calumpit comment ca draft

8/17/2019 Calumpit Comment CA Draft

1/21

Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS

FOURTH DIVISION

Manila

COMMENT/OPPOSITION To the instant Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition

and Mandamus with Urgent Application for the

Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or

Preliminary Injunction

RESONDENT, RENAN B. DALISAY, in his capacity as

the National Food Authority (NFA) Administrator, through

counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully

avers that:

1. This comment is respectfully submitted in

compliance with the Resolution dated April 21,

1

CALUMPIT MULTI-PURPOSE

COOPERATIVE,

Petitioner.

- versus -

HON. DANIEL C. VILLANUEVA, in his

capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch 49,

MANILA REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION,

ALBERTO LINA, Commissioner of the

Bureau of Customs, ANTONIO MELITON

PASCUAL, District Collector Port of

Manila, GERARDO MACATANGAY, Chief

of Auction and Cargo Disposal Division,

RENAN B. DALISAY, National Food

CA-G.R. SP. No. 144812


2/21

2016 from this Honorable Court (copy of which is

herein attached as ANNEX “1”) and duly received

on May 06, 2016, giving the latter a period within

Ten (10) days after notice to file its comment oruntil May 16, 2016. Thus, this comment is timely

submitted;

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

2.On July 09, 2015, Calumpit MPC through its

authorized representative Magdalena S. Salgado

applied for a Certificate of Eligibility (COE) beforeRespondent NFA to import rice under the 2015

Minimum Access Volume Country Specific Quota

(MAV-CSQ);

3. Thus, on September 09, 2015, after having

submitted the requirements for its application,

NFA issued a COE in favor of the Petitioner.

Copies of which are herein attached as ANNEXES“2” & “2A”. Below are the details indicated in the

said COE, to wit:

Country of Origin Thailand

Quantity (in MT) 7,450

Commodity

Specification

25% Bkns. White Rice

Discharge Port MICP

Schedule of Arrival Not later than

November 30, 2015

Tentative Assessed

Customs Duty/Tariff

PHP 47,442,712.00

4. The COE is a supporting document for the

opening of a negotiable instruments with the

Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP). It bears tostress that a notation is likewise indicated

therein stating that: “(a) Advance Customs

Duties/Tariffs are subject to the Final Assessment

by the Bureau of Customs (BOC) upon arrival of

2


3/21

import; and (b) Within fifteen (15) days from the

date of issuance of this COE, the importer shall

submit the COE to the international Trade

Department of LBP (“LBP-ITD”) and shall open anaccount and pay the advance custom duty/tariff

with any designated LBP branch. Non-payment of

the advance custom duty/tariff within the said

period shall mean automatic revocation of this

COE”;

5.In the report from LBP, on Advance Payment of

Custom Duty/Tariff under the 2015 NFA RiceImportation Program, dated September 29, 2015,

hereto attached as ANNEX “3”, Calumpit MPC

paid its Custom Duty, in the total amount of

FORTY-SEVEN MILLION FOUR HUNDRED

FORTY-TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED

TWELVE (PHP 47,442,712.00) PESOS;

6. On November 22, 2015, Calumpit MPC applied for

the issuance of Import Permit for their 1,100 MT

Thai White Rice which was due to arrive on

November 23, 2015. They submitted documents,

such as: Arrival Information Notice, Bill of Lading

No. AISCMNL1511011, Commercial Invoice No.

ASIA1578/2015, Certificate of Origin No.

THTCCC0150199135, Certificate of Fumigation No.

