COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS.

HYPERMIX FEEDS CORPORATION

Facts:

Petition rooted when herein Respondent, Hypermix Feeds Corp. (Hypermix) filed for a Declaratory
Relief against BOC regarding the imposition of 7% Tariff requirement under the Customs Memo.
Order 27-2003. Herein petitioner (Commissioner of BOC) filed a motion to dismiss for (1) lack of
jurisdiction of RTC (2) that Declaratory Relief is improper, (3) CMO 27-2003 is an internal
administrative rule and not legislative in nature, and (4) claims of herein respondent is premature
since BOC has yet to examine products. Respondent however, contended the validity of CMO
since it was issued without following the mandate of Revised Administrative Code on public
participation, prior notice, publication and regulation. Furthermore, the regulation will ultimately
burden the importers without benefit of prior assessment which would violate their constitutional
right to Equal Protection of Law. RTC Ruled in favor of Respondent on grounds that the failure
of Petitioner to observe proper requirements before issuance of CMO 27-2003 violated the rights
of Respondent to Due Process. Hence an appeal was filed but was dismissed on grounds that since
the regulation affected the substantial rights of Hypermix and other importers, petitioner should
have observed the required notice, hearing and publication.

Issue:

Whether or not, CMO is enforceable based on observance of requirements by Revised

Administrative Code on issuances of Regulations.

Held:

SC stated that Petitioner clearly failed to comply with the rules laid down by the Revised
Administrative Code to wit:

Sec 3 requires all agencies to furnish, UP Law Center with three (3) Certified True Copies of every
adopted rule.
Sec 9 states that the agency must first publish notice of proposed rules to give interested parties an
opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of the rule.
In rules of fixing rates, the rule shall be valid when the proposed rates have been published in a
newspaper or general publication or circulation at least 2 weeks before the first hearing.

Moreover, SC states that when an administrative rule goes beyond mere interpretation of law and
increases burden to all governed by it, it behooves the agency to accord at least to those directly
affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed before the new issuance is given
force and effect of law.

In Tañada vs. Tuvera, SC said that “ It would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise
burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of which he has no notice whatsoever, not even a
constructive one.’