Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 492 views

    04 Resins V Auditor General 25 SCRA 754 - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jonjon Bee
    Resins, Inc. sought a refund from the Central Bank, claiming exemption from import fees on urea and formaldehyde imported separately for making synthetic glue. However, the law exempted "urea formaldehyde", a finished product distinct from importing urea and formaldehyde as separate chemicals. The Supreme Court upheld precedent that courts must apply the law as written, not as they wish. As "urea formaldehyde" referred unambiguously to the finished product, the law could not be interpreted to include separate imports of the chemicals. The petition was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    04 Resins V Auditor General 25 SCRA 754 - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jonjon Bee
    492 views1 page
    Resins, Inc. sought a refund from the Central Bank, claiming exemption from import fees on urea and formaldehyde imported separately for making synthetic glue. However, the law exempted "urea formaldehyde", a finished product distinct from importing urea and formaldehyde as separate chemicals. The Supreme Court upheld precedent that courts must apply the law as written, not as they wish. As "urea formaldehyde" referred unambiguously to the finished product, the law could not be interpreted to include separate imports of the chemicals. The petition was denied.

    Original Description:

    a

    Original Title

    04 Resins v Auditor General 25 SCRA 754_digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Resins, Inc. sought a refund from the Central Bank, claiming exemption from import fees on urea and formaldehyde imported separately for making synthetic glue. However, the law exempted "urea formaldehyde", a finished product distinct from importing urea and formaldehyde as separate chemicals. The Supreme Court upheld precedent that courts must apply the law as written, not as they wish. As "urea formaldehyde" referred unambiguously to the finished product, the law could not be interpreted to include separate imports of the chemicals. The petition was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    492 views1 page

    04 Resins V Auditor General 25 SCRA 754 - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jonjon Bee
    Resins, Inc. sought a refund from the Central Bank, claiming exemption from import fees on urea and formaldehyde imported separately for making synthetic glue. However, the law exempted "urea formaldehyde", a finished product distinct from importing urea and formaldehyde as separate chemicals. The Supreme Court upheld precedent that courts must apply the law as written, not as they wish. As "urea formaldehyde" referred unambiguously to the finished product, the law could not be interpreted to include separate imports of the chemicals. The petition was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Case Digest on Resins vs. Auditor General G.R. No.

    L-17888 October 29, 1968



    Source: http://www.shvoong.com/law-and-politics/1767212-case-digest-resins-vs-auditor/#ixzz359QUY3WP
    Case Digest for Statutory Construction
    G.R. No. L-17888 October 29, 1968 RESINS, INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs. AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE
    PHILIPPINES and THE CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. Agpalos book quoted this case to
    wit: The first and fundamental duty of the court is to apply the law. Facts: Resins, Inc, as did petitioner in Casco
    Philippine Chemical Co., Inc. v. Gimenez, would seek a refund from respondent Central Bank on the claim that it was
    exempt from the margin fee under Republic Act No. 2609 for the importation of urea and formaldehyde, as separate
    units, used for the production of synthetic glue of which it was a manufacturer. This as the specific language of the
    Act speak of "urea formaldehyde," and petitioner admittedly did import urea and formaldehyde separately, its plea
    could be granted only if the Supreme Court could construe the above provision of law to read "urea and
    formaldehyde." In the above Casco decision, the Supreme Court could not see their way clear of doing this. Note:
    REPUBLIC ACT NO. 2609 July 16, 1959 states: AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE CENTRAL BANK OF THE
    PHILIPPINES TO ESTABLISH A MARGIN OVER BANKS'''' SELLING RATES OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE. Sec. 1.
    The provisions of any law to the contrary notwithstanding when and as long as the Central Bank of the Philippines
    subjects all transactions in gold and foreign exchange to licensing in accordance with the provisions of section
    seventy-four of Republic Act Numbered Two hundred sixty-five, the Central Bank, in respect of all sales of foreign
    exchange by the Central Bank and its authorized agent banks, shall have authority to establish a uniform margin of
    not more than forty per cent over the banks'''' selling rates stipulated by the Monetary Board under section seventy-
    nine of Republic Act Numbered Two hundred sixty-five, which margin shall not be changed oftener than once a year
    except upon the recommendation of the National Economic Council and the approval of the President. The Monetary
    Board shall fix the margin at such rate as it may deem necessary to effectively curtail any excessive demand upon
    the international reserve.
    In implementing the provisions of this Act, along with other monetary, credit and fiscal measures to stabilize the
    economy, the monetary authorities shall take steps for the adoption of a four-year program of gradual decontrol. Sec.
    2. The margin established by the Monetary Board pursuant to the provision of section one hereof shall not be
    imposed upon the sale of foreign exchange for the importation of the following: XVIII. Urea formaldehyde for the
    manufacture of plywood and hardboard when imported by and for the exclusive use of end-users. ISSUES: Whether
    or not Republic Act 2609 could be construed as including urea and formaldehyde SEPARATELY and not urea
    formaldehyde as one product. Ruling: Petition denied with costs to petitioner Held: The court ruled as in aforecited
    Casco petition that ''''urea formaldehyde'''' is clearly a finished product, which is patently distinct and different from
    ''''urea'''' and ''''formaldehyde'''', as separate articles used in the manufacture of the synthetic resins known as ''''urea
    formaldehyde''''. The Supreme Court speaking through Justice Fernando said, To which we can only add that
    deference to the scope and implication of the function entrusted by the Constitution to the judiciary leaves us no other
    alternative. For nothing is better settled than that the first and fundamental duty of courts is to apply the law
    as they find it, not as they would like it to be. Fidelity to such a task precludes construction or interpretation,
    unless application is impossible or

    Source: http://www.shvoong.com/law-and-politics/1767212-case-digest-resins-vs-auditor/#ixzz359QXJc1G

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy