Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
FOURTH DIVISION
Manila
CALUMPIT MULTI-PURPOSE
COOPERATIVE,
Petitioner.

CA-G.R. SP. No. 144812

- versus HON. DANIEL C. VILLANUEVA, in his

capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch 49,
MANILA REGIONAL TRIAL COURTNATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION,
ALBERTO LINA, Commissioner of the
Bureau of Customs, ANTONIO MELITON
PASCUAL, District Collector Port of
Manila, GERARDO MACATANGAY, Chief
of Auction and Cargo Disposal Division,
RENAN B. DALISAY, National Food

COMMENT/OPPOSITION
To the instant Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition
and Mandamus with Urgent Application for the
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or
Preliminary Injunction
RESONDENT, RENAN B. DALISAY, in his capacity as
the National Food Authority (NFA) Administrator, through
counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully
avers that:
1. This comment is respectfully submitted in
compliance with the Resolution dated April 21,
1

2016 from this Honorable Court (copy of which is

herein attached as ANNEX 1) and duly received
on May 06, 2016, giving the latter a period within
Ten (10) days after notice to file its comment or
until May 16, 2016. Thus, this comment is timely
submitted;
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
2. On July 09, 2015, Calumpit MPC through its
authorized representative Magdalena S. Salgado
applied for a Certificate of Eligibility (COE) before
Respondent NFA to import rice under the 2015
Minimum Access Volume Country Specific Quota
(MAV-CSQ);
3. Thus, on September 09, 2015, after having
submitted the requirements for its application,
NFA issued a COE in favor of the Petitioner.
Copies of which are herein attached as ANNEXES
2 & 2A. Below are the details indicated in the
said COE, to wit:
Country of Origin

Thailand

Quantity (in MT)

7,450

Commodity
Specification
Discharge Port
Schedule of Arrival
Tentative Assessed
Customs Duty/Tarif

25% Bkns. White Rice

MICP
Not later than
November 30, 2015
PHP 47,442,712.00

4. The COE is a supporting document for the

opening of a negotiable instruments with the
Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP). It bears to
stress that
a notation is likewise indicated
therein stating that: (a) Advance Customs
Duties/Tariffs are subject to the Final Assessment
by the Bureau of Customs (BOC) upon arrival of
2

import; and (b) Within fifteen (15) days from the

date of issuance of this COE, the importer shall
submit the COE to the international Trade
Department of LBP (LBP-ITD) and shall open an
account and pay the advance custom duty/tariff
with any designated LBP branch. Non-payment of
the advance custom duty/tariff within the said
period shall mean automatic revocation of this
COE;
5. In the report from LBP, on Advance Payment of
Custom Duty/Tarif under the 2015 NFA Rice
Importation Program, dated September 29, 2015,
hereto attached as ANNEX 3, Calumpit MPC
paid its Custom Duty, in the total amount of
FORTY-SEVEN MILLION FOUR HUNDRED
FORTY-TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED
TWELVE (PHP 47,442,712.00) PESOS;
6.

On November 22, 2015, Calumpit MPC applied for

the issuance of Import Permit for their 1,100 MT
Thai White Rice which was due to arrive on
November 23, 2015. They submitted documents,
such as: Arrival Information Notice, Bill of Lading
No. AISCMNL1511011, Commercial Invoice No.
ASIA1578/2015,
Certificate
of
Origin
No.
THTCCC0150199135, Certificate of Fumigation No.
622001/12-2-2015-5RC02705-001, Phytosanitary
Certificate No. 52066727, Certificate of Weight and
Inspection
No.
622001/12-2015-03834-001,
Packing List dated November 18, 2015, Notice of
Arrival issued by DB Express and Omnibus
Affidavit executed by its authorized representative
Magdalena Salgado;

7.

However, Respondent through its Grains

Marketing and Operations Department (GMOD)
was not able to process the Import Permit
because Calumpit MPC failed to submit the
Debit Advice from Land Bank as proof of
payment to their supplier for its imported
3

rice, which is required under the MAV 2015

Guidelines;
8.

On November 27, 2015, Calumpit MPC applied

for another two (2) Import Permits for its two (2)
shipments of 1,100 MT and 450 MT rice import
from Thailand, which are due to arrