RONALD BUDOMO LLB 1 Case digest for Statutory Construction Jul 19, 2012 1 Republic Flour Mills vs Commissioner

of Customs 39 SCRA 269 FACTS The personalities involved: (1) Republic Flour Mills (petitioner) is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture of wheat flour and in the process of milling said product, produces pollard (darak) and bran (ipa); (2) Respondents are the Commisioner of Customs and the Court of Tax Appeals. The complaint: Petitioner questions respondents decision to charge the corporation P7,948 in wharfage dues on exported pollard and/or bran. Petitioner paid this amount in protest. Petitioner sent the case to Court of Tax Appeals who decided in favour of respondent (sustained the actions of the Commissioner of Customs). Petitioner elevated the matter to the SC and requested that the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals be reviewed. Petitioner claims: Section 2802 of the Tariff Custom Code (which was respondents basis for the collection of wharfage dues) is not applicable in the case at bar because the bran and pollard are actually not "products of the Philippines" because they came from wheat grain which were imported from abroad. ISSUES Is respondent liable for wharfage dues on its exportation of bran and pollard as they are not "products of the Philippines? HELD The SC denied the petition; It re-affirmed the Court of Tax Appeals decision. Rationale: The petitioner erred in its construction of the Act. As per section 2802 of the Tariff and Custom Code, "There shall be levied, collected and paid on all articles imported or brought into the Philippines, and on products of the Philippines exported from the Philippines, a charge of two pesos per gross metric ton as a fee for wharfage. The meaning and intent of the Act is precisely to collect tariffs on anything imported and exported to and from the Philippines.

2 Perfecto Floresca vs Philex Mining Corporation

136 scra FACTS The personalities in this case: Petitioners Floresca et al are the heirs of the deceased employees of Philex Mining Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Philex), respondent. The employees, while working at Philex copper mines underground operations at Tuba, Benguet on June 28, 1967, died as a result of the cave-in that buried them in the tunnels of the mine. The original complaint: Petitioner alleges that Philex, in violation of government rules and regulations, negligently and deliberately failed to take the required precautions for the protection of the lives of its men working underground. The case was filed at the Court of First Instance of Manila. Petitioner asks for damages as covered in the Civil Code. Respondent claims that the damages are already covered by the Workmens Compensation Act and hence the case should not be tried in the said court (citing lack of jurisdiction). Said Court dismissed petitioners complaint for damages on grounds that it has no jurisdiction over the case. The case should go to the Workmens Compensation Commission. Petitioners then elevated the matter to the SC and asked for a review of the Court of First Instance of Manilas decision. ISSUES 1. Whether or not the lower court erred in failing to distinguish between: Claims for damages under the Civil Code and Claims for compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act. 2. Does the Court of First Instance have jurisdiction over the case? 3. Can petitioner claim for damages under both the Civil Code and Workmens Compensation Act? HELD The Court of First Instance of Manilas decision is reversed and set aside. The case is remanded to it for further proceedings (note: 3 justices have dissenting opinions). On issue number 1: Yes, the lower court failed to distinguish the claims in the correct manner. It should have been that: a) The claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act refers to liability for compensation for loss resulting from injury, disability or death of the working man through industrial accident or disease, without regard to the fault or negligence of the employer; while

b) The claim for damages actual, exemplary and moral - under the Civil Code (which the petitioners pursued in the regular court), refers to the employer's liability for reckless and wanton negligence resulting in the death of the employees. On issue number 2: Yes, the court has jurisdiction over the case. The complaint is for claims for damages (in the amount of P825,000) due to Philex negligence which resulted to the death of its workers something that is to be adjudicated by said court as a decision would uphold provisions in the Civil Code and not in the Workmens Compensation Act. On issue number 3: Yes the petitioner can. The petitioner actually did not indicate anything about their claims under the Workmens Compensation Act because they are also entitled to it. Unlike in the Civil Code, the Workmen's Compensation Act did not contain any provision for an award of actual, moral and exemplary damages. What the Act provided was merely the right of the heirs to claim limited compensation for the death of the worker plus burial expenses, and medical expenses when incurred, and an additional compensation of only 50% if the complaint alleges failure on the part of the employer to "install and maintain safety appliances or to take other precautions for the prevention of such accident".

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX