Bacolod Murcia Milling v. Central Bank
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the enforcement of Central Bank Circular No. 20, which regulated the export of goods and the collection of foreign exchange proceeds. The petitioner, Bacolod Murcia Milling Co., Inc., was required to secure export licenses and entrust the collection of U.S. dollar proceeds from its sugar shipments to designated commercial banks, acting as agents for the Central Bank. The petitioner's contention was that it should not be estopped from protesting the enforcement of this circular, and that the circular itself was unconstitutional. 2. Procedural History: The case reached the Supreme Court following a resolution on a motion for reconsideration. The petitioner had previously sought to challenge the constitutionality of Central Bank Circular No. 20 and argued against being estopped from raising these issues. The Supreme Court, in its resolution, addressed both the estoppel argument and the constitutionality claim. 3. The Petition: The petitioner sought a resolution from the Supreme Court on two main issues: first, that it should not be held to have been estopped by its failure to protest the enforcement of Circular No. 20 in a timely manner; and second, that an injunction should be issued on the grounds that Circular No. 20 is unconstitutional. The Court ultimately denied the motion for reconsideration, finding no merit in the estoppel argument and deeming the constitutional issue moot due to subsequent legislation (Republic Act No. 2609) and implementing Central Bank Circular No. 133.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Bacolod Murcia Milling Co., Inc. is estopped from protesting the enforcement of Central Bank Circular No. 20 due to its failure to protest in a timely manner. Whether Central Bank Circular No. 20 is unconstitutional and warrants an injunction.
Ruling
The motion for reconsideration is denied. The Court found no merit in the first ground regarding estoppel and deemed the second ground regarding the constitutionality of Circular No. 20 to be moot and academic due to subsequent legislation.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that petitioner Bacolod Murcia Milling Co., Inc. was aware of and complied with the export regulations, including Circular No. 20, when it secured its export licenses and shipped its sugar. The regulations required that the collection of U.S. dollar proceeds be entrusted to a bank licensed to do business in the Philippines, acting as an agent for the Central Bank. Petitioner's subsequent protest, made after the shipment and under the conditions specified in the license, was deemed untimely. Had the petitioner truly intended to protest, it should have refused to secure the license and proceed with the shipment under the existing regulations. Therefore, the petitioner was held to be estopped from protesting the enforcement of the circular. On Issue 2: The Court declared that the issue of the constitutionality of Circular No. 20 had become moot and academic. This was due to the enactment of Republic Act No. 2609, which superseded the Central Bank's power to commandeer dollars earned by exporters. Republic Act No. 2609 granted the Central Bank authority to establish margins over selling rates of foreign exchange and implemented a program of gradual decontrol. This subsequent legislation rendered the challenge to Circular No. 20 unnecessary to pass upon, as the legal framework had changed significantly.
Main Doctrine
A challenge to the constitutionality or legality of a Central Bank circular becomes moot and academic when a subsequent law, such as Republic Act No. 2609, effectively supersedes the authority or provisions being questioned. Furthermore, a party may be estopped from assailing a regulation if they have complied with its requirements and failed to protest in a timely manner before or during such compliance.