Title
Casco Philippine Chemical Co., Inc. vs. Gimenez
Case
G.R. No. L-17931
Decision Date
Feb 28, 1963
Petitioner sought refund of foreign exchange margin fees for importing urea and formaldehyde separately, claiming exemption under RA 2609. Supreme Court denied, ruling exemption applies only to "urea formaldehyde" as a finished product, not separate raw materials.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-17931)

Key Dates

  • July 1, 1959: Central Bank issues Circular No. 95 imposing a 25% uniform margin fee on foreign exchange transactions
  • November–December 1959 and May 1960: Petitioner’s purchases of foreign exchange and payment of margin fees (P33,765.42 and P6,345.72)
  • February 28, 1963: Decision rendered by the Supreme Court

Applicable Law

  • 1935 Philippine Constitution (governing law at time of decision)
  • Republic Act No. 2609 (Foreign Exchange Margin Fee Law)
  • Section 2, paragraph XVIII of Republic Act No. 2069 (exemption provision)

Factual Background

Pursuant to RA 2609, the Central Bank fixed a 25% margin fee on purchases of foreign exchange by Circular No. 95. It later issued a memorandum detailing procedures for seeking fee exemptions. Between November 1959 and May 1960, petitioner bought foreign exchange to import urea and formaldehyde, paying aggregate margin fees of P40,111.14. Petitioner relied on Monetary Board Resolution No. 1529 (November 3, 1959), which declared “separate importation of urea and formaldehyde” to be exempt.

Procedural History

Petitioner applied to the Central Bank for refund of the margin fees paid. Although the Bank prepared refund vouchers, its Auditor refused audit approval, holding that the Monetary Board’s exemption did not align with Section 2(XVIII) of RA 2069. On appeal, the Auditor-General affirmed the refusal. Petitioner then filed this petition for review.

Legal Issue

Whether the separate importation of urea and formaldehyde by an end-user is exempt from the 25% margin fee under Section 2(XVIII) of RA 2069.

Statutory Provision

Section 2, paragraph XVIII, RA 2069: “The margin … shall not be imposed upon the sale of foreign exchange for the importation of the following: … XVIII. Urea, formaldehyde for the manufacture of plywood and hardboard when imported by and for the exclusive use of end-users.”

Petitioner’s Argument

Petitioner contends that the phrase “urea formaldehyde” in the enrolled act should be read as the copulative “urea and formaldehyde,” thereby exempting the separate raw materials. It relies on pre-enrollment congressional drafts and floor statements suggesting legislative intent to grant an exemption for each ingredient.

Court’s Analysis

  1. Chemical Distinction: The National Institute of Science and Technology clarified that “urea formaldehyde” is a finished synthetic resin produced by condensing urea and formaldehyde under specific conditions. It is distinct from its separate raw materials.
  2. Enrolled Bill Doctrine: The Supreme Court held that the text of the enrolled act—using “urea formaldehyde” rather than “ur

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.