REPUBLIC FLOUR VS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
G.R. No. L-28463 May 31, 1971
REPUBLIC FLOUR MILLS INC., petitioner,
vs.
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.
Doctrine:
Statutory construction; First and fundamental duty of courts is to apply the law.—The first and fundamental duty of courts is to apply the law. Construction and interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that the application is impossible or inadequate without them. Petitioner ought to have been aware that deference to such a doctrine precludes an affirmative response to its contention. The law is clear; it must be obeyed. It is as simple as that. Republic Flour Mills, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs, 39 SCRA 269, No. L-28463 May 31, 1971
Facts:
Republic Flour Mills, a domestic corporation in the Philippines, filed a petition against Philippine Customs for taxing the products which according to them consists of a mere waste. They point out that the law found in the Section 2802 of the Tariff and Customs Code which stated “Product of the Philippines” does not cover their exportation for it is not a product but a waste. However, the respondent still imposed wharfage due to the petitioner in the sum of 7,948 which was paid under protest.
Issue:
Whether or not such a collection of wharfage dues was in accordance with the law.
Ruling:
Yes. It is in accordance with the law. It is explicitly stated on section 2802 that “There shall be levied, collected and paid on all articles imported or brought to the Philippines, a charge of two pesos per gross metric ton as a fee for wharfage.” The thing which the petitioner exported though a waste on the perspective of the petitioner must be wharfage for it is a product.
Read Full Text for free:
G.R. No. L-28463 (lawphil.net)