Case Digest (G.R. No. 8315)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 8315)
Facts:
Santos & Jahrling v. The Insular Collector of Customs, G.R. No. 8315, February 18, 1914, the Supreme Court, Trent, J., writing for the Court. The appeal challenged the Collector's classification of two imported preparations—Vino Quina Fer (wine of quinine and iron) and Syrup Quina Fer (syrup of quinine and iron)—as dutiable proprietary medicines under paragraph 78(a) of the Philippine Tariff Law of 1909, rather than admitting them free under paragraph 320 (which covers "Cinchona bark, sulphate and bisulphate of quinine, alkaloids and salts of cinchona bark, in whatever form").The plaintiffs-appellees (importers) had obtained a judgment in the Court of First Instance of Manila setting aside the Collector's classification and admitting the articles free of duty under paragraph 320. The Collector appealed to the Supreme Court. Chemical analyses introduced showed the wine contained 13.9% alcohol and about 0.049% quinine; the syrup contained 6% alcohol and about 0.016% quinine; both also contained unspecified amounts of iron. Manufacturer circulars and testimony indicated the therapeutic effect resulted from the combination of iron and cinchona, that the preparations were marketed under a distinctive label with the manufacturer's facsimile signature, and that the process of manufacture was claimed to be secret.
At trial the importers relied on the phrase "in whatever form" in paragraph 320 to bring the preparations within quinine-containing articles admitted free. The Collector relied on paragraph 78(a), and on the statutory definition in section 5 that "proprietary" medicinal preparations include those whose manufacture or sale is restricted or for which the producer claims a private formula. A letter from the Collector to the Director of Science requesting analysis and the Director's reply (opining that the articles should be classified under paragraph 320) were admitted in evidence over the Collector's objection. The Collector objected to that evidence at trial; the trial court nonetheless ruled for the importers. The Supreme Court's review was by appeal; the Court considered the classification issue and the admissibility of the Director's letter and reply.
Issues:
- Was the admission of the letter and reply from the Director of Science as evidence erroneous?
- Are Vino Quina Fer and Syrup Quina Fer dutiable proprietary medicines under paragraph 78(a) of the Philippine Tariff Law of 1909, or are they admitted free as quinine-containing articles under paragraph 320?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)