ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 158540.� July 5, 2005]
SCCC vs. CMAP
EN BANC
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 5 2005.
G.R. No. 158540 (Southern Cross Cement Corporation vs. Cement Manufacturers Association of the Philippines, the Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry, the Secretary of the Department of Finance, and the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs.)
On 21 December 2004, petitioner Southern Cross Cement Corporation (SCCC) filed with this Court an Urgent Motion, wherein it averred that a petition for extension of safeguard measures was filed by private respondent Cement Manufacturers Association of the Philippines (CMAP) with the Department of Trade and Industry, and that said petition had been referred to the Tariff Commission. Significantly, the safeguard measures sought to be extended by CMAP were the same impositions which the Court's Second Division had declared null and void in its Decision in the present case dated 8 July 2004. Said Decision is now pending reconsideration by the Court en banc.
SCCC prayed in its Urgent Motion that CMAP, the DTI, the Bureau of Customs and the Tariff Commission be directed to "cease and desist from taking any and all actions pursuant to or under the null and void CA Decision and DTI Decision, including proceedings to extend the safeguard measure." [1] cralaw The filing of this Urgent Motion was noted in a Resolution dated 1 March 2005. [2] cralaw
Recently, the Tariff Commission filed a Manifestation and Motion for the Issuance of a Clarificatory Order dated 23 June 2005. The Commission recounts that on 20 September 2004, after the Court's Second Division had rendered its decision in the above-captioned case, the DTI received a letter from CMAP requesting the extension of the imposition of the safeguard measures against the importation of gray Portland Cement, pursuant to Section 19 of Republic Act No. 8800, otherwise known as the Safeguard Measures Act. The said petition for extension was endorsed by the DTI to the Tariff Commission. Since no prohibitory injunction or order of such nature had been issued by any court against the Tariff Commission, the Commission proceeded to conduct its investigation on the petition for extension, pursuant to Section 9 of the Safeguard Measures Act.
The Tariff Commission now manifests that it has completed all of its mandated tasks relating to the petition for extension, except the submission of its report to the DTI Secretary. It expresses its concerns that the submission of its report might impinge on the Court's resolution of the respondents' motion for reconsideration, and notes that should the Court deny the motion for reconsideration, the findings and conclusions of the Tariff Commission would be rendered moot and academic, as the petition for extension would have no leg to stand on. Accordingly, the Tariff Commission seeks the Court's guidance on the propriety of eventually transmitting the report of the DTI Secretary, and prays for the appropriate clarificatory order from this Court.
Obviously, both of these motions refer to the same set of antecedent facts, albeit the latter motion of the Tariff Commission elaborates on the actions taken on the petition for extension since December of 2004. We can take cognizance of the Tariff Commission's manifestations, involved as it is in the subsequent legal recourses that emanate from the decisions and orders assailed in this Court. And in light of these newly submitted manifestations, SCCC's Urgent Motion, now currently pending resolution with this Court, warrants renewed examination.
Indeed, the Tariff Commission's concerns are well-founded, insofar as it notes that the affirmance in toto of the Decision dated 8 July 2004 would necessarily moot the petition for extension of safeguard measures. Prudential considerations warrant the deferral of action on the petition for extension of safeguard measures now pending with the DTI and the Tariff Commission, until such time that the instant case is resolved with finality by this Court. Otherwise, unhealthy consequences may arise should any future action on the pending petition for extension of safeguard measures be rendered moot or otherwise affected by the Court's final resolution in this case. Unnecessary confusion and perhaps financial damage would be wrought if the DTI Secretary were to grant the petition for extension of safeguard measures but subsequently, the Court were to reaffirm its 8 July 2004 Decision, thus mooting the said petition for extension and any action taken thereupon.
Considering the antecedents referred to above, there is a need to enjoin all the parties from taking any further action relative to the above-referenced petition for extension of safeguard measures during the pendency of the motions for reconsideration, or until such time as may be deemed suitable by this Court.
WHEREFORE, the Court, acting upon SCCC's Urgent Motion dated 15 December 2004, viewed in light of the submitted manifestations of the Tariff Commission in its Manifestation and Motion for the Issuance of a Clarificatory Order dated 23 June 2005, resolves to DIRECT the parties to MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO effective 5 July 2005 until further orders of this Court.
J. Carpio, No part.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Acting Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, p. 2970.
[2] cralaw Id. at 3153.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
