Casco v. Gimenez

EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-17931. February 28, 1963.]
CASCO PHILIPPINE CHEMICAL CO., INC.,INC. petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO

GIMENEZ, in his capacity as Auditor General of the Philippines, and
HON. ISMAEL MATHAY, in his capacity as Auditor of the Central
Bank , respondents.
Jalandoni & Jamir for petitioner.

Solicitor General for respondents.
DECISION
CONCEPCION J :
CONCEPCION, p
This is a petition for review of a decision of the Auditor General denying a claim
for refund of petitioner Casco Philippine Chemical Co., Inc.
The main facts are not disputed. Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No.
2609, otherwise known as the Foreign Exchange Margin Fee Law, the Central Bank of
the Philippines issued on July 1, 1959, its Circular No. 95, xing a uniform margin fee of
25% on foreign exchange transactions. To supplement the circular, the Bank later
promulgated a memorandum establishing the procedure for applications for
exemption from the payment of said fee, as provided in said Republic Act No. 2609.
Several times in November and December 1959, petitioner Casco Philippine Chemical
Co., Inc. — which is engaged in the manufacture of synthetic resin glues, used in
bonding lumber and veneer by plywood and hardboard producers — bought foreign
exchange for the importation of urea and formaldehyde — which are the main raw
materials in the production of said glues — and paid therefor the aforementioned
margin fee aggregating P33,765.42. In May, 1960, petitioner made another purchase of
foreign exchange and paid the sum of P6,345.72 as margin fee therefor.
Prior thereto, petitioner had sought the refund of the rst sum of P33,765.42,
relying upon Resolution No. 1529 of the Monetary Board of said Bank, dated November
3, 1959, declaring that the separate importation of urea and formaldehyde is exempt
from said fee. Soon after the last importation of these products, petitioner made a
similar request for refund of the sum of P6,345.72 paid as margin fee therefor.
Although the Central Bank issued the corresponding margin fee vouchers for the refund
of said amounts, the Auditor of the Bank refused to pass in audit and approve said
vouchers, upon the ground that the exemption granted by the Monetary Board for
petitioner's separate importations of urea and formaldehyde is not in accord with the
provisions of Section 2, paragraph XVIII of Republic Act No. 2609 n. On appeal taken by
petitioner, the Auditor General subsequently a rmed said action of the Auditor of the
Bank. Hence, this petition for review.
The only question for determination in this case is whether or not "urea" and
"formaldehyde" are exempt by law from the payment of the aforesaid margin fee. The
pertinent portion of Section 2 of Republic Act No. 2069 reads:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
"The margin established by the Monetary Board pursuant to the provision of
section one hereof shall not be imposed upon the sale of foreign exchange for the
importation of the following:
xxx xxx xxx

"XVIII. Urea formaldehyde for the manufacture of plywood and hardboard
when imported by and for the exclusive use of end-users."
Petitioner maintains that the term "urea formaldehyde" appearing in this

provision should be construed as "urea and formaldehyde" (italic ours) and that
respondents herein, the Auditor General and the Auditor of the Central Bank have erred
in holding otherwise. In this connection, it should be noted that, whereas "urea" and
"formaldehyde" are the principal raw materials in the manufacture of synthetic resin
glues, the National Institute of Science and Technology has expressed, through its
Commissioner, the view that.
"Urea formaldehyde is not a chemical solution. It is the synthetic resin formed as
a condensation product from de nite proportions of urea and formaldehyde
under certain conditions relating to temperature, acidity, and time of reaction. This
produce when applied in water solution and extended with inexpensive llers
constitutes a fairly low cost adhesive for use in the manufacture of plywood."
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 resin 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 a
nished product, citing in support of this view the statements made on the oor of the
Senate, during the consideration of the bill before said House, by members thereof. But,
said individual statements do not necessarily re ect the view of the Senate. Much less
do they indicate the intent of the House of Representatives (see Song Kiat Chocolate
Factory vs. Central Bank, 54 Off. Gaz., 615; Mayon Motors, Inc. vs. Acting
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, L-15000 [March 29, 1961]; Manila Jockey Club, Inc.
vs. Games & Amusement Board, L-12727 [February 27, 1960]. 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 (Primicias vs. Paredes, 61 Phil.,
118, 120; Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil., 1; Macias vs. Comm. on Elections, L-18684,
September 14, 1961 ). If there has been any mistake in the printing of the bill before it
was certi ed by the o cers 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.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby a rmed, with costs against
the petitioner. It is so ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes,
Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
n Note from the Publisher: Written as "Republic Act No. 2069" in the original document.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

Casco v. Gimenez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Casco v. Gimenez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Casco v. Gimenez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17931. February 28, 1963.]

CASCO PHILIPPINE CHEMICAL CO., INC.,INC. petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO

Jalandoni & Jamir for petitioner.

xxx xxx xxx

Petitioner maintains that the term "urea formaldehyde" appearing in this

Hence, "urea formaldehyde" is clearly a finished product, which is patently distinct

You might also like