CASCO PHILIPPINE CHEMICAL CO., INC v. GIMENEZ (RIGGZ) 7.

7. Although the Central Bank issued the corresponding margin fee vouchers
February 28, 1963 | Concepcion, J. | departure from liberal interpretation
PETITIONER: Casco Philippine Chemical Co., Inc.
RESPONDENTS: Hon. Pedro Gimenez (Auditor General of the Philippines) and
Hon. Ismael Mathay (Auditor of the Central Bank)
SUMMARY: On 1 July 1959, pursuant to RA 2609, the Central Bank of the
Philippines fixed a uniform margin fee of 25% foreign exchange transactions.
Petitioner, a manufacturer of resin glues, had bought foreign exchange for the
importation of urea and formaldehyde – raw materials for the said glues – and
were thus paying for the margin fees required.
for the refund of said amounts, the Auditor of the Bank refused to pass in
audit and approve said vouchers, upon the ground that the exemption
granted by the Monetary Board for petitioner’s separate importations of
urea and formaldehyde is not in accord with the provisions of Section 2,
paragraph 18 of RA 2609
8. On appeal taken by petitioner, the Auditor General subsequently affirmed
the said action of the Auditor of the Bank
ISSUE: whether or not “urea” and “formaldehyde” are exempt by law from the
payment of the margin fee – NO. Citing the Commissioner of the National Institute
of Science and Technology, “urea formaldehyde” is clearly a finished product, which
is patently distinct and different from “urea” and “formaldehyde”

Relying upon Resolution No. 1529 of the Monetary Board of the said bank RULING: The decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.
declaring that the separate importation of urea and formaldehyde is exempt from
the said fee, the petitioner sought for a refund of the margin fees that had been RATIO:
paid. This was denied by the Author of the said Bank stating that the claim was 1. It is well settled that the enrolled bill, which uses the term “urea
not in accordance with the provisions of Section 2, paragraph 18 of RA 2609. formaldehyde” instead of “urea” and “formaldehyde”, is conclusive
upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by the
DOCTRINE: Should there have been any error in the printing of a bill, the Congress and approved by the President.
remedy is by amendment or curative legislation, not by a judicial decree. 2. If there has been any mistake in the printing of the bill before it was
certified by the officers of the Congress and approved by the Executive, on
FACTS: which the Court cannot speculate, without jeopardizing the principle of
separation of powers and undermining one of the cornerstones of the
1. Pursuant to the provisions of RA 2609, or the Foreign Exchange Margin democratic system, the remedy is by amendment or curative legislation, not
Fee Law, the Central Bank of the Philippines issued on 1 July 1959, its by judicial decree.
Circular No. 95, fixing a uniform margin fee of 25% on foreign exchange 3. The petitioner’s contention that the bill approved in Congress contained the
transactions conjunction “and” between the terms “urea” and “formaldehyde” separately
2. To supplement the circular, the Bank later promulgated a memorandum as essential elements in the manufacture of “urea formaldehyde”, is not
establishing the procedure for applications for exemption from the payment reflective of the view of the Senate and the intent of the House of
of said fee, as provided in said RA 2609 Representatives in passing the bill.
3. Several times in November and December 1959, petitioner, which is
engaged in the manufacture of synthetic resin glues, used in bonding lumber
and veneer by plywood and hardboard producers – bought foreign exchange
for the importation of urea and formaldehyde – which are the main raw
materials in the production of said glues.
4. In May 1960, petitioner made another purchase of foreign exchange and
paid the margin fee.
5. Prior thereto, petitioner had sought the refund of the first sum, relying upon
Resolution No. 1529 of the Monetary Board of said Bank, dated 3
November 1959, declaring that the separate importation of urea and
formaldehyde is exempt from said fee.
6. Soon after the last importation of these products, petitioner made a similar
request for refund of the sum paid as margin fee