CASCO v. Gimenez Case Digest

Casco v. Gimenez
7 SCRA 347

Digest by Kirk Yngwie Enriquez

Facts:

Pursuant to the provisions of RA 2609 a.k.a. the Foreign Exchange Margin Fee Law, the Central bank of the PH issued on July 1, 1959 its Circular No. 95, fixing a uniform margin fee of 25% on foreign exchange transactions. The Bank later promulgated a memorandum establishing the procedure for applications for exemption from the payment of said fee, as provided in the same law (Par. 18 Section 2 of RA 2609). In November and December 1959, petitioner (engaged in the manufacture of synthetic resin glues) bought foreign exchange for the importation of urea and formaldehyde which are the main materials of the said glue and paid a margin fee of P33,765.42. In May 1960, petitioner made another foreign exchange purchase and paid P6,345.72 as margin fee.

Prior thereto, petitioner had sought the refund of the first sum of P33, 765.42, relying on the Resolution No. 1529 of the Monetary Board of said Bank dated Nov. 3, 1959 declaring that the separate importation of urea and formaldehyde is exempt from said margin fee. Petitioner made another request for refund for the P6,345.72. The Central Bank issued corresponding margin fee vouchers for the refund of said amounts, but the Auditor of the Bank refused to approve the vouchers, on the ground that the exemption by the Monetary Board is not in Accord with Par. 18 Section 2 of RA 2609. The Auditor General affirmed the decision of the Central Bank Auditor.

Issue:

WON urea and formaldehyde are exempt from the payment of the aforesaid margin fee.

Ruling:

No. Petitioner contends that “urea formaldehyde” should be construed as “urea and formaldehyde”. However, “urea formaldehyde” is a finished product and is different from “urea and formaldehyde”, which are the materials used to manufacture the synthetic resin known as “urea formaldehyde”. The National Institute of Science and Technology also expressed that urea formaldehyde is not a chemical solution but a synthetic resin formed as a condensation product from definite portions of urea and formaldehyde.

Petitioner also contends that the bill approved in Congress contained the conjunction “and” between the two terms, and that members of Congress intended to exempt “urea” and “formaldehyde” separately as essential elements in the manufacture of the synthetic resin glue called “urea formaldehyde”, not the latter as a finished product, citing statements made on the Senate during its deliberation on the bill. However, said individual statements do not necessarily reflect the view of the Senate or the House of Representatives.

It is well settled that the enrolled bill which uses the term “urea formaldehyde” is conclusive upon the courts. If there has been any mistake in the printing of the bill before it was certified by the officers and Congress and approved by the Executive, the Court cannot speculate without jeopardizing the principle of separation of powers. Remedy is amendment or curative legislation, not by judicial decree.