Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • SC Rules in Favor of PCA in Dispute Over Unpaid Coconut Fees

    Uploaded by

    Conrad Pranze Villas
    18 views1 page
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled in favor of the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) in a dispute over unpaid fees. PCA claimed Soloil had not paid fees for domestic coconut product sales, while Soloil denied such sales. Although the trial court initially ruled for Soloil, the Court of Appeals sided with PCA. The Supreme Court found that PCA was authorized by law to collect fees from copra exporters like Soloil upon purchase, regardless of whether the copra was later sold domestically or exported. The Court also determined PCA's complaint sufficiently established a cause of action through annexes showing Soloil's unpaid fees.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    2. SolOil, Inc. vs. PCA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled in favor of the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) in a dispute over unpaid fees. PCA claimed Soloil had not paid fees for domestic coconut product sales, while Soloil denied such sales. Although the trial court initially ruled for Soloil, the Court of Appeals sided with PCA. The Supreme Court found that PCA was authorized by law to collect fees from copra exporters like Soloil upon purchase, regardless of whether the copra was later sold domestically or exported. The Court also determined PCA's complaint sufficiently established a cause of action through annexes showing Soloil's unpaid fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    18 views1 page

    SC Rules in Favor of PCA in Dispute Over Unpaid Coconut Fees

    Uploaded by

    Conrad Pranze Villas
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled in favor of the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) in a dispute over unpaid fees. PCA claimed Soloil had not paid fees for domestic coconut product sales, while Soloil denied such sales. Although the trial court initially ruled for Soloil, the Court of Appeals sided with PCA. The Supreme Court found that PCA was authorized by law to collect fees from copra exporters like Soloil upon purchase, regardless of whether the copra was later sold domestically or exported. The Court also determined PCA's complaint sufficiently established a cause of action through annexes showing Soloil's unpaid fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    SECOND DIVISION

    G.R. No. 174806 : August 11, 2010

    SOLOIL, INC., Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORITY, Respondent.

    DECISION

    Facts:
    This is a petition for review of the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals regarding a
    dispute between Petitioner Soloil, Inc. and Respondent Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA).
    PCA claimed that Soloil had not paid overdue fees for the domestic sale of coconut products.
    Soloil denied engaging in such sales. The case went to trial, and PCA presented evidence of
    Soloil's outstanding fees. Soloil argued that PCA had no factual basis for its demand. The
    Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Soloil, but the Court of Appeals granted PCA's appeal,
    stating that fees attached upon purchase of copra by copra exporters, regardless of whether it
    was for domestic or export sales. Soloil filed a petition for review.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the complaint, alleging non- payment of PCA fees due on Soloil’s domestic sale
    of coconut products, sufficiently stated a cause of action when evidence adduced during trial
    consisted of Soloil’s export sale of coconut products

    Decision:
    The Supreme Court in the Philippines ruled in favor of the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) in
    a case against Soloil Corporation. Soloil argued that the complaint should be dismissed for lack
    of cause of action, and that PCA should not be allowed to adduce evidence pertaining to export
    sales. However, the court found that the complaint sufficiently established that PCA was
    mandated by law to impose and collect PCA fees for every kilo of copra purchased by copra
    exporters such as Soloil, and that the attached annexes showing Soloil's unpaid PCA fees were
    sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court noted that the complaint did not have to
    establish facts proving the existence of a cause of action at the outset. The court also found that
    PCA fees attached upon purchase of copra by copra exporters, such as Soloil, whether for
    domestic or for export sale of coconut products. Presidential Decree No. 1854 increased such
    PCA fees to three centavos per kilo of copra or husked nuts or their equivalent in other coconut
    products.

    You might also like