622001/12-2-2015-5RC02705-001, Phytosanitary

Certificate No. 52066727, Certificate of Weight and

Inspection No. 622001/12-2015-03834-001,

Packing List dated November 18, 2015, Notice of

Arrival issued by DB Express and Omnibus

Affidavit executed by its authorized representative

Magdalena Salgado;

7. However, Respondent through its Grains

Marketing and Operations Department (GMOD) was not able to process the Import Permit

because Calumpit MPC failed to submit the

Debit Advice from Land Bank as proof of

payment to their supplier for its imported

3


4/21

rice, which is required under the MAV 2015

Guidelines;

8. On November 27, 2015, Calumpit MPC appliedfor another two (2) Import Permits for its two (2)

shipments of 1,100 MT and 450 MT rice import

from Thailand, which are due to arrive on

November 29, 2015. Documentary requirements

were submitted by Calumpit MPC except the

proof of payment to the suppliers. For which

reason NFA was not able to process the Import

Permits;

9. Despite the fact that Calumpit MPC is fully

aware that under the MAV Guidelines,

application for Import Permits cannot be

processed unless there is submission of the

complete documentary requirements, it filed

several applications for their other shipments

without complying to the required documents;

10.On December 09, 2015, Calumpit MPC applied

for the issuance of Import Permit for its 300 MT

rice shipment which is due to arrive on December

10, 2015. Again, the Import Permit was not

processed for failure to submit proof of payment

to the supplier;

11.In sum, there were four (4) shipments without

Import Permits (IP) due to incomplete

documents and the same arrived at MCIP

without the required Import Permits in

violation of the Guidelines for the Crop Year

2014-2015 Minimum Access Volume Omnibus

Origin (“MAV-OO”) Rice Importation Program.

Details of the shipments were indicated in the

following bill of lading:

Bill of Lading No. Quantity (MT) Date of

Arrival

AISCMNL1511011 1,100 (5% brokens) November

4


5/21

23, 2015

AISCMNL1511010 450 (25% brokens) November

29, 2015

AISCMNL1511014 1,100 (5% brokens) November29, 2015

AISCMNL1512002 300 (25% brokens) December

10, 2015

TOTAL 2,950

Copies of the Bills of Lading are hereto attached

as ANNEXES “4, 4A, 4B and 4C”;

12.On January 07, 2016, Respondent through Atty.

Judy Carol Dansal, Department Manager of

Internal Services Department referred the letter

of Mr. Gerardo M. Macatangay, Chief, ACDD-

MICP, Bureau of Custom (BOC), to Calumpit

MPC, on their rice importation consisting of 106

x 20 containers from Thailand. Copy of her

memorandum is hereto attached as ANNEX “5”;

13.In answer to the query, Engr. Lemuel R.

Pagayunan, Department Manager of GMOD,

informed Mr. Macatangay, that NFA has not

issued the import Permits on the 2,966,400 kg.

Thai White Rice shipments of Calumpit MPC,

copy of the letter is hereto attached as ANNEX

“6”;

14.On January 07, 2016, Calumpit MPC submitted

to NFA two (2) Debit Advices issued by LBP, dated

January 06, 2016. The same constitute its

payment of the principal plus negotiation charges

for its rice imports which arrived at Manila North

Port on November 23, 2015 (Bill of Lading No,

AISCMNL1511011 for 1,100 MT 5% brokens) and

December 10, 2015 (Bill of Lading No. AISCMNL1512002 for 300 MT 25% brokens),

amounting to PHP 4,500,549.47 and PHP

17,000,276.50 respectively. Copies of which is

herein attached as ANNEXES “7 and 7A”;

5


6/21

15.Petitioner, through its authorized representative,

Ms. Salgado, wrote Respondent explaining the

reasons for their failure to submit required

documents for their shipments. It contends that asregards their proof of payment instruction from

LBP, Petitioner alleges that their supplier in

Thailand spent early holiday mid November 2015,

which caused miscommunication and the

unavailability of the original document needed for

the Land Bank plus fact that their request for

amendment of the commodity specification was

disapproved;

16.On January 20, 2016, Petitioner again wrote

Respondent narrating the circumstances why

they failed to comply with all the required pre-

importation documents. Ms. Salgado stated

among others , that: “they had no intention to

abandon their four (4) shipments; that they took

them a very long time to settle the amount with the

LBP becausethey have no funds for the past

few months; that they were able to pay their

two (2) shipments with Bill of Lading nos.

