Case Summary (G.R. No. L-62449)
Petitioner
Gonzalo Sy Trading sought a Special Import Permit (“SIP”) to import fresh apples, oranges, grapes, lemons and other fruits from Japan on a “no-dollar” basis, invoking urgent seasonal demand for Christmas 1968.
Respondent
The Central Bank of the Philippines, under its Circulars and Monetary Board resolutions, regulated foreign exchange and approved or denied no-dollar importation permits.
Key Dates
• September 28, 1968 – Petitioner’s initial SIP request for US$715,000
• November 19, 1968 – Monetary Board Resolution No. 2038 grants SIP of US$350,000 for Christmas 1968, subject to 100% special time deposit for 120 days
• February 25, 1969 – First importation under SIP
• June & September 1970 – Customs seizure of fresh-fruit shipments allegedly in excess of SIP validity
• September 21, 1970 – Petition for mandamus filed in CFI, later consolidated with injunction case
• November 27, 1971 – CFI judgment dismisses mandamus and orders enforcement of seizure proceedings
• April 30, 1976 – Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
• 1935 Philippine Constitution (in force in 1976 for central bank powers)
• Republic Act No. 265 (Central Bank Act of 1948), Sections 2 & 14
• Central Bank Circulars No. 247 (July 1967), No. 260, No. 269 (Feb. 1970), No. 289, No. 294 & No. 295 (Mar. 1970)
• Tariff and Customs Code, Section 2530(f) on forfeiture for importations contrary to law
• Civil Code Articles 1159 & 1315 on contractual obligations
• Administrative-law principles on licenses/permits and estoppel
Factual Background
Petitioner corresponded with Deputy Governor Brinas and the Monetary Board, emphasizing that its requested SIP was “only for the Christmas season” of 1968, citing perishability and market demand. After initial denial under Circular 247, the Monetary Board granted a reduced SIP of US$350,000, limited to Japan origin, subject to 100% special time deposit for 120 days.
Permit Application and Grant
Monetary Board Resolution No. 2038 (Nov. 19, 1968) authorized “no-dollar” imports of fresh fruits from Japan up to US$350,000, imposing normal customs duties and a 100% time deposit. Petitioner unsuccessfully sought reduction of deposit to 20%.
Permit Usage and Expiry
Petitioner made imports from February 1969 through March 1970. By June 1970, US$314,142.51 had been utilized, leaving US$35,857.49. Petitioner requested extension of origin to other non-communist countries and continuation beyond 1968, but Deputy Governor Brinas (Nov. 19, 1969) and Assistant to the Governor Lomotan (Apr. 17, 1970) confirmed the SIP was intended for Christmas 1968 only.
Seizure Proceedings and Customs Action
Customs seized multiple fresh-fruit shipments in June and September 1970, citing violation of Circular No. 289 (ban on non-essential consumer goods) and Tariff Code Section 2530(f). The Monetary Board instructed Customs to disregard any bank release certificates for such imports.
Trial Court Proceedings
Petitioner obtained a preliminary injunction releasing June 1970 goods on bond (Civil Case No. 80655). In petition for mandamus (Civil Case No. 81051), petitioner sought release certificates and damages. The trial court dismissed the mandamus, ordered seizure proceedings enforced, and directed forfeiture of bonds securing released goods.
Supreme Court Ruling on Permit Validity
The Supreme Court held the SIP lapsed after Christmas 1968. A permit is a revocable administrative privilege, not a contract or vested property right. Absent an express expiry date, its duration is governed by the representations that secured it—in this case, the Christmas 1968 season.
Revocability of Licenses and Permits
Under administrative-law principles, licenses/permits are special privileges subject to revocation and limited by the authority’s underlying power. The SIP’s absence of an expiry date did not render it perpetual; it could not outlast the life of its basic authority or the petitioner’s own stipulation of purpose and period.
Estoppel and Promissory Estoppel
Petitioner’s reliance on Director Antiporda’s November 21, 1969 letter authorizing continued issuance of release certificates was insufficient to create estoppel. An administrative agent cannot alter a permit’s terms or extend its duration; only the Monetary Board could do so. Moreover, the Government is not estopped by mistakes of i
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-62449)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner-Appellant, Gonzalo Sy Trading, is a long-established importer of fresh fruits (oranges, grapes, apples, lemons) for nineteen years.
- On September 28, 1968, it formally requested from the Deputy Governor of the Central Bank authority to import fresh fruits from Japan on a “no-dollar” basis in the aggregate amount of US$715,000.00, citing the approaching Christmas season and onerous 175% special time deposit requirement under Circular 260.
- Initial request denied (October 2, 1968) because only the items enumerated in Circular No. 247 (July 21, 1967) qualified for no-dollar importation.
- Petitioner sought reconsideration (October 22, 1968; November 6, 1968), stressing perishability of fruits and seasonal demand for Christmas 1968.
- Monetary Board Resolution No. 2038 (November 19, 1968) granted a Special Import Permit on no-dollar basis limited to fresh fruits from Japan valued at US$350,000.00, subject to 100% special time deposit for 120 days and normal duties and taxes, with no Central Bank obligation to provide foreign exchange.
- Petitioner requested reduction of time deposit to 20% (November 27, 1968), which was denied (December 9, 1968).
- First importation under the permit occurred February 25, 1969; additional shipments arrived through March 1970 from various countries. By June 1970 petitioner had utilized US$314,142.51 of the US$350,000.00 permit.
- On October 30, 1969, petitioner sought amendment to import from other non-communist countries beyond Japan; Deputy Governor Brinas (November 19, 1969) advised that the permit was intended only for the Christmas season of 1968 and did not extend through 1969.
- Director Antiporda (Foreign Exchange Department) wrote agent bank (November 21, 1969) that it “may continue to issue release certificates … subject to the same terms and conditions imposed by the Monetary Board.”
- Assistant to the Governor (Cesar Lomotan) reiterated (April 17, 1970) that the permit did not extend beyond Christmas 1968; petitioner’s June 4 and 6, 1970 shipments fell within unused balance but release certificates were refused.
- Customs seized imported fresh fruits in June and September 1970 under Circular No. 289 (ban on non-essential consumer goods) and Section 2530(f) of the Tariff and Customs Code.
- Petitioner-Appellant filed two injunction suits (CI No. 80655 and 81051) to release goods