Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1981 > December 1981 Decisions > G.R. No. L-27810 December 14, 1981 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONSOLIDATED TERMINALS, INC.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-27810. December 14, 1981.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (for the Bureau of Public Highways), Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONSOLIDATED TERMINALS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Frine C. Zaballero and Solicitor Rosalio A. de Leon, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Sales, Palileo and Simbulan, for Defendant-Appellee.

SYNOPSIS


Plaintiff imported bridge materials intended for certain government projects and deposited the same with defendant’s warehouses. Plaintiff succeeded in having withdrawn said materials without paying storage charges to defendant by reason of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXIV in Civil Case No. 57711 after posting the corresponding bond. After the parties had submitted a Stipulation of Facts wherein plaintiff claimed exemption from paying defendant storage charges under Section 3005,(a) of Republic Act No. 1937, the trial court rendered judgment ordering the plaintiff to pay defendant storage charges P95,319.72 with legal interest. Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the exemption of government importations from payment of storage charges obtains only where such importations are stored in government warehouses in accordance with the provisions of Section 3001 in relation to Section 3003 (a) of the Tariff and Customs Code; otherwise, if it were to be exempted from paying said charges to defendant, the result will be deprivation of property without due process of law or naked confiscation. Judgment appealed from affirmed in toto.


SYLLABUS


1. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE; INTERPRETATION; STORAGE CHARGES OF GOVERNMENT IMPORTATIONS; EXEMPT ONLY IN GOVERNMENT WAREHOUSES. — The full meaning of the provisions of Section 3005 (a) of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 1937) can be understood only if it is related to Section 3001 of the same Code, under which exemption of government importation from storage charges obtains only where such importations are stored in government warehouses. To remove any doubt that this interpretation is correct, Section 3005 (a) of Republic Act No. 1937 has been amended by Presidential Decree No. 34 [1972] so that it now reads as follows: "Sec. 3005. General Provisions. — a. Articles, supplies or materials imported by any branch of the Philippine Government shall be subject to storage charges."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; A CASE OF; EXEMPTION OF GOVERNMENT IMPORTATIONS FROM STORAGE CHARGES IN PRIVATE WAREHOUSES; CASE AT BAR. — Where defendant’s business is warehousing for profit, it must necessarily impose storage charges on articles deposited with it. If the Republic of the Philippines were to be exempted from paying storage charges to the defendant, the result will be deprivation of property without due process of law or naked confiscation. This is not the Rule of Law.


D E C I S I O N


ABAD SANTOS, J.:


Civil Case No. 57711 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXIV, was initiated by the Republic of the Philippines against Consolidated Terminals, Inc. in order to obtain the immediate release of imported bridge materials even without prior payment of storage charges. The defendant answered with a counterclaim for the payment of storage charges plus legal interest thereon.

After the parties had submitted a Stipulation of Facts, the trial court rendered the following judgment:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and ordering plaintiff to pay unto the defendant the amount of Ninety Five Thousand Three Hundred Nineteen Pesos and Seventy Two Centavos (P95,319.72) with legal interests thereon computed from the time this judgment becomes final, until full satisfaction thereof.

"The writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issued on July 20, 1964 is hereby dissolved."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Republic of the Philippines appealed the judgment and since it involves a purely legal question, it was sent to this Court for resolution.

If the instant case had been brought before Us on a petition for review on certiorari under R.A. No. 5440, We would have summarily dismissed it for utterly lacking in merit. But the appeal was perfected on May 26, 1966, and at that time R.A. No. 5440 had not yet been enacted. Hence, We shall resolve the appeal in a signed decision instead of issuing a minute resolution.chanrobles law library

The Stipulation of Facts reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A. THE PARTIES ADMIT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Their respective capacities to sue and be sued;.

