Asturias Sugar Central, Inc. vs.

Commissioner of Customs
GRNo. L-19337, September 30, 1969

Doctrine: If a statute has not yet been previously interpreted by the Supreme Court, the construction
given to it by the administrative agency mandated by law to implement and enforce said law, should be
given great weight.

FACTS: Asturias Sugar Central, Inc. was engaged in the production and milling of centrifugal sugar for
export, the produced sugar was being placed in container known as jute bag which were not locally
made. Thus, in 1957, it made two importations of jute bags. There were 44,800 jute bags in the first
importation, and 75,200 in the second importation. These importations were made free of customs
duties and special import tax upon the petitioner’s filing of Re-exportation and Special Import Tax Bond
conditioned upon the exportation of jute bags within one year from date of importation. The first was
imported on January 8, 1957 and the second on February 8, 1957. But it only exported 33,647 out of
120,000 jute bags that it imported. The remaining 86,353 jute bags were exported after the expiration of
the one-year period but within three years from their importation contrary to the Administrative Order 66
and 389 issued by the Bureau of Customs. Due to the petitioner’s failure to show proof of the exportation
of the balance of 86,353 jute bags within one year from their importation, the collector of Customs of
Iloilo required it to pay the amount of 28,629.42 representing the customs duties and special import tax
due thereon, which amount paid under protest. The petitioner demanded the refund of the amount it had
paid, on the ground that its request for extension of the period of one year was filed on time, and that its
failure to export the jute bags within the required one-year period was due to delay in the arrival of the
vessel on which they were to be loaded and to the picketing of the Central railroad line. Alternatively, it
asked for refund of the same amount in the form of a draw back under section 106(b) in relation to
section 105(x) of the Tariff and Custom Code. On June 21, 1960, the collector of Customs of Iloilo, after
hearing, rendered judgment denying the claim for refund. Because of this judgment the petitioner
appealed to the Commissioner of Customs who upheld the decision of the Collector. Eventually, a
petition for review was filed with the Court of Tax Appeals which affirmed the decision of the
Commissioner of Customs.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Bureau of Customs as an administrative body is allowed to resolve questions
of law in the exercise of it quasi-judicial function as an incident to its power of regulation.

HELD: According to the Supreme Court “Considering that the Bureau of Customs is the office charged
with implementing and enforcing the provisions of our Tariff and Customs Code, the construction placed
by it thereon should be given controlling weight. In applying the doctrine or principle of respect for
administrative or practical construction, the courts often refer to several factors which may be regarded
as bases of the principle, as factors leading the courts to give the principle controlling weight in
particular instances, or as independent rules in themselves. These factors are the respect due the
governmental agencies charged with administration, their competence, expertness, experience, and
informed judgment and the fact that they frequently are the drafters of the law they interpret; that the
agency is the one on which the legislature must rely to advise it as to the practical working out of the
statute, and practical application of the statute presents the agency with unique opportunity and
experiences, or improvements in the statute; x x x.” Hence, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of
the Court of Appeals.

Perez v Sandiganbayan
GR No. 166062

Doctrine: All administrative organizations are adjuncts of the Executive Department; the heads of the
various executive deaprtments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive.

Salvador and Juanita are Mayor and Treasurer of San Manuel, Pangasinan, respectively. They “willfully,
unlawfully, and criminally caused the purchase of 1 computer unit costing P120,000 acquisition by
personal canvass,” violating Sec. 362 and 367 of the LGC. No public bidding occurred and no
Committee of Awards was constituted to approve the procurement Salvador and Juanita gave Mobil
Link Enterprises/Starlet Sales Center undue advantage or preference through manifest partiality, showing
evident bad faith and gross, inexcusable negligence, but this was not included in the original
information, so it was recommended by the Special Prosecutor that the information be amended to
show the manner of the commission of the offense, based on the Ombudsman’s margin notes in the
original information. The amended information was admitted. The petitioners challenge this, saying that
the Sandiganbayan committed GAD in accepting the amended information, which had no approval from
the Ombudsman, amounting to denial of due process.


Issue: W/N the amended information is valid when the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed it without
the authority or approval of the Ombudsman.

Held:

It was argued that the Special Prosecutor is the alter-ego of the Ombudsman. Springing from the power
of control is the doctrine of qualified political agency, wherein the acts of a subordinate bears the implied
approval of his superior, unless actually disapproved by the latter. Thus, taken with the powers of control
and supervision, the acts of Department Secretaries in the performance of their duties are presumed to
be the act of the President, unless and until the President alters, modifies, or nullifies the same. By
arguing that "what is important is that the amended Information has not been withdrawn, and or recalled
by the Honorable Ombudsman, [a] clear showing that the latter acknowledged/upheld the act of the
Special Prosecutor in signing the Amended Information, respondent People claims that the doctrine of
qualified political agency should be applied as well to the relationship between the Ombudsman and the
Special Prosecutor