AISCMNL1512002 and AISCMNL1511011 on

January 6 and 7, 2016, however, they failed to

process the import permit; that they thought they

can still process their import permit; that they

merely waited the proceeds of their sales to paythe said shipments; that as of this moment, it is

impossible for them to pay the other two (2)

shipments and they take responsibility to pay at

the LBP before January 31, 2016 once the two (2)

import permits are available; that with regard to

their pending shipment for a total balance of 2,240

MT, the 625 MT, the same will depart from

Thailand on January 19, 2016 and with atentative date of arrival on January 23 or 24,

2016; and the balance of 1,275 MT is scheduled

for loading and depart from Thailand on January

26, 2016 with tentative date of arrival on January

6


7/21

30 and 31.”Copy of the said letter is attached as

ANNEX “8”;

17. Thus, Respondent issued a mission orderdirecting the Security Services and Investigation

Department (SSID) of NFA to conduct an

investigation on the rice shipments of Calumpit

MPC which were not released by Customs due to

its failure to comply with the requirements on

the application for Import Permit. Respondent

issued summons to Petitioner dated January 21,

2016 requiring the latter to submit itsexplanation/answer on or before January 26,

2016. Copies of the Mission Order and

Summons are herein attached as ANNEXES “9

and 9A”respectively;

18.On January 21, 2016 Calumpit MPC through Ms.

Salgado submitted its answer to the summons

issued by the Security Services and Investigation

Department (SSID) of NFA reiterating her earlier

explanation as contained in her previous letter

dated January 20, 2016. Copy of which is herein

attached as ANNEX “10”;

19.Sometime in the second week of January 2016,

Calumpit MPC applied for issuance of Import

Permit for its shipment of 625 MT (which is

apart from the earlier four (4) subjectshipments) of Thai White Rice from Thailand.

Respondent did not accept the pre-importation

documentary requirements because Calumpit

MPC still has four (4) shipments without Import

Permits on account of its non submission of

Debit Advice from LBP and the same are under

investigation;

20.On January 27, 2016, Ms. Salgado and three (3)officers from the Calumpit MPC appeared before

the handling investigator. They reiterated their

earlier explanation contained in the written

answer previously submitted and that the non-

submission of the required proof of payment was

7


8/21

due to some financial difficulties they encounter

during the past months;

21.On January 28, 2016, Calumpit MPC submitteda Debit Advice issued by the LBP, dated January

27, 2016, in the amount of PHP 6,976,995.65,

as payment for its shipment which arrived at the

Manila North Port on November 29, 2015 (Bill of

Lading No. AISCMNL1511010 for 450 MT). Copy

of the same is hereto attached as ANNEX “11”;

22.Meanwhile, on January 29, 2016, the Bureau of

Customs (BOC) issued a Warrant of Seizure and

detention (WSD) on the rice shipments of

Calumpit MPC, for approximately 2,950 MT of

Thai White Rice, all arrived at the Manila North

Port on November 23, 29 (2 shipments) and

December 10, 2015;

23.On February 01, 2016, Calumpit MPC submitted

the Debit Advice issued by LBP, dated January29, 2016, as proof of payment of its 1,100 MT

Thai Rice (5% brokens) from Thailand which

arrived in Manila North Port on November 29,

2015 (Bill of Lading No. AISCMNL1511014), in

the total amount of PHP 17,269,344.06 Copy of

the Debit Advice is herein attached as ANNEX

“12”;

24.On March 10, 2016, Petitioner Calumpit MPC

filed a Petition for Injunction with Prayer for

Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary

Injunction before the Regional Trial Court of

Manila Branch 49 and on March 14, 2016,

Petitioner filed its amended Petition to include

National Food Authority (NFA) as a necessary

party;

25.In the continuation of the hearing last March 16,

2016, the Regional Trial Court issued the assailed

order in open court recalling the TRO previously

8


9/21

issued against Respondents on the ground that it

had no jurisdiction over the Petition;

26.On March 18, 2016, Petitioner filed a Motion forReconsideration to the Order from the Respondent

Regional Trial Court which was later withdrawn

by Petitioner in its Manifestation dated March 22,

2016;

27. Thus, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for

Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with

Urgent Application for the issuance of a

Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary

Injunction before this Honorable Court.

