G.R. No. L-4033. September 21, 1950
MARCELO STEEL CORPORATION ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. THE IMPORT CONTROL BOARD ET AL., RESPONDENTS, WILLIAMS INTERNATIONAL LTD., ET AL., INTERVENORS.
BENGZON, J.:
mandamus ordering respondents to confiscate or impound for purposes of
forfeiture about 11,475 kegs of nails recently imported from Japan and
Hongkong by the intervenors. They allege that such kegs were landed in
violation of the Import Control Law, and that if released into the
local market will prejudice their financial interests and investments.
The respondents are the Import Control Board, the Honorable
Guillermo Gomez as Import Control Commissioner and the Honorable
Alfredo Jacinto as Acting Commissioner of Customs. These aver that the
nails are galvanized iron nails; that before ordering the said nails
the intervenors asked the opinion of the Import Control office on the
point whether said nails were subject to control; that the then Import
Control Commissioner (Rufino Luna) ruled that such nails were not
controlled because they were different from “common, wire nails”
enumerated in the Control Law; that these nails were imported in
accordance with the ruling of the said Import Control Commissioner;
that subsequently, heeding repeated protests of local nail factories,
the present Import Control Board passed a resolution declaring that
galvanized iron nails should be considered as common wire nails subject
to control; that the said Board and the other respondents believe this
new ruling should not apply to the nails in question, which were
Imported in good faith in accordance with the ruling of the then Import
Control Commissioner declaring galvanized iron nails as free from
control. The respondents consequently pray for dismissal of this
petition, with costs.
Given permission to take part in this proceeding, the intervenors
join the respondents as to the allegations of importation in good faith
and reliance do the ruling of Import Control Commissioner Luna; but
they maintain that the nails are galvanized iron nails—not common wire
nails subject to the regulations of the Import Control Law. Some of the
intervenors interposed other defenses, which, in the view we take of
the controversy do not need to be stated in detail.
At the oral argument the discussion centered around the question
whether “galvanized iron nails” were “common were nails”. Petitioners
had the burden to show the affirmative, because the Import Control Law
speaks of common wire nails11, and not galvanized iron nails. The
respondents introduced a report of the Bureau of Science to the effect
that the nails submitted for analysis (samples of the disputed
hardware) “are galvanized iron nails.” However, the report does not
affirm that the nails are not common wire nails. On the other
hand, the petitioners offered some catalogs advertising nails of
various classes. In size and form the intervenors’ nails look like the
common wire nails advertised therein. However, the same catalogs either
charge extra prices for “galvanizing” the nails (Exhibit D, Wickwire
Brothers, p. 71) or quote special prices for galvanized wire nails
(Exhibit C, American Steel & Wire Company, p. 10).
The end of the hearing found us with no definite impression that
petitioners had established their case, what with the undeniable fact
that the purpose of the control law was to protect local industry, and
“galvanized iron nails” were not and are not manufactured in this
country. The petitioners proved, at most, that galvanized iron nails
are common wire nails with the difference that they are
coated or plated with cadmium, zinc, lead or other base metals. With
the further difference suggested by intervenors that because of such
plating, they (galvanized iron nails) are used for certain purposes for
which common wire nails are not suitable.
It is true that the Import Control Board recently decreed that
“galvanized iron nails” should also be controlled. But such ruling
might have been promulgated in the exercise of its power, under the law
(Rep. Act No. 426}, to place in the control list other articles or commodities (sec. 7, subsection 4, third paragraph). Hence it is not necessarily an acknowledgment that as a matter of fact “galvanized iron nails” are “common wire nails.”
At any rate, supposing that galvanized iron nails are common wire
nails within the meaning of the law, the opinion is unanimous in this
Court that this petition may not, or should not, be granted for the
following reasons, in addition to others:
First. We have no power to order the confiscation of the
nails, because under the last proviso of section 20 of the Import
Control Law (Rep. Act No. 426) in connection with Article 18, chapter
39 of the Revised Administrative Code, forfeiture of goods imported in
violation of said Law is subject to the discretion of the respondent
Commissioner of Customs (see section 1365, Adm. Code). It is elementary that mandamus does not lie to compel performance of a discretionary duty.[1]
Second. All equities favor the intervenors. It is
unquestioned that they ordered these nails believing in good faith in
the ruling of Import Control Commissioner Luna that “galvanized iron
nails” were not subject to control. There was reasonable ground for the
ruling, and their,belief. They placed the orders before the Import
Control Board had decided that “galvanized iron nails” should be
controlled like “common wire nails”.
Wherefore, of for no other reason than to honor and instill
confidence in government commitments made through responsible officials”[2]
the difference between “common wire nails” and “galvanized iron nails”
however small, should be deemed sufficient basis and excuse for
respondents’ refusal to impound the questioned shipments.
And remembering that “as a general rule mandamus is not a writ of right and its allowance or refusal is a matter of discretion[3] to be exercised on equitable principles and in accordance with well-settled rules of law”[4]; and that “it should never be used to effectuate an injustice, but only to prevent a failure of justice, “[5]
this Court should not compel respondents to forfeit the nails and
thereby perform an act which they believe, and this Court believes,
would do violence to natural justice.
By this we do not mean that newly appointed officers or boards are
bound to uphold or tolerate the erroneous resolutions of their
predecessors. Occasions will undoubtedly arise when the interests of
the public or other important considerations will demand immediate
unqualified repudiation. But we are not aware this is one of them.
In view of all the foregoing, the petition is denied, with costs
against petitioners. The injunction orders heretofore issued are hereby
dissolved.
Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Pars, Pablo, Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.
[1] Inchausti & Co. vs. Wright, 47 Phil., 366; Blanco vs. Board of Medical Examiners, (46 Phil., 190); Moran, Rules of Court, Vol. II, p. 151.
[2] U. S. Tobacco Corporation vs. Luna, G. R. No. L-3875, promulgated July 6, 1950. Supra, p. 4.
[3] 55 Corpus Juris Secundum, p. 25.
[4] 55 Corpus Juris Secundum, p. 29.
[5] Op. cit. p. 33 citing many cases.