Introduction to Law 117, particularly paragraphs c and g, of the

Topic: Sources of Law Tariff Law

Ruling/s:
Relevant Doctrine: Doctrine of Stare Decisis
Once a case has been decided one way such  NO, CFI did not err in affirming the
decision stands until it is subsequently reversed or respondent’s interpretation
modified.  The Court applied the Doctrine of Stare
Decisis, to quote:
Kuenzle & Streiff v Collector of Customs o It is a rule well established in the
G.R. No. 4315, November 21, 1908 interpretation of customs laws that,
Ponente: Justice Johnson where there has been a long
acquiescence in a regulation by
which the rights of parties for years
Facts: have been determined and
adjusted, such interpretation
 The petitioners imported into the Philippine
should be followed in the absence
Islands certain cotton goods.
of the most cogent and persuasive
 Upon which the respondent imposed a duty reasons to the contrary.
in accordance with Article 117(c) of Tariff
Laws applicable in the Philippines and a Therefore, the Court, speaking thru Justice Johnson,
surtax of 30% per annum was also imposed affirmed the decision of CFI with costs.
in addition to the former based on Article
17(g) of the same statute.
 Art 117(c) and (g) of the tariff law applicable
in the Philippines provides as follows:
o "Textiles, plain and without figures,
not stamped or printed, whatever
be their width, weighing eight kilos
or more per one hundred square
meters, having—
 (c) From thirty-two to
thirty-four threads, N. W.,
kilo, eighteen cents…
 (g) The same textiles,
stamped, printed, or
manufactured with the
dyed yarns, dutiable as
the textile, with a surtax of
thirty per centum.
 Against this ruling, they filed a protest.
 The respondent argued that Art 117(g)
clearly refers to all description of textiles
preceding it.
 Further, Collector of Customs held that the
interpretation was followed since 1901 and
the law has been amended twice, without the
legislature having made any change in that
portion of the Article.
 The CFI affirmed the ruling of Collector of
Customs re Article 117 of Tariff Law, which
is in favor of the respondent.
Hence, this Petition.
Issue:
Whether or not CFI erred in affirming
Collector of Customs’ interpretation of Article