Case Digest (G.R. No. L-26344)
Facts:
Hawaiian-Philippine Company v. Asociacion de Hacenderos de Silay-Saravia, Inc., G.R. No. L-26344, June 30, 1987, the Supreme Court En Banc, Paras, J., writing for the Court.Hawaiian-Philippine Company, Inc. (hereafter Central) is a Philippine corporation owning and operating the Silay‑Saravia sugar mill. Asociacion de Hacenderos de Silay‑Saravia, Inc. (hereafter the Association) is a Philippine corporation representing a number of sugar‑cane planters adherent to Central. The parties were bound by a March 30, 1953 memorandum agreement under which planters delivered cane to Central, with specified sharing arrangements and recognition of the Association as the planters’ agent; the milling arrangement covered twelve crops ending 1963–1964.
Beginning in 1961 the Association and a group of planters sought renegotiation, demanding a 70–30 sharing in favor of planters and eventual purchase of Central. Negotiations failed; the planters organized the Agricultural Industrial Development Company of Silay‑Saravia (AID SISA) and proposed to build their own mill, notifying the Sugar Quota Administrator by letter dated May 14, 1962. In response, on June 20, 1962 (amended July 27, 1962 and again on February 10, 1964), Central filed Civil Case No. 50760 in the Court of First Instance of Manila praying, among other relief, for declarations that Sections of the sugar quota legislation were unconstitutional and for judicial definitions of the parties’ rights under those statutes.
The lower court (Court of First Instance, Branch II) rendered judgment on July 30, 1965 upholding the constitutionality of the challenged provisions — specifically Sections 1 and 2 of Republic Act No. 809, Section 4 of Republic Act No. 1825, and Section 3 of Republic Act No. 1072 (amending Section 9 of Act 4166) — and declaring limitations on planters’ ability to transfer export (“A” and “AA”) sugar quotas to mills that did not produce in 1940 or to another mill while the existing mill was willing to grant the RA 809 participations. Motions for reconsideration by both parties were denied (order dated February 11, 1966). Both Central and the Association appealed to the Supreme Court En Banc from the judgment and from the order denying reconsideration.
The principal legal points raised below and on appeal were whether the cited provisions violated freedom of contract, equal prot...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Are Sections 1 and 2 of Republic Act No. 809, Section 4 of Republic Act No. 1825, and Section 3 of Republic Act No. 1072 (amending Section 9 of Act 4166) unconstitutional as violative of freedom of contract, equal protection, due process (taking without just compensation), impairment of vested rights, or treaty obligations?
- May planters whose milling contracts with Central expired (or are absent) validly adhere their plantations to their own central and transfer the export and domestic quotas attached to those plantations to the new central without Central’s consent?
- Does a memorandum agreement provision requiring the mill to tear down railway tracks after expiration of the agreement opera...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)