Commissioner of Customs v Hypermix Feeds Corporation

Commissioner of Customs v Hypermix Feeds Corporation ISSUE WON

DECISION Whether or not the CMO 27-2003 of the petitioner met the requirements for the Revised Administrative Code? Whether

NO 

The petitioners violated respondents’ right to due process in

or not the content of the CMO 27-2003 met the requirement

the issuance of CMO 27-2003 when they failed to observe the

of the equal protection clause of the Constitution

requirements under the Administrative Code which are:

1)

November 7 2003, petitioner Commissioner of Customs

Sec 3. Filing. (1) Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every

2)

issued CMO 27-2003 (Customs Memorandum Order). Under the memorandum, for tariff purposes, wheat is

rule adopted by it. Rules in force on the date of effectively of

classified according to: a) Importer or consignee b) Country of origin, c) 3. Port of discharge.

this Code which are not filed within three (3) months from

FACTS

that date shall not thereafter be the bases of any sanction against any party of persons. Sec 9. Public Participation. - (1) If not otherwise required by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or circulate

Depending on these factors wheat would be classified as

notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the

either as food grade or food feed. 3)

The corresponding tariff for food grade wheat was 3%, for

4)

food feed grade 7%. A month after the issuance of CMO 27-200 respondent filed

opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule. (2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 2 weeks before

a petition for declaratory for Relief with the Regional Trial 5)

Court of Las Piñas City. Respondent contented that CMO 27-2003 was issued without

following

the

mandate

of

the

Revised

the first hearing thereon.(3) In case of opposition, the rules 

the equal protection clause. We do not see how the quality of

Administrative Code on public participation, prior notice,

wheat is affected by who imports it, where it is discharged or

and publication or registration with University of the 6)

Philippines Law Canter. Respondent also alleged that the regulation summarily



enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place

prior assessment and examination, despite having imported

in the like circumstances. The guarantee of equal protection

food grade wheat, it would be subjected to the 7% tariff 7)

the Constitution was violated and asserted that the

of laws is not violated when there is a reasonable 

retroactive application of the regulation was confiscatory in 8)

nature. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss. They alleged that: 1. The RTC did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of



the application of the regulation. Petitioner Commissioner of

“who may file petition”) was improper, 3. CMO 27-2003 was

Customs went beyond his powers of delegated authority

internal administrative rule not legislative in nature, and 4.

when the regulation limited the powers of the customs

The claims of respondent were speculative and premature,

officer to examine and assess imported articles.

because the Bureau of Customs had yet to examine 9)

remedy, and that respondent was the proper party to file it.

classification. For a classification to be reasonable, it must be shown that a) it rests on substantial distinctions; b) it is germane to the purpose of the law; c) it is not limited to existing conditions only; and d) it applies equally to all members of the same class. Petitioners violated respondents right to equal protection of laws when they provided for unreasonable classification in

the case, 2. an action for declaratory relief (Rule 63, Sec.1

respondent’s products. RTC held that a petition for declaratory relief was proper

which country it came from. The Equal Protection Clause means that no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws

adjudged it to be a feed grade supplier without the benefit of

upon the arrival of the shipment, forcing to pay 133%. Respondent also claimed that the equal protection clause of

on contested cases shall be observed. CMO 27-2003 is not constitutional because it failed to meet

NOTES