ISSUES

I

WHETHER PETITIONER CALUMPIT MPC

COMPLIED WITH ALL THE DOCUMENTARY

REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE MINIMUM ACCESS VOLUME COUNTRY SPECIFIC

QUOTA (MAV-CSQ) FOR THE YEAR 2015

SPECIFICALLY THE SUBMISSION OF

DEBIT ADVICE FROM LBP AS PROOF OF

PAYMENT TO THE SUPPLIER PRIOR TO

THE ARRIVAL OF THE FOUR (4) SUBJECT

SHIPMENTS?

II

WHETHER RESPONDENT’S NON-ISSUANCE

OF IMPORT PERMITS IN RELATION TO

THE FOUR (4) SUBJECT SHIPMENTS FOR

FAILURE OF PETITIONER TO SUBMIT THE

DEBIT ADVICE FROM LBP AS REQUIRED

BY THE MINIMUM ACCESS VOLUME

COUNTRY SPECIFIC QUOTA (MAV-CSQ)

FOR THE YEAR 2015 IS JUSTIFIED?

III

9


10/21

WHETHER A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO

COMPEL RESPONDENT DALISAY TO

ISSUE THE IMPORT PERMITS SHOULD

BE GRANTED?

IV

WETHER PETITIONER’S PRAYER FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

SHOULD BE GRANTED?

V

WHETHER RESPONDENT COMMITTED

GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRECTION AND

REVERSIBLE ERROR IN LIFTING THE

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IN

FAVOR OF PETITIONER PREVIOUSLY

ISSUED IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONERON THE GROUND OF ALLEGED LACK OF

JURISCTION OVER PETITIONER’S CASE

ARGUMENTS

I

“Petitioner failed to comply with

the documentary requirementsunder the Minimum Access

Volume Country Specific Quota

(MAV-CSQ) for the year 2015”

28. With respect to the issuance of Import Permit,

Item X of NFA Memorandum Circular No. AO-

2015-06-012 entitled “General Guidelines in the

importation of 805,200 Metric Tons, White Rice

Under the Minimum Access Volume Country

Specific Quota (MAV-CSQ) and the Minimum

Access Volume Omnibus Origins (MAV-OO) for the

year 2015 by the Private Sector”provides:

10


11/21

“X. ISSUANCE AND USE OF IMPORT

PERMIT (IP)

1.To obtain an Import Permit (ANNEX 9) theimporter shall submit to the GMOD-FOD

electronic copies of shipping documents

submitted to the LBPprior arrival of the

carrying vessel at designated Port of

Discharge. These documents are as

follows:

1.1.Arrival Information Notice(ANNEX 10)

1.2.Bill of Lading

1.3.Commercial Invoice

1.4.Certificate of Origin

1.5.Certificate of Fumigation

1.6.Phytosanitary Certificate

1.7.Certificate of Weight and

Inspection of the quality

and weight of rice and the

condition of bags

1.8.Inspection Certificate as to

the Condition of the Vessel

(for break bulk shipment)

1.9.Packing list

1.10.Notice of Arrival issued by the

Shipping Lines

1.11.Other documents as required

by the LBP

2. The importer shall provide the NFA

a copy of the LBP issued proof of

payment to suppliers and stamped

documents before the arrival of the

shipment. LBP shall likewise provide

NFA a copy of these documents

through e-mail.

3.The NFA Administrator shall issue the

import permit upon recommendation of

11


12/21

GMOD-FOD, ODAMO (Office of the

Deputy Administrator for Marketing

Operations), and OAAMO (Office of the

Assistant Administrator for MarketingOperations) that all documents

/requirements have been fully complied

in accordance to the Guidelines. The

import permit shall be signed by the

NFA Administrator and shall be in form

as embodied in ANNEX 11 of these

Guidelines.

4. The shipment shall be considered

illegal in the event the shipment

arrives without a valid permit.

