Case Digest (G.R. No. 179579) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In G.R. No. 179579, decided on February 1, 2012, the Commissioner of Customs and the District Collector of the Port of Subic (petitioners) assailed the Court of Appeals’ nullification of Customs Memorandum Order No. 27-2003 (“CMO 27-2003”). On November 7, 2003, the Commissioner issued CMO 27-2003 prescribing that imported wheat be classified by importer/consignee, country of origin, and port of discharge into food grade (3% tariff) or feed grade (7% tariff), and establishing protest and Valuation and Classification Review Committee (VCRC) procedures requiring cash bonds for tariff differentials. On December 19, 2003, Hypermix Feeds Corporation (respondent) filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City, contending that CMO 27-2003 was issued without public participation, prior notice, or publication; summarily labeled respondent as a feed grade importer; violated the equal protection clause; and retroactively imposed a confiscatory ta Case Digest (G.R. No. 179579) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Issuance and content of CMO 27-2003
- On 7 November 2003, the Commissioner of Customs issued Customs Memorandum Order No. 27-2003 prescribing that wheat imports be classified for tariff purposes according to:
- Importer or consignee (only listed flour millers qualify for food grade)
- Country of origin (as set out in the attached Annex “A”)
- Port of discharge (also enumerated in Annex “A”)
- Under the Memorandum:
- Food grade wheat (HS 1001.9090) attracts a 3% tariff
- Feed grade wheat (HS 1001.9010) attracts a 7% tariff
- Protest or Valuation and Classification Review Committee (VCRC) cases require a cash bond to cover any tariff differential
- Respondent’s challenge in the RTC
- On 19 December 2003, HyperMix Feeds Corporation filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City, alleging that CMO 27-2003 was issued without:
- Public participation, prior notice and hearing
- Publication or registration with the UP Law Center under the Revised Administrative Code
- Respondent further claimed that CMO 27-2003:
- Summarily classified its Chinese milling wheat as feed grade without prior assessment, imposing a 7% tariff instead of 3%
- Violated equal protection by treating non-flour millers differently without rational basis
- Had confiscatory and retroactive application
- The RTC issued a 20-day Temporary Restraining Order on 19 January 2004; petitioners moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, premature relief, and validity of the administrative rule
- RTC Decision and CA Appeal
- On 10 March 2005, the RTC rendered judgment granting respondent’s petition and declaring CMO 27-2003 invalid for failure to observe public notice, hearing and publication, and for substituting a quasi-judicial determination with a quasi-legislative predetermination
- Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), reiterating jurisdictional and procedural objections
- The CA dismissed the appeal, holding that the regulation affected substantial rights and required notice, hearing and publication
Issues:
- Jurisdiction and remedy
- Whether the RTC had jurisdiction to entertain the petition for declaratory relief
- Whether an action for declaratory relief under Rule 63 is the proper remedy to test CMO 27-2003
- Validity of CMO 27-2003
- Whether the issuance of CMO 27-2003 violated due process and public participation requirements under the Revised Administrative Code (Book VII, Chapter 2)
- Whether CMO 27-2003 contravened the equal protection clause by imposing unreasonable classification criteria
- Whether the Commissioner of Customs exceeded his delegated authority under Section 1403 of the Tariff and Customs Code by pre-classifying wheat without prior examination by customs officers
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)