General in an endorsement to the respondent Central Bank 6 causing it to overrule its previous resolution and to adopt the view in such indorsement to the effect that the importation of urea and formaldehyde, as separate units, did not come within the purview of the statutory language that granted such exemption. It does not admit of doubt that the respondent Auditor-General’s interpretation amounts to a literal adherence to the statute as enacted. As such, it cannot be said to be contrary to law. As a matter of fact, it is any other view, as is evident from the above, that is susceptible to well-founded criticism, as lacking legal basis. Under the circumstances, the respondent Auditor-General was merely complying with his duty in thus calling the attention of respondent Central Bank.

The limit of his constitutional function was clearly set forth in Guevara v. Gimenez, 7 the opinion being rendered by the present Chief Justice. Thus: "Under our Constitution, the authority of the Auditor General, in connection with expenditures of the Government is limited to the auditing of expenditures of funds or property pertaining to, or held in trust by, the Government or the provinces or municipalities thereof (Article XI, section 2, of the Constitution). Such function is limited to a determination of whether there is a law appropriating funds for a given purpose; whether a contract, made by the proper officer, has been entered into in conformity with said appropriation law; whether the goods or services covered by said contract have been delivered or rendered in pursuance of the provisions thereof, as attested to by the proper officer; and whether payment therefor has been authorized by the officials of the corresponding department or bureau. If these requirements have been fulfilled, it is the ministerial duty of the Auditor General to approve and pass in audit the voucher and treasury warrant for said payment. He has no discretion or authority to disapprove said payment upon the ground that the aforementioned contract was unwise or that the amount stipulated thereon is unreasonable. If he entertains such belief, he may do no more than discharge the duty imposed upon him by the Constitution (Article XI, section 2), `to bring to the attention of the proper administrative officer expenditures of funds or property which, in his opinion, are irregular, unnecessary, excessive or extravagant’. This duty implies a negation of the power to refuse and disapprove payment of such expenditures, for its disapproval, if he had authority therefor, would bring to the attention of the aforementioned administrative officer the reasons for the adverse action thus taken by the General Auditing office, and, hence, render the imposition of said duty unnecessary."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the same way that the Auditor General, by virtue of the above function, which is intended to implement the constitutional mandate that no money can be paid out of the treasury except in the pursuance of appropriation made by law, 8 must carefully see to it that there is in fact such statutory enactment, no refund, which likewise represents a diminution of public funds in the treasury, should be allowed unless the law clearly so provides. The Auditor General would be sadly remiss in the discharge of his responsibility under the Constitution if, having the statute before him, he allows such a refund when, under the terms thereof, it cannot be done. His actuation here cannot be stigmatized as violative of any legal precept; as a matter of fact, it is precisely in accordance with the constitutional mandate.

WHEREFORE, this petition is denied, with costs against petitioner.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J., is on official leave.

Endnotes:



1. L-17931, February 28, 1963.

2. According to the Prayer in the Brief for Petitioner dated March 27, 1961, it had deposited with respondent Central Bank the amount of P52,271.09, exclusive of further sums filed by it since the date of the filing of this petition, representing the margin fee deposited by it on its various importation of urea and formaldehyde as separate articles.

3. Section 2, par. XVIII, Republic Act No. 2609.

4. People v. Mapa, L-22301, August 30, 1967, Pacific Oxygen & Acetylene Co. v. Central Bank, L-21881, March 1, 1968; Dequito v. Lopez, L-27757, March 28, 1968 and Padilla v. City of Pasay, L-24039, June 29, 1968.

5. L-20942, September 22, 1967.

6. 3rd Indorsement dated July 13, 1960.

7. L-17115, Nov. 30, 1962. Cf. Radiowealth, Inc. v. Argregado, 86 Phil. 429 (1950); Phil. Operations, Inc. v. Auditor-General, 94 Phil. 868 (1954) Villegas v. Auditor General, L-21352, Nov. 29, 1966. The rather broad language in Matute v. Hernandez, 66 Phil. (1938) has thus qualified.

8. Par. 2, Section 23, Article VI, Constitution of the Philippines.




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






October-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25153 October 4, 1968 - ANTONIO CLEMENTE v. BERNARDINO PASCUA

  • G.R. No. L-25461 October 4, 1968 - DY CHUN, ET AL. v. JOSE M. MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23319 October 7, 1968 - LUZON GLASS FACTORY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24680 October 7, 1968 - JESUSA VDA. DE MURGA v. JUANITO CHAN

  • G.R. No. L-24797 October 8, 1968 - SOUTHWEST AGRICULTURAL MARKETING CORP. v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25724 October 8, 1968 - FILIPRO, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-25573 October 11, 1968 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. MINERVA I. PIGUING