5.Xxxxxxxxx

6.Xxxxxxxxx

7.Xxxxxxxxx

8.Xxxxxxxxxx” (Emphasis supplied)

Copy of NFA Memorandum Circular No. AO-2015-

06-012 is herein attached as ANNEX “O”;

29.In the instant case, Petitioner submitted four (4)

separate applications for the issuance of Import

Permits dated November 22 and 27 (2

shipments), 2015 and December 09, 2015respectively, however, Petitioner failed to

submit the required Debit Advice from the

Land Bank as proof of payment to the supplier

for its imported rice. Thus, these subject

applications were all denied and no Import

Permits were issued by the Respondent for the

four (4) subject importations;

30.Petitioner’s payment of the advance taxes/tariff

duties alone cannot justify the issuance of Import

Permits. Simply put, Tariff duties and the

submission of Debit Advice from Land Bank are two

12


13/21

separate requirements under NFA Memorandum

Circular No. AO-2015-06-012 and both should be

complied in order to secure Import Permits for their

shipments;

31.Petitioner failed to pay the supplier and submit

the required Debit Advices prior to the arrival

their imported rice. As such, Respondent cannot

be compelled to issue the necessary Import

Permits by filing this petition since Calumpit MPC

at the very onset failed to comply with the

requirements set fort by NFA Memorandum

Circular No. AO-2015-06-012;

II

“Respondent’s failure to issue the

import permits is justified since

the shipment is considered illegal”

32.Under NFA Memorandum Circular No. AO-2015-

06-012, “The shipment shall be considered illegalin the event the shipment arrives without a valid

permit.” Thus, Respondents failure to issue the

import permits on account of petitioner’s failure

to submit the required documents is justified

under the circumstances;

33.Petitioner’s failure to pay the supplier and submit

the Debit Advice from Land Bank is undisputed.In its letter dated January 11 and 20, 2016,

Petitioner contends that their failure to pay the

supplier was due to their lack of funds, granting

that Petitioner had no intention of abandoning

their shipment, Respondent cannot easily issue

the Import Permits and have petitioner release the

subject shipments otherwise, Respondent will be

sued for the non payment of the supplier;

34.It must be stressed that the four (4) subject

shipments in dispute arrived on November 23, 29

(2 shipments) and December 10, 2015 respectively.

While the Debit Advices corresponding to the

13


14/21

subject shipments were only paid and submitted

on January 07 and January 28 2016, such

belated submission which rendered the shipments

illegal for lack of Import Permits and later onsubjected to seizure by the Bureau of Customs

cannot be imputed to Respondent;

III

“A Writ of Mandamus to compel

Respondent Dalisay to issue the

Import Permits should not be

granted”

35.Mandamus is a Writ issued in the name of the

state, to an inferior tribunal, corporation, board

or person commanding the performance of an act

which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an

office, trust or station;

36. Thus, a Writ of Mandamus may be issued when a

tribunal, board, officer or a person; (1) unlawfully

neglects the performance of an act which the law

specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an

office, trust or station; or (2) the said tribunal,

etc., unlawfully excludes another from the use or

enjoyment of a right or office to which such

others are entitled;

37.Petitioner must show that he has a well defined,clear and certain right to warrant thereof ( Avenue

Arrastre & Stevedoring Corp v. Commissioner of

Customs, L-44674, February 28, 1983);

38.In the instant case, as discussed, Petitioners

failed to comply with the requirements under the


(MAV-CSQ). To reiterate, Petitioner failed to pay

the suppliers prior to the arrival of its shipment

and as a consequence, no debit advice from LBP

was submitted as proof of payment. Therefore,

Petitioner has no defined, clear and certain right

to warrant the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus

14


15/21

and Respondent Dalisay did not unlawfully

neglect the performance of an act which the law

specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from his

Office;

IV

“Calumpit MPC’S prayer for Preliminary

Injunction should be denied since its

right to injunctive relief has not been

clearly and unmistakably demonstrated”

