Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > July 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16933 July 30, 1965 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. INC. v. VICENTE G. BUNUAN, ETC., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16933. July 30, 1965.]

TALISAY-SILAY MILLING COMPANY, INC., Petitioner-Appellee, v. VICENTE G. BUNUAN, ETC., ET AL., Respondents-Appellants.


SYLLABUS


1. SUGAR LIMITATION LAW; SUGAR QUOTA-HOLDER; UNUSED RESERVE "C" SUGAR MAY BE CARRIED OVER THE SUCCEEDING YEARS. — Under Section 1(a) of the Sugar Limitation Law (Act No. 4166, as amended), "C" sugar is sugar held as an emergency reserve to make up deficiency in "A" and "B" sugar or for marketing elsewhere than in continental United States or in the Philippines. However, in the absence of any deficiency in the other classes of sugar, the unused reserve C sugar produced or held by a quota-holder during any crop-year can be carried over and added to the C sugar of the succeeding year because such accumulated reserve C sugars are not separated from each other or marked so as to indicate to what particular years they respectively correspond and when a deficiency in the other classes of sugar arises and has to be filled, any existing or available reserve C sugar may be used to fill such deficiency regardless of the year it was produced.

2. ID.; ALLOCATIONS; INCREASES IN THE PRODUCTION OF SUGAR ALLOWABLE. — The amount of sugar to be produced in any given year is not unalterably fixed by law. It is decided by the Sugar Quota Office with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce and Industry, and may be increased from time to time within the same year since no law is thereby violated and such increase will result in stocks available for domestic consumption.

3. MANDAMUS; ADEQUATE REMEDY TO CORRECT UNJUSTIFIED ACTION OF THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY. — The judgment of the lower court granting the writ of mandamus is affirmed in view of the injustice done to the petitioner when the deficiency allotment of 28,798.80 piculs of B sugar reallocated to it for the year 1956-57 was not filled from its then existing C sugar as a result of the unjustified action of respondent Secretary of Commerce and Industry. It would not do to render one decision nugatory and in effect allow the injustice to remain unredressed simply because in the C sugar in question supposed to cover the shortage in B sugar in the year 1956-57 and such shortage no longer exist at the present time. Otherwise no judicial recourse would be of practical value to a quota-holder in such a situation, for all respondents would have to do to avoid compliance with a peremptory writ issued against them is to appeal therefrom: time would do the rest the time is usually taken before the appeal can be decided.


R E S O L U T I O N *


MAKALINTAL, J.:


Before us is the motion filed by petitioner-appellee for reconsideration and clarification of our decision affirming that of the Court of First Instance of Manila:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Commanding the respondents, particularly the respondent Sugar Quota Administrator, to give full force and effect to the reallocation in question in favor of the petitioner of the 28,798.80 piculs of domestic ‘B allotment, ‘ by forthwith signing and delivering to petitioner or causing their authorized representatives and Permit Agents to forthwith sign and deliver to petitioner the corresponding warehouse receipt-permits (Nos. B-44 688 and B-44 689) duly prepared by petitioner, in order to fill the aforesaid allocation . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner points out that at the time the lower court rendered its judgment the signing and issuance of the warehouse receipt-permits aforementioned was the proper relief to which it was entitled, but that since then and because of the period during which the appeal was pending those receipt-permits (for the year 1956-1957) have become obsolete. Consequently, petitioner explains, the only way the redress granted to it in this case may be made effective "would be the signing and issuance, in replacement thereof, of the corresponding domestic (B) warehouse receipt-permits for the current year against, and out of, the current reserve (C) sugars of herein petitioner."cralaw virtua1aw library

Respondents, commenting on the motion, say the same has become moot and academic because petitioner’s reserve (C) sugar in question in this case must have been used by it to fill reallocations (presumably of B sugar) granted to it in the years subsequent to the 1956-1957 crop year. The Solicitor-General quotes from a letter, dated March 1, 1965, of the incumbent acting Chief of the Sugar Quota Office, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"As the "B" allotment shortages in question were of the crop year 1956-1957, and formed portions of the domestic quota that was declared for the said crop year, it is believed that the giving of full force and effect to the re-allocation of said domestic shortages at this time almost 8 years later, is academic, specially if we consider the fact that the said re-allocation is intended to be filled ‘out of the current reserve "C" sugar ‘ and not of the "C" sugar of 1956-1957 then entitled to fill the re-allocation."cralaw virtua1aw library

Answering the foregoing comment, petitioner submits that C sugar, according to Section 1 (a) of the Sugar Limitation Law (Act No. 4166, as amended), is sugar "to be held as an emergency reserve to make up any deficiency in A sugar and B sugar or for marketing elsewhere than in Continental United States or the Philippines" ; that in the absence of any deficiency in the other classes of sugar, the unused reserve (C) sugar produced or held by a quota-holder during any crop-year must necessarily be carried over and added to his C sugar of the succeeding years; that such accumulated reserve sugars are never separated from each other or marked so as to indicate to what particular years they respectively correspond; and that when a deficiency in the other classes of sugar arises and has to be filled, any existing or available reserve (C) sugar left over and/or accumulated from previous crop years may be used to fill such deficiency, regardless of the year it was produced.

