Title
Provident Tree Farms, Inc. vs. Batario, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 92285
Decision Date
Mar 28, 1994
PTFI sought injunction and damages against AJIC for importing matches, claiming violation of the Forestry Code. SC ruled Bureau of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over import legality, dismissing PTFI's premature claims.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 138810)

Background of the Case

PTFI, a Philippine corporation engaged in industrial tree planting, aimed to protect its interests under the Revised Forestry Code, which prohibits the importation of wood and wood-derivative products when local supply is available at reasonable prices. In April 1989, AJIC began importing matches, prompting PTFI to seek an injunction against AJIC’s action on May 5, 1989, asserting that such imports violated the national policy favoring local industry.

Legal Proceedings Initiated by PTFI

PTFI filed a complaint for injunctive relief and damages against AJIC and the Commissioner of Customs, arguing that permitting the importation of matches harmed its business by undermining the incentives granted under Section 36 of the Forestry Code. The Regional Trial Court acknowledged the jurisdictional conflict surrounding the case, particularly regarding the authority of the Bureau of Customs.

AJIC’s Motion to Dismiss

AJIC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, claiming that the exclusive jurisdiction over importation legality rested with the Bureau of Customs, according to Section 1207 of the Tariff and Customs Code. AJIC further contended that the complaint for damages lacked basis since they were following legal importation protocols.

Court's Response and Reconsideration

Initially, the court denied AJIC's motion to dismiss; however, upon AJIC’s motion for reconsideration, the court reversed its decision, declaring it lacked jurisdiction to determine the legality of AJIC's imports. This dismissal served as a pivotal point in PTFI's appeal process.

PTFI's Arguments Against the Dismissal

In its appeal, PTFI stressed that its action was primarily for injunctive relief concerning its rights as a local producer affected by imports. PTFI contended that the issue at hand did not fall under monopolistic importers since it was not a matter of disputing tariffs but rather enforcing a statutory provision aimed at protecting local industries.

Jurisdictional and Procedural Concerns

The court analyzed the jurisdictional boundaries set by the Bureau of Customs, noting that the agency holds exclusive jurisdiction over the enforcement of import bans as defined by law. It emphasized that any intervention by the Regional Trial Court in what constitutes lawful seizure would overreach judicial authority and disrupt the administrative process.

Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine Application

The court invoked the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which posits that disputes typically addressed by administrative agencies should

...continue reading

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