SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-18354 May 30, 1963

CHING BAN YEK CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. AUDITOR GENERAL, Respondent.

Rafael Dinglasan for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:chanrobles virtual law library

Petitioner seeks to reconsider our decision rendered on December 29, 1962 on several grounds, among which, is that it is contrary to the legislative intent and runs counter to general welfare and principles of equity which may work hardship and injustice against petitioner and other lard manufacturers.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In support of his motion, petitioner submitted a certificate under oath of Senate President Eulogio Rodriguez, marked as Annex A, the letter of the Chairman of the National Science Development Board, marked as Annex B, the latest opinion of the Deputy Commissioner of the National Institute of Science and Technology, marked as Annex B-1, and the opinion of the American Consultant to said Board from the Armor Research Foundation of the United States, marked as Annex B-2. In addition, petitioner also asked that photostatic copies of pertinent pages of the scientific book entitled "Industrial Oil and Fat Products" by Alton E. Bailey from which Deputy Commissioner Flaviano M. Yenko of the National Institute of Science and Technology quoted the authority for his opinion that "commercial shortening cannot be made out of coconut oil by using 2% or less of hydrogenated cottonseed oil as stearine" which was given in his memorandum to the Chairman of the National Science Development Board dated January 23, 1963, be admitted as evidence in connection with this motion for reconsideration. And during the oral argument held on April 24, 1968, counsel for petitioner also asked for leave to submit certain documents which he marked as Exhibits AA, BB, X and Y which are all attached to the record.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The main issue that was submitted to us for consideration is whether or not the hydrogenated cottonseed oil was added to coconut oil in the making or preparation of vegetable lard plays the role of a component or ingredient, or merely of a stabilizer as contemplated in Republic Act 601, as amended.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On this question three divergent opinions were given three successive heads of the National Institute of Science and Technology, but the opinion which was given weight by respondent Auditor General, which was upheld by this Court, is that of acting Deputy Commissioner Flaviano Yenko of the National Institute of Science and Technology, which was epitomized as follows:

Although hydrogenated cottonseed oil when added to coconut oil in sufficient quantities may change the physical state of the oil by rendering it semi-solid, hydrogenated cottonseed oil do not affect the chemical stability of the oil to which it is added. Hence in the manufacture of vegetable lard, hydrogenated cottonseed oil serves as a component and not as a stabilizer.

Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts.

In the motion for reconsideration, petitioner now disputes the above opinion by submitting the documents abovementioned, particularly the new opinion of Deputy Commissioner Yenko from which we quote the following:

"Coconut oil yields a shortening of rather poor plastic range. If coconut oil is to be used in a shortening in large proportion the product is best made by blending unhydrogenated coconut with about 8 to 12% of vegetable stearine and as much cottonseed oil or other liquid oil as may be permissible to use."chanrobles virtual law library

"Industrial Oil and Fat Products", by Alton E. Bailey, 2nd Edition, Interscience Publishers, Inc., New York 1951, p. 241.

Since the aforesaid documents are in the nature of new evidence submitted in the case and respondent has not been given an opportunity to examine them nor to cross-examine the persons or officials who appear to be the authors or writers thereof, in order to test their credibility, the Court resolved that, without acting for the present on said motion, the case be remanded to respondent for whatever action he may deem proper to take in the premises.

Bengzon, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, JJ., took no part.