Case Digest (G.R. No. 180462)
Facts:
South Pacific Sugar Corporation and South East Asia Sugar Mill Corporation, G.R. No. 180462, February 09, 2011, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.In 1999 the government, anticipating a large sugar shortfall, issued Executive Order No. 87 (EO 87) to permit private-sector sugar importation. EO 87 created a Committee on Sugar Conversion/Auction empowered to prescribe procedures for importation and the collection and remittance of a conversion fee. The Committee promulgated Bidding Rules establishing that successful bidders must pay 25% of the conversion fee within three working days of award and the remaining 75% upon arrival; the rules also provided for forfeiture of the 25% payment if the importer failed to import or the sugar did not arrive by the arrival date.
The Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) authorized importation in three tranches. Petitioners South Pacific Sugar Corporation (Pacific Sugar) and South East Asia Sugar Mill Corporation (Sugar Mill) were awarded part of the third tranche (30,000 MT combined) and paid 25% of the conversion fee (P38,637,000.00 in aggregate). They ultimately imported only 3,000 MT (10% of allocation), then canceled the remainder citing a price collapse, and sought reimbursement of the 25% payments. The SRA declared the 25% forfeited under the Bidding Rules and informed the Committee that reconsideration lay with the Committee.
On 26 February 2002 the sugar corporations filed Civil Case No. Q-02-46236 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 77, Quezon City, for breach of contract and damages, seeking reimbursement. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered a notice of appearance and deputized Atty. Raul Labay of the SRA legal department to assist the OSG and to receive notices; the notice reserved to the OSG the right to approve withdrawal, non-appeal, or other actions potentially compromising government interest.
The RTC rendered judgment for the plaintiffs on 19 December 2006 ordering SRA to reimburse P38,637,000.00. Atty. Labay received a copy of the decision and filed a notice of appeal on 7 February 2007. The sugar corporations moved to expunge that notice, arguing a deputized counsel could not decide to appeal without OSG authorization. The RTC granted the motion to expunge on 26 June 2007 and denied reconsideration on 6 August 2007. Thereafter the RTC granted the plaintiffs’ motion for execution on 31 August 2007 and issued a writ of execution (6 September 2007) and an amended writ (12 September 2007).
The SRA petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) for certiorari under Rule 65 to annul the RTC’s June, August and August orders and the writs of execution. On 6 November 2007 the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 100571) granted the petition, hel...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May a deputized SRA counsel, acting under OSG deputization, file a notice of appeal on behalf of the SRA?
- Are the petitioners entitled to reimbursement of P38,637,000.00 (25% conversion fee) despite their failure to import the co...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)