Petitioner’s position appears to us to be reasonable. We have affirmed the judgment of the lower court granting the writ of mandamus in view of the injustice done to petitioner when the deficiency allotment of 28,798.80 piculs of B sugar reallocated to it for the year 1956-57 was not filled from its then existing C sugar as a result of the unjustified action of respondent Secretary of Commerce and Industry. It would not do to render our decision nugatory and in effect allow the injustice to remain unredressed simply because the C sugar in question was supposed to cover the shortage in B sugar in the year 1956-57 and such shortage no longer exists at the present time. Otherwise no judicial recourse would be of practical value to a quota holder in a situation such as the one before us, for all respondents would have to do in order to avoid compliance with a peremptory writ that may be issued against them is to appeal therefrom: time would then do the rest — the time it usually takes before the appeal can be decided.

Respondents say that shortages in each class of sugar is determined by the Sugar Quota Office after the termination of the milling season in each mill district; that assuming that petitioner’s C sugar in question may be availed of to fill allotment shortages in B sugar for the present crop year the existence of such shortages will be determined after the current milling season in the Talisay-Silay mill district; and that even then petitioner’s C sugar may be availed of only insofar as the shortages cannot be filled from C sugar pertaining to planters within the district. The explanation does not impress us to be of any decisive importance in this case. The amount of B sugar to be produced in any given year is not unalterably fixed by law. It is decided by the Sugar Quota Office with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce and Industry, and may be increased from time to time within the same year. In fact the record of this case shows that several increases were authorized in the year 1956-1957, when the abortive deficiency reallocation to petitioner which gave rise to this litigation was made. To implement the judgment herein would only mean, in effect, an increase in the amount of sugar that will be available for domestic consumption. And no law has been cited to us which would be violated by such increase.

WHEREFORE, the decision of this Court is clarified in the sense that the Sugar Quota Administrator is ordered to give full force and effect to the reallocation in favor of petitioner of 28,798.80 piculs of domestic (B) sugar by signing and issuing, or causing his authorized representatives or permit agents to sign and issue, the corresponding domestic (B) warehouse receipt-permits for the current year against, or out of, the current reserve (C) sugars of petitioner.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



* Editor’s Note: See main decision in 12 SCRA 733.




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






July-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-16631 July 20, 1965 - DEV. BANK OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL S. OZARRAGA

  • G.R. No. L-18172 July 20, 1965 - ROSA BUNGAY VDA. DE QUILLOSA, ET AL v. TARCILA SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. L-20125 July 20, 1965 - NIN BAY MINING CO. v. MUN. OF ROXAS, PROV. OF PALAWAN

  • G.R. No. L-16723 July 30, 1965 - CITY OF CEBU v. TEODORICO LEDESMA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16933 July 30, 1965 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. INC. v. VICENTE G. BUNUAN, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17566 July 30, 1965 - TEOTIMO BILLONES, ET AL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18001 July 30, 1965 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. AMPARO NABLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18150 July 30, 1965 - SUPERIOR BALDOZ v. SERAPIA PAPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18770 July 30, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO PASILAN

  • G.R. Nos. L-19067-68 July 30, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDILBERTO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19572 July 30, 1965 - DIONISIO B. GALLARDE v. CESAR S. MORAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19574 July 30, 1965 - DONATO M. ATEL v. EMILIO LUMONTAD, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19783 July 30, 1965 - TECLA GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19918 July 30, 1965 - VY TIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20080 July 30, 1965 - DIEGO BACORDO v. JACINTO ALCANTARA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20749 July 30, 1965 - ROBERTO S. OCA, ET AL. v. LAURO MAIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-20751 July 30, 1965 - DOMINGO REBULLO v. NARCISO PALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20838 July 30, 1965 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS & STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20091 July 30, 1965 - PERPETUA ABUAN, ET AL v. EUSTAQUIO S. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20230 July 30, 1965 - SHELL CO. OF THE PHIL., ET AL v. COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20236 July 30, 1965 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. JOAQUIN BONDOC

  • G.R. No. L-20287 July 30, 1965 - CELESTINO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20567 July 30, 1965 - PNB v. MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20862 July 30, 1965 - FREE EMPLOYEES & WORKERS ASSO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20876 July 30, 1965 - FRANCISCO JAMAGO, I.D. CHAN, ET AL v. ABUNDIO Z. ARRIETA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21451 July 30, 1965 - DOMINADOR T. ALMEDA, ET AL v. CONCEPCION A. RUBIO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21016 July 30, 1965 - BCI EMPLOYEES & WORKERS UNION v. PIO MARCOS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21472 July 30, 1965 - DOLORES C. VDA. DE GIL v. AGUSTIN CANCIO

  • G.R. No. L-24224 July 30, 1965 - MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA SA ESSO, ET AL v. ESSO STANDARD EASTERN, INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24438 July 30, 1965 - ROSAURO PARAGAS v. FERNANDO A. CRUZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17315 July 31, 1965 - OLYMPIA BALTAZAR v. SERGIO SERFINO

  • G.R. No. L-18301 July 31, 1965 - ADRIANO ANTONIO v. BENJAMIN JALANDONI, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19399 July 31, 1965 - RUFINO COLOMA, ET AL v. ATANACIO COLOMA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19865 July 31, 1965 - MARIA CARLA PIROVANO, ETC., ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-19885 July 31, 1965 - PEDRO CRISOLOGO, ET AL v. ALFREDO L. DURAL

  • G.R. No. L-20796 July 31, 1965 - IMPERIAL INSURANCE, INC. v. PELAGIO B. SIMON

  • G.R. No. L-20808 July 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRAULIO DE VENECIA

  • G.R. No. L-23628 July 31, 1965 - FELICISIMA B. SALOMON v. JOSE M. MENDOZA, ET AL