39.“The purpose of a preliminary injunction, then, isto prevent threatened or continuous irremediable

injury to some of the parties before their claims

can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated. Its

sole aim is to preserve the status quo until the

merits of the case can be heard fully. Thus, it will

be issued only upon a showing of a clear and

unmistakable right that is violated. Moreover, an

urgent and permanent necessity for its issuance

must be shown by the applicant.” (First Global

Realty v. San Agustin February 19, 2002);

40.“To entitle a petitioner to the grant of a writ of

preliminary injunction, he must establish the

following requisites: (a) the invasion of the right

sought to be protected is material and substantial;

(b) the right of the complainant is clear and

unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and

paramount necessity for the writ to prevent

serious damage.” (Cortez-Estrada v. Samat

February 14, 2005);

41.Based on the facts as previously discussed,

Petitioner failed to show that it has clear and

unmistakable right over the subject shipments

and become entitled to the relief sought

because: (1) it failed to pay the supplier prior to

arrival of the subject shipments and submit the

required Debit Advices from Land bank; (2)

15


16/21

such failure rendered the subject shipments

illegal;

42.Further, Calumpit MPC in filing this subjectpetition collaterally challenges Respondent’s

authority with respect to the implementation of

2015 Minimum Access Volume Country Specific

Quota (MAV-CSQ). Petitioner alleges that

Respondent’s requirement to pay in advance the

custom duty/tariff is illegal and unconscionable;

43.It is respectfully submitted that Respondent NFA

has the authority to establish rules and

regulations governing the importation of rice,

corn and other grains and their substitutes

and/or by-products/end-products. Section 6 (a)

(xii) of Presidential Decree No. 4 provides:

“Section 6. Administration- Powers,

Organizations and Management and

Exemptions.(Sec. 6 paragraph 1, P.D.

1485) The powers, organization and

management of the Administration shall be

as follows:

a)x x x x x x x x x x

xii) To establish rules and regulations

governing the importation of rice, corn andother grains and their substitutes and/or

by-products/end-products and to (Sec. 6 A

(xii) license, impose and collect fees and

charges for said importation for the purpose

of equalizing the selling price of such

imported grains and their substitutes

and/or their by-products/end-products with

the normal prevailing domestic prices

In the exercise of this power, the Council

after consultation with the Office of the

President shall first certify to a shortage of

grains and/or their substitutes that may

16


17/21

occur as a result of a shortfall in

production, a critical demand-supply gap, a

state of calamity or other verified reasons

that may warrant the need for importation. The Authority shall undertake the direct

importation of grains and/or their

substitutes or it may allocate import quotas

among certified and licensed importers, and

the distribution thereof through

cooperatives and other marketing channels,

at prices to be determined by the Council

regardless of existing floor prices and thesubsidy thereof, if any, shall be borne by the

National Government.”

44. At any rate, questions on the wisdom and validity

of any provisions of NFA Memorandum Circular

No. AO-2015-06-012 in relation to the 2015


(MAV-CSQ) should be raised in a proper forum

and not under this petition for injunction which

aims to compel Respondent to issue the subject

Import Permits;

45.Lastly, it is respectfully submitted that

controversies involving facts and exercise of

discretion in the implementation of Minimum

Access Volume Country Specific Quota (MAV-

CSQ) are not proper subject of a Petition forMandatory Injunction;

46.“ The prohibition pertained to the issuance of

injunctions or restraining orders by courts

against administrative acts in controversies

involving facts or the exercise of discretion in

technical cases. To allow the courts to judge

these matters would disturb the smoothfunctioning of the administrative machinery.

However, on issues definitely outside of this

dimension and involving questions of law, courts

could not be prevented by the decree from

17


18/21

exercising their power to restrain or prohibit

administrative acts.” (Malaga v. Penachos, Jr.

213 SCRA 516);

V

“Respondent Hon. Daniel C. Villanueva did

not commit grave abuse of discretion and

reversible error in lifting the temporary

restraining order in favor of petitioner

previously issued on the ground of allegedlack of jurisdiction over petitioner’s case.”

