Case Digest (G.R. No. 34674) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
Mauricio Cruz, petitioner and appellant, imported ten large cattle into the Philippine Islands and petitioned the Court of First Instance of Manila for a writ of mandatory injunction directing Stanton Youngberg, Director of the Bureau of Animal Industry, to issue a permit for their landing and slaughter. Cruz challenged the constitutionality of Act No. 3155, approved March 8, 1924, which prohibited the importation of foreign cattle after March 31, 1925, subject to the Governor-General’s discretion, with legislative concurrence, to suspend the ban. In response, Youngberg demurred, contending that (1) even if Act No. 3155 were void, Act No. 3052 (approved March 14, 1922) would automatically reinstate the prohibition, and (2) Act No. 3155 was itself constitutional. The lower court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the petition for failure to state a cause of action. Cruz appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking reversal and issuance of the requested permit.Issues:
This case rais... Case Digest (G.R. No. 34674) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Nature of the Action
- Mauricio Cruz (petitioner/appellant) sought a writ of mandatory injunction against Stanton Youngberg, Director of the Bureau of Animal Industry (respondent/appellee), in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
- The petition requested the issuance of a permit to land ten large cattle imported by petitioner and to slaughter them.
- Challenge to Statutory Scheme
- Petitioner attacked the constitutionality of Act No. 3155 (approved March 8, 1924), which prohibited the importation of any cattle from foreign countries into the Philippine Islands after March 31, 1925, subject to a discretionary suspension by the Governor-General with legislative concurrence.
- Act No. 3155’s full text was quoted in the petition; the alleged legislative purpose was to prevent introduction of cattle diseases.
- Procedural History
- Respondent demurred on two grounds:
- Even if Act No. 3155 were void, Act No. 3052 (approved March 14, 1922) would revive and bar the permit.
- Act No. 3155 was constitutional.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint for failure to plead further.
- Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Does Act No. 3052 automatically take effect and bar cattle importation if Act No. 3155 is declared unconstitutional?
- Is Act No. 3155 constitutional under the police power to protect agriculture and livestock?
- Does the provision granting the Governor-General discretion to suspend the prohibition constitute unlawful delegation of legislative power?
- Does Act No. 3155 unlawfully amend section 3 of the Tariff Law or is it a valid supplemental quarantine measure?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)