G.R. No. 45230 - OCTOBER 1936 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 45230October 31, 1936 Jose Arnedo, et al. vs. Vicente Aldanese G.R. No. 45198October 31, 1936 People of the Philippines vs. Basilio J. de Jesus G.R. No. 44988October 31, 1936 People of the Philippines vs. Canuto Bernal G.R. No. 43762October 31, 1936 Tan Soo Huat vs. Pedro Ongwico, et al. G.R. No. 43596October 31, 1936 Philippine Natonal Bank vs. National City Bank of New York, et al. G.R. No. 42334October 31, 1936 North Negros Sugar Company vs. Serafin Hidalgo G.R. No. 42999October 30, 1936 Acme Films, Inc. vs. Theaters Supply Corporation, et al. G.R. No. 42338October 30, 1936 Pedro Lacaste vs. Director of Lands G.R. No. 41697October 30, 1936 Severo Josue vs. Fausto Diaz G.R. No. 45237October 28, 1936 Mariano Molo vs. A. L. Yatco, et al. G.R. No. 42092October 28, 1936 In re Andres Reyes Felisa Camia de Reyes vs. Juana Reyes de Ilano G.R. No. 45332October 27, 1936 Bruno Arevalo, et al. vs. Ricardo Nepomuceno, et al. G.R. No. 44304October 27, 1936 Levy Hermanos, Inc. vs. Simeon C. Capule G.R. No. 45163October 26, 1936 Elpidio Javellana vs. La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Company, Inc. G.R. No. 45161October 26, 1936 Esteban C. Espiritu vs. San Miguel Brewery, et al. G.R. No. 45100October 26, 1936 People of the Philippines vs. Epifanio Diokno, et al. G.R. No. 42539October 23, 1936 In re: Felisa Javier Sulpicio Resurreccion vs. Agustin Javier, et al. G.R. No. 43504October 22, 1936 Indalecio de Torres vs. Vicente Ona G.R. No. 43304October 21, 1936 Antonio F. Aquino vs. Tomas Deala G.R. No. 42958October 21, 1936 C. N. Hodges vs. Carlota Salas, et al. G.R. No. 42134October 21, 1936 Director of Lands vs. Isidoro Abaja, et al. G.R. No. 45137October 20, 1936 Santiago Sambrano vs. Luzon Transportation Company, et al. G.R. No. 45053October 19, 1936 People of the Philippines vs. Ciriaco Piring, et al. G.R. No. 44831October 8, 1936 Chua Ke, et al. vs. Quirico Abeto, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Jose Arnedo, et al. vs. Vicente Aldanese People of the Philippines vs. Basilio J. de Jesus People of the Philippines vs. Canuto Bernal Tan Soo Huat vs. Pedro Ongwico, et al. Philippine Natonal Bank vs. National City Bank of New York, et al. North Negros Sugar Company vs. Serafin Hidalgo Acme Films, Inc. vs. Theaters Supply Corporation, et al. Pedro Lacaste vs. Director of Lands Severo Josue vs. Fausto Diaz Mariano Molo vs. A. L. Yatco, et al. In re Andres Reyes Felisa Camia de Reyes vs. Juana Reyes de Ilano Bruno Arevalo, et al. vs. Ricardo Nepomuceno, et al. Levy Hermanos, Inc. vs. Simeon C. Capule Elpidio Javellana vs. La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Company, Inc. Esteban C. Espiritu vs. San Miguel Brewery, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Epifanio Diokno, et al. In re: Felisa Javier Sulpicio Resurreccion vs. Agustin Javier, et al. Indalecio de Torres vs. Vicente Ona Antonio F. Aquino vs. Tomas Deala C. N. Hodges vs. Carlota Salas, et al. Director of Lands vs. Isidoro Abaja, et al. Santiago Sambrano vs. Luzon Transportation Company, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ciriaco Piring, et al. Chua Ke, et al. vs. Quirico Abeto, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 45230             October 31, 1936

JOSE ARNEDO, VICTORIANO FRANCISCO, JUAN DIONISIO, MANUEL MARIANO and REMIGIO LARA,petitioners,
vs.
VICENTE ALDANESE, as Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila,respondent.