47.Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious

and whimsical exercise of judgment as equivalent

to lack of jurisdiction, or in other words, where

the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic

manner by reason of passion or personal

hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as toamount to an evasion of positive duty or to a

virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to

act in contemplation of law. It is not sufficient

that a tribunal, in the exercise of its power,

abused its discretion; such abuse must be grave

(Benito v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 134913,

January 19, 2001);

48.In issuing the assailed order, Respondent Hon.

Daniel C. Villanueva committed no grave abuse of

discretion which would tantamount to lack of

jurisdiction and correctly pointed out that under

Section 602 of the Tariff & Customs Code of 1978,

PD 1464, the Bureau of Customs exercises

exclusive original jurisdiction over seizure and

forfeiture cases, thus, the regional trial courts are

precluded from assuming cognizance over such

matters, even through petitions for certiorari,

prohibition and mandamus;

18


19/21

49. While Petitioner alleges certain irregularities in

the conduct of BOC’s seizure proceedings, it must

be emphasized that under the doctrine of primary

jurisdiction, courts cannot and will not determinea controversy involving a question which is within

the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal,

where the question demands the exercise of sound

administrative discretion requiring special

knowledge, experience and services of

administrative tribunal to determine technical and

intricate matters of fact, and a uniformity of

ruling is essential to comply with the purposes ofthe regulatory stature administered;

50. Thus, the assailed auction sale should not be

considered an independent incident subject of

judicial review at this stage but an integral part of

the customs seizure proceedings.

BY WAY OF ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

51. The undersigned counsel, Atty. Jairus B. Rubio,

enters its appearance as counsel for the

Respondent Renan B. Dalisay in the above-

entitled case. Hence, it is respectfully requested

that all pleadings, orders and other notices of this

Honorable Court be sent to the following address:

NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY

Directorate for Legal Affairs

7th Floor PHILSUGIN Bldg. North Ave., Diliman

Quezon City

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, it is mostrespectfully prayed unto this Honorable Court that Calumpit

MPC’s Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with

Urgent Application for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining

Order and/or Preliminary Injunction be dismissed.

19


20/21

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed under the

premises.

Quezon City, Philippines this 13th day of May 2016

Respectfully submitted.

BY AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT

CORPORATE COUNSEL

NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY

Directorate for Legal Affairs

7th Floor PHILSUGIN Bldg. North Ave., DilimanQuezon City

By:

ATTY. EDNA T. LOVERIA, CPA

Department Manager

Legal Affairs Department

Roll No. 30959

PTR No. 1384875; 1/5/16 Pasig City

IBP No. 1012265; 11/25/15 RSM

MCLE Compliance No. V-0004734; 12/10/14

ATTY. MA. THERESA C. SANTOS-VILLAFUERTE, CPA

Chief - Litigation and Prosecution Division

Roll No. 54066PTR No. 0318062; January 5, 2015; Bulacan

IBP Lifetime Member No. 06659; Bulacan

MCLE Compliance No. IV-0016663

ATTY. JAIRUS B. RUBIO

Handling Lawyer

Roll No. 64701; April 28, 2015

PTR No. 2182274; January 06, 2016; Quezon City

IBP No. 1022990; Quezon City

MCLE Compliance in Process

20


21/21

Copy furnished with explanation:

MAGDALENA S. SALGADO

CALUMPIT MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE Room 210D, Sitio Grande Building,

Soriano Avenue, Intramuros, Manila

ATTY. TRISTAN F. LANGCAY

ATTY. JULITO DORIA

Bureau of Customs Legal Service

MICT Law Division

Bureau of Customs Manila

ATTY. JOEL N. VILLASERAN

ATTY. CHRISTIAN P. CASTRO

ATTY. CERILOS DOLINO

Office of the Solicitor General

134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village

Makati City

Copies of thisCOMMENT/OPPOSITION was served to

the other parties by means of registered mail with return

receipt due to distance and lack of personnel to effect personal

service thereof.

ATTY. JAIRUS B. RUBIO Counsel for the Respondent

21

calumpit comment ca draft

Documents