Case Digest (G.R. No. 23601)
Facts:
Ynchausti & Co. v. Ben F. Wright, G.R. No. 23601, September 22, 1925, the Supreme Court En Banc, Johns, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Ynchausti & Co., owner and operator of the coastwise steamship *Venus*, caused extensive repairs and reconstruction to be done in Hong Kong between February and September 1924 at a cost of HK$300,004.90. Upon the vessel’s return to Philippine waters in October 1924 the Insular Collector of Customs assessed and demanded payment of customs duty in the amount of P159,960; the petitioner paid under written protest on October 24, 1924 and demanded a hearing.After a hearing, the Insular Collector of Customs rendered a decision on October 31, 1924 sustaining the protest and ordering a refund. Copies of that decision were promptly transmitted to the Secretary of Finance and to respondent Ben F. Wright, the Insular Auditor. The petitioner alleges that no certification for removal to the Court of First Instance was made by the Secretary of Finance within fifteen days as required by the Administrative Code, and therefore the Collector’s decision became final and conclusive under Administrative Code §1383–1386.
The Collector drew and signed a warrant for refund on November 26, 1924 and presented it to the Auditor for countersignature. The Auditor refused to countersign the warrant, saying he had caused inquiries and investigations to be made and had requested the Collector’s reconsideration (via letters of November 6 and 14), and that the funds had already been covered into the Insular Treasury; he also invoked his auditing functions and statutory responsibilities under the Jones Law and subsequent statutes. The Collector reiterated that he found no justification to reconsider. Petitioner filed an original action in the Supreme Court seeking a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the Auditor to countersign the refund warrant.
The respondent filed an answer admitting many facts but asserting as defenses that (a) the Auditor possesses discretionary and quasi‑judicial authority to audit and settle claims under the Jones Law and later statutes (including Act No. 3066), (b) the money had been deposited in the Treasury and appropriations govern refunds (Act No. 357 as amended by Act No. 1515; Act No. 2935, §14), and (c) petitioner had an adequate administrative remedy; respondent attached transcripts and correspondence and sought dismissal. Petitioner demurred to the answer contending it failed to state a defense; the case was presented to the Court on that demurrer in an original mandamus proceeding.
Statutes and precedents invoked below and on review included the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909 (paragraph 200, §8 and paragraph 348, §11), Act No. 2872 (1919 amendment), Administrative Code §§1383–1386, the Jones Law (Philippine Autonomy Act) §§24–25, Act No. 3066 (1923), Act No. 357 (as amended), Act No. 1515, Act No. 2935 §14, and decisions such as Fernandez Hermanos v. Insular Collector of Customs, Gutierrez Hermanos v. Collector of Customs, Compania General d...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the Insular Auditor to countersign the refund warrant notwithstanding available administrative remedies (appeal to the Governor‑General or department head)?
- Is the Auditor’s refusal to countersign a refund warrant, issued pursuant to a final decision of the Insular Collector of Customs, a ministerial act (subject to mandamus) or a discretionary/auditing function (not subject to mandamus)?
- On the admitted facts, was petitioner entitled to a writ of mandamus compellin...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)