Juan R. Mariano for petitioners.
Office of the Solicitor-General Hilado for respondent.

ABAD SANTOS,J.:

This is a petition for a writ ofmandamusto compel the respondent, as Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila, to allow the importation free of duty of five (5) bags of rice from Hongkong, and to release the same to the herein petitioners.

The petition alleges that on April 23, 1936, the President of the Commonwealth of the Philippines issued Proclamation No. 58, declaring therein that a state of emergency exists in view of the serious shortage of rice in the Philippines; that by virtue of the said proclamation and of Customs Administrative Order No. 317, the petitioners, being distressed individuals directly affected by the aforesaid rice shortage, imported five bags of rice from Hongkong, for their own use and that of their respective families; that the petitioners filed with the Bureau of Customs the import entry covering the aforesaid importation, together with their respective affidavits, as required by Customs Administrative Order No. 317, declaring the said rice to be free of duty under paragraph 354 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909, as amended by Act No. 4198 of the Philippine Legislature; that the respondent has refused and still refuses to admit the aforesaid importation free of duty under the aforesaid paragraph 354 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909, as amended; that the petitioners have no plain, speedy and adequate remedy to have the aforesaid importation admitted into this port free of duty other than this action.

In his answer the respondent alleges that the petitioners are well-to-do persons and are not distressed individuals within the meaning of paragraph 354 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909, as amended by Act No. 4198; that Act No. 4198, which amends paragraph 354 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909, has for its object to prevent the monopoly and hoarding of, and speculation in, food materials, during the existence of an emergency by reason of the causes therein provided, and contemplates the creation of a government agency to carry out its provisions and accomplish its purpose; that pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 4198, and in order to prevent monopoly of, and speculation in, rice, His Excellency, the President of the Philippines, by a Proclamation No. 58, of April 23, 1936, designated the National Rice and Corn Corporation, an organization operated not for profit, as a relief organization for the purpose of importing rice, free of duty, in such quantities as may be necessary to relieve the situation thereby precluding other entities and individuals from importing rice, free of duty, under the provisions of Act No. 4198; that the consignment of five bags of rice imported by the petitioners are of the growth and produce of the Republic of China, and are subject to the payment of import duties under paragraph 215 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909, as amended by Act No. 3918; that the petitioners refused to pay the import duties assessed under paragraph 215 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909, as amended by Act No. 3918, on the shipment of rice referred to in the petition; that the petitioners have an ordinary action at law to enforce their claim pursuant to sections 1370, 1371, 1380 and 1383 of the Administrative Code; and that the adjudication of the controverted issues raised in this proceeding involves the taking of evidence and the making of findings touching on controverted facts, and the petition should, therefore, have been presented in the Court of First Instance of Manila.

The first question presented for our determination is whether, upon the facts alleged in the petition, the writ ofmandamusis the proper remedy available to the petitioner.

The circumstances and conditions under which the writ ofmandamuswill issue in this jurisdiction are well defined by statute. (Code of Civil Procedure, sections 222, 515.) The remedy is available only where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The right to appeal from the decision of a subordinate officer to a superior one within the executive department of the government has been held to constitute a plain, speedy and adequate remedy within the meaning of the statute. Where such remedy is afforded, the writ ofmandamuswill not issue. "When a plain, adequate and speedy remedy is afforded by and within the executive department of the government, the courts will not interfere until at least that remedy has been exhausted." (Lambvs.Phipps, 22 Phil., 456, 491.)

The decision of the respondent requiring the payment of import duties on the rice sought to be imported by the petitioners was not final but appealable to the Secretary of Finance who has the power to reverse or modify the same. (Revised Administrative Code, section 79 [c].)lâwphi1.nêt

Without passing upon the merits of the other questions raised by the pleadings, we conclude that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought by them, because they have another plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, and Laurel, JJ., concur.