  • G.R. No. L-18793 October 11, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GETULIO PANTOJA

  • G.R. No. L-25328 October 11, 1968 - NAWASA v. KAISAHAN AT KAPATIRAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA AT KAWANI NG NAWASA

  • G.R. No. L-21488 October 14, 1968 - LUCILA DE LA PAZ v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24802 October 14, 1968 - LIM KIAH v. KAYNEE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25607 October 14, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON NAVARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25332 October 14, 1968 - ARTURO T. UBARRA, ET AL. v. BISCOM EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-25032 and L-25037-38 October 14, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. CEMENT WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21957 October 14, 1968 - LAURO ADAMOS, ET AL. v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25646 October 14, 1968 - GERVACIO VALENCIA v. CARMEN P. CRISOLOGO

  • G.R. No. L-22226 October 14, 1968 - PACIFIC TUG & SALVAGE CORPORATION OF PANAMA v. RAMON O. NOLASCO

  • G.R. No. L-20158 October 14, 1968 - CANDELARIO ALMENDRAS, ET AL. v. AMADO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24139 October 14, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-22504 October 14, 1968 - GUARDIANSHIP OF THE INCOMPETENT FEDERICO GARLIT v. ERLINDA G. GARLIT

  • G.R. No. L-25726 October 21, 1968 - CESAR C. ALTAREJOS v. TEODORO K. MOLO

  • G.R. No. L-23454 October 25, 1968 - EDILBERTO M. RAMOS, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO TORRES

  • G.R. No. L-22290 October 25, 1968 - EMILIANA MOLO-PECKSON, ET AL. v. PEDRO JL. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26242 October 25, 1968 - IN RE: JAMES Y. NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26398 October 25, 1968 - ELPIDIO TALASTAS v. CLEMENCO ABELLA

  • Adm. Case No. 501 October 26, 1968 - IN RE: ZACARIAS MANIGBAS

  • G.R. No. L-29648 October 26, 1968 - FRANCISCO SOCORRO v. NORA VARGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25301 October 26, 1968 - GOLD STAR MINING CO., INC. v. MARTA LIM-JIMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20973 October 26, 1968 - JOSE BELTRAN v. NICANOR CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-26863 October 26, 1968 - INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER MACLEOD, INC. v. CO BAN LING & SONS CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25411 October 26, 1968 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-26332 October 26, 1968 - SWEDISH EAST ASIA CO., LTD. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-27802 October 26, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CENTRAL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24377 October 26, 1968 - FAR EASTERN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. SOCORRO DANCEL VDA. DE MISA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24632 October 26, 1968 - LEXAL LABORATORIES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES WORKERS UNION

  • G.R. No. L-19857 October 26, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAMASO ATIENZA

  • G.R. No. L-24695 October 26, 1968 - B.J. SERVER v. RICARDO SIKAT

  • G.R. No. L-21756 October 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORMAN VIÑAS

  • G.R. No. L-16995 October 28, 1968 - JULIO LUCERO v. JAIME L. LOOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26001 October 29, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27662 October 29, 1968 - MANILA PEST CONTROL, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28469 October 29, 1968 - UNA KIBAD v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16941 October 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO DEL CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17888 October 29, 1968 - RESINS INCORPORATED v. AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19069 October 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADEO PERALTA ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20563 October 29, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. COLLECTOR (NOW COMMISSIONER) OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-21115 October 29, 1968 - LINKOD JUANE, ET AL. v. GREGORIO N. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-22046 October 29, 1968 - CHU HOI HORN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22252 October 29, 1968 - ELPIDIO MARCELO v. REYNALDO MATIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23270 October 29, 1968 - MARIA O. SARMIENTO, ET AL. v. VICTORIANO H. ENDAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23657 October 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN ACOSTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23645 October 29, 1968 - BENJAMIN P. GOMEZ v. ENRICO PALOMAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23893 October 29, 1968 - VILLA REY TRANSIT INC. v. EUSEBIO E. FERRER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25888 October 29, 1968 - TIDEWATER OIL COMPANY v. ADELAIDA C. DIONISIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26047 October 30, 1968 - DONATO MATA v. DELFIN B. FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26981 October 30, 1968 - IN RE: GLORIA GOMEZ v. RUFINO IMPERIAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20398 October 31, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN GIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24530 October 31, 1968 - BOARD OF IMMIGRATION COMMISSIONERS, ET AL. v. BEATO GO CALLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18543 October 31, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GENERAL SALES SUPPLY CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20960-61 October 31, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE ACE LINES, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23708 October 31, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOCORRO MONGAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22403 October 31, 1968 - LUIS CASTRO v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-23309 October 31, 1968 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24756 October 31, 1968 - CITY OF BAGUIO v. FORTUNATO DE LEON