Casco Philippine Chemical Co., Inc. vs.

Gimenez and Mathay (1963)

Petitioners: Casco Philippine Chemical Co., Inc.
Respondents: HON. PEDRO GIMENEZ, in his capacity as Auditor General of the Philippines
and HON. ISMAEL MATHAY, in his capacity as Auditor of the Central Bank,
Topic: Congress Enrolled Bill Doctrine
SUMMARY: The enrolled bill is conclusive upon the courts.
FACTS:

On July 1, 1959, pursuant to Republic Act No. 2609 (Foreign Exchange Margin Fee
Law), the Central Bank of the Philippines (CBP) fixed a uniform margin fee of 25%
foreign exchange transactions. Petitioner, a manufacturer of resin glues, had bought
foreign exchange for the importation of urea and formaldehyde raw materials for the
said glues and thus paid for the required margin fees.
Relying upon Resolution No. 1529 of the Monetary Board of the CBP declaring that the
separate importation of urea and formaldehyde is exempt from the said fee, the
petitioner sought for a refund of the margin fees that had been paid.
The Auditor General denied the claim, stating that it was not in accord with the
provisions of section 2, paragraph XVIII of R.A. 2609:
o The margin established by the Monetary Board pursuant to the provision of
section one hereof shall not be imposed upon the sale of foreign exchange for
the importation of the following:
xxx
xxx
xxx
XVIII. Urea formaldehyde for the manufacture of plywood and hardboard when
imported by and for the exclusive use of end-users. (Emphasis provided.)

ISSUE/S:

WoN urea and formaldehyde are exempt from the payment of the said margin fee
o NO. Citing the Commissioner of the National Institute of Science and Technology,
urea formaldehyde is clearly a finished product, which is patently distinct and
different from urea and formaldehyde.
o Furthermore, the enrolled bill which uses the term urea formaldehyde instead
of urea and formaldehyde is conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor
of the measure passed by Congress and approved by the President. The courts
cannot speculate that there had been an error in the printing of the bill as this
shall violate the principle of separation of powers. Shall there have been any
error in the printing, the remedy is by amendment or curative legislation, not by
judicial decree.

NOTES:

None.