Case Digest (G.R. No. 158540)
Facts:
Southern Cross Cement Corporation v. Cement Manufacturers Association of the Philippines, G.R. No. 158540, August 03, 2005, Supreme Court En Banc, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Southern Cross Cement Corporation sought relief after respondent Philippine Cement Manufacturers Corporation (Philcemcor) — an association of domestic cement producers — filed with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) a petition for the imposition of safeguard measures on gray Portland cement under Republic Act No. 8800 (the Safeguard Measures Act, "SMA"). The Tariff Commission investigated and, in its Formal Investigation Report of 13 March 2002, recommended that no definitive general safeguard measure be imposed because the elements of serious injury and imminent threat had not been established.
On 5 April 2002 the DTI Secretary, noting disagreement with parts of the Tariff Commission’s Report but construing himself as bound by it, issued a Decision denying Philcemcor’s application. Philcemcor filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA), contending among other things that the DTI Secretary is not bound by the Tariff Commission’s findings. The CA (Twelfth Division) in a decision dated 5 June 2003 held that it had jurisdiction over Philcemcor’s certiorari petition and ruled the DTI Secretary was not bound by the Tariff Commission’s factual findings.
Southern Cross filed a petition with this Court on 23 June 2003 (seeking review of the CA decision). After the CA decision, the DTI Secretary — citing the CA ruling — issued a new Decision on 25 June 2003 imposing a definitive safeguard duty (P20.60/40-kg bag for three years) on imported gray Portland cement. Southern Cross sought injunctive relief from this Court (TRO application, 7 July 2003) and later filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on 1 August 2003 challenging the 25 June 2003 DTI Decision; the Supreme Court was informed belatedly of the CTA filing.
The Supreme Court Second Division, after oral argument, promulgated a Decision of 8 July 2004 granting Southern Cross’s petition: it declared the CA decision null and void for lack of jurisdiction (holding Section 29 of the SMA gave the CTA exclusive review over DTI rulings "in connection with the imposition of a safeguard measure") and ruled that under Section 5 of the SMA a positive final determination by the Tariff Commission is an indispensable prerequisite to the DTI Secretary’s imposition of a general safeguard measure; accordingly it also set aside the DTI Secretary’s 25 June 2003 Decision. Public respondents (DTI and the Secretary of Finance through the OSG) and private respondent Philcemcor moved for reconsideration. The matter was referred to the Court En Banc; the full Court reheard the case on March 1, 2005 and, by this Resolution of Augu...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals vested with jurisdiction to entertain Philcemcor’s certiorari petition challenging the DTI Secretary’s decision not to impose a safeguard measure, or does Section 29 of RA 8800 vest exclusive review in the Court of Tax Appeals?
- May the DTI Secretary impose a general safeguard measure despite a negative final determination by the Tariff Commission, or is a positive final determination by the Tariff Commission an indispensable prerequisite to such imposition; and relatedly, may the DTI Secretary review, modify or re...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)