2. During all times material to this action, defendant was and still is operating, under its Customs Bonded Warehouse Permit issued by the Collector of Customs, Port of Manila, a customs bonded warehouse located inside the Lusteveco Terminal, Second Street, Port Area, Manila;

3. Sometime in 1962, the Bureau of Public Highways imported Development Loan Fund financed bridge materials, consisting of 368 packages of structural steel and miscellaneous items, earmarked for the following government projects, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Palagao Bridge at Cagayan Province Bonot Diut Bridge at Zamboanga del Norte Dequis Bridge at Zamboanga del Norte Baracbac Bridge at Pangasinan Lintukan Bridge at Cotabato Butalo Bridge at Cotabato Manguto Bridge at Cebu;

4. That said bridge materials arrived in the Port of Manila on November 23, 1962 on board the vessel S/S ‘MELAMPUS’, Reg. No. 1686, landed ship-side and transferred to defendant’s warehouse for storage and safekeeping;

5. That since November 24, 1962, said bridge materials remained in storage in defendant’s warehouse until July 27, 1964 when the Bureau of Public Highways succeeded in having the same withdrawn without paying storage charges therefor by reason of that Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction dated July 20, 1964 issued by the Honorable, Judge Jose L. Moya, and after posting a bond in the amount of P80,000.00 pursuant to the order of the same Court dated July 25, 1964;

6. That prior to the withdrawal of the said bridge materials, the defendant has been charging, as it continues to charge, a storage fee of P0.50 per revenue ton on cargoes transferred to it under the flexible and/or selective system or for deposit under warehousing entries, a transfer fee of P2.00, and a flat rate of P2.00 per ton for handling in and out of its warehouse even before the adoption by the Bureau of Customs on December 26, 1963 of the rules and rates prescribed under Customs Memorandum Order No. 130-63, a thermofax copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "A" ;

7. That the plaintiff had been billed by the defendant in accordance with the aforesaid rates as evidenced by the attached true copies of warehousing charges marked as Annexes ‘B’, ‘B-1’, ‘B-2’, ‘B-3’, ‘B-4’, ‘B-5’, ‘B-6’, all in the total amount of P95,319.74;

8. That plaintiff’s reluctance to pay defendant its storage charges on the former’s importations for its uses and purposes is supported by the opinion of the Acting Collector of Customs as expressed in said official’s letters to the defendant dated April 17, 1963 and July 3, 1963, true copies of which are hereto attached as Annexes "C" and "C-1", respectively. A copy of another correspondence by the Commissioner of Public Highways addressed to the Collector of Customs dated April 5, 1963 is hereto attached as Annex "C-2" and made an integral part hereof; and,chanrobles law library : red

9. That the request of the Acting Collector of Customs as expressed in his letter to the defendant dated April 17, 1963 which is Annex "C" hereof, was declined by the latter in a letter to the former dated May 16, 1963 for the reasons stated therein, a true copy thereof being hereto attached as Annex "D."

"B. THE PARTIES AGREE:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That the only issue left for the determination of this Honorable Court is whether or not the importation of the plaintiff for its uses and purposes, which were stored in the private warehouse of the defendant, is exempt from the payment of storage charges."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Republic of the Philippines claims that it is exempt from paying storage charges to the defendant by virtue of the provisions of Section 3005 (a) of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 1937) which stipulates:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Section 3005. General Provision. —

a. Articles, supplies or materials imported by any branch of the Philippine Government, except those imported by Philippine government entities which are intended for commercial or profit-making purposes, shall be exempt from storage charges: Provided, That whenever such consignments shall have been imported by other than the Philippine Government or branches thereof, or for sale thereto, storage shall be charged thereon as hereinbefore provided."cralaw virtua1aw library

While it is true that the above-quoted provision appears to support the contention of the plaintiff, its full meaning can be understood only if it is related to Section 3001 of the same Code which defines "storage charge" as follows:cralawnad

"Section 3001. Definition. — Storage charge is the amount assessed on articles for storage in customs premises, cargo sheds and warehouses of the government. The owner, consignee or agent of either, of the articles, is liable for this charge."cralaw virtua1aw library

Accordingly, the exemption of government importations from storage charges obtains only where such importations are stored in government warehouses. Upon the other hand, the defendant’s business is warehousing for profit and it must necessarily impose storage charges on articles deposited with it. If the Republic of the Philippines were to be exempted from paying storage charges to the defendant, the result will be deprivation of property without due process of law or naked confiscation. This is not the Rule of Law.

