Casco Philippine Chemical Co. v. Gimenez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Casco Philippine Chemical Co., Inc., engaged in manufacturing synthetic resin glues, purchased foreign exchange for the importation of urea and formaldehyde, the main raw materials for said glues. Petitioner paid a uniform margin fee of 25% on these foreign exchange transactions pursuant to Republic Act No. 2609 and Central Bank Circular No. 95. Procedural History: Petitioner sought a refund of the margin fees paid, relying on a Monetary Board Resolution exempting the separate importation of urea and formaldehyde from the fee. The Auditor of the Central Bank refused to audit the refund vouchers, asserting the exemption was not in accord with Republic Act No. 2609. The Auditor General affirmed this action. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review, arguing that "urea formaldehyde" in Republic Act No. 2609 should be construed as "urea and formaldehyde," thereby exempting the raw materials. The core issue is whether urea and formaldehyde, as separate importations, are exempt from the margin fee.
Issue(s)
Whether the term "urea formaldehyde" in Section 2, paragraph XVIII of Republic Act No. 2609 should be construed to mean "urea AND formaldehyde" to allow for the tax-exempt importation of these separate chemicals.
Ruling
The decision of the Auditor General denying the claim for refund is affirmed. The petition is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that "urea formaldehyde" is a finished product (a synthetic resin) distinct from its raw components, "urea" and "formaldehyde," as certified by the National Institute of Science and Technology. Applying the Enrolled Bill Doctrine, the Court ruled that the version of the bill certified by the officers of Congress and approved by the President is conclusive upon the courts. The Court explicitly rejected the petitioner's reliance on legislative floor debates, noting that individual statements do not necessarily reflect the collective intent of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Referencing Mabanag v. Lopez Vito (78 Phil. 1) and Primicias v. Paredes (61 Phil. 118), the Court emphasized that it cannot look behind the enrolled bill to search for mistakes without jeopardizing the principle of separation of powers. The Court concluded that if a mistake occurred in the printing of the bill before it was certified, the only constitutional remedy is curative legislation or amendment by Congress. Therefore, the literal term "urea formaldehyde" in the statute must be followed, and since the petitioner imported the raw materials separately rather than the resin, the exemption does not apply.
Main Doctrine
The enrolled bill, which uses the term "urea formaldehyde" instead of "urea and formaldehyde," is conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by Congress and approved by the President. Any perceived mistake in the printing of the bill is a matter for legislative amendment, not judicial decree.