To remove any doubt that Our interpretation is correct, Section 3005(a) of R.A. No. 1937 has been amended by P.D. No. 34 [1972] so that it now reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Section 3005. General Provisions. —

a. Articles, supplies or materials imported by any branch of the Philippine Government shall be subject to storage charges."cralaw virtua1aw library

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby dismissed and the judgment of the lower court is affirmed in toto. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Aquino, Concepcion Jr., De Castro, Ericta and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J. (Chairman), took no part.




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






December-1981 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 58345 December 9, 1981 - FBA AIRCRAFT v. SEGUNDO ZOSA

  • A.M. No. 2162-MJ December 14, 1981 - AGUILAR INTEGRATED NATIONAL POLICE v. ANASTACIO ZAMUCO

  • A.M. No. P-2266-A December 14, 1981 - LORENZA M. DE LABACO v. NORBERTO O. PARALE

  • A.M. No. P-2443 December 14, 1981 - R.M. SALAZAR JR. CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. RODOLFO M. ESPINELI

  • G.R. No. L-27810 December 14, 1981 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONSOLIDATED TERMINALS, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-28102 December 14, 1981 - ELIAS L. PENACO v. ZOILO H. RUAYA

  • G.R. No. L-30621 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE ORPILLA

  • G.R. No. L-31403 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACOBITO MARQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-31694 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO D. ROSALES

  • G.R. No. L-31871 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CEFERINO T. MEDRANA

  • G.R. No. L-32944 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO C. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-33609 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS G. RUIZ

  • G.R. No. L-36554 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVITO AGUEL

  • G.R. Nos. L-41493 & L-41494 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO VILLAMOR

  • G.R. No. L-42900 December 14, 1981 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP. v. GUARDSON LOOD

  • G.R. No. L-46371 December 14, 1981 - AMPARO SANTOS v. FELISA DE LA FUENTE SAMSON

  • G.R. No. L-48605 December 14, 1981 - DOMNA N. VILLAVERT v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-51539 December 14, 1981 - SUMMIT GUARANTY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-52196 December 14, 1981 - CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-53406 December 14, 1981 - NATIONAL UNION OF BANK EMPLOYEES v. MINISTER OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-54335 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMANUEL V. FELIPE

  • G.R. No. L-56314 December 14, 1981 - ANITA M. SEARES v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO

  • G.R. No. L-57205 December 14, 1981 - ADORACION F. VDA. DE DANAN v. FELIPE V. BUENCAMINO

  • G.R. No. 56704 December 18, 1981 - PETROPHIL CORPORATION v. BLAS OPLE

  • A.M. No. 543-MC December 19, 1981 - ANGELA L. DAILAY-PAPA v. BEN ALMORA

  • A.M. No. 2026 December 19, 1981 - NENITA DE VERA SUROZA v. REYNALDO P. HONRADO

  • A.M. No. P-2529 December 19, 1981 - VICENTE TO v. ALFREDO DISTOR

  • G.R. No. L-31429 December 19, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSCOE G. DABAN

  • G.R. No. L-36315 December 19, 1981 - JOSE W. DIOKNO v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE

  • G.R. Nos. L-39121 & L-39122 December 19, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACINTO PARCON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-48907 & 49035 December 19, 1981 - SEVERINO TAJONERA v. BERNANDO LAMAROZA

  • G.R. No. 50180 December 19, 1981 - FRANCISCA RICO REYES v. MINISTER OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-55273-83 December 19, 1981 - GAUDENCIO RAYO, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN

  • G.R. No. 55954 December 19, 1981 - FERMIN CASOCOT v. CIPRIANO V. VAMENTA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-56443 December 19, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON D. VILLANUEVA

  • A.C. No. 924 December 28, 1981 - RENATO M. CORONADO v. ANGEL S. HUERTAS

  • A.M. No. 1567-MJ December 28, 1981 - DANILO STA. MARIA v. ANASTACIO T. ZAMUCO

  • G.R. No. L-26540 December 28, 1981 - MUTUAL PAPER INC. v. EASTERN SCOTT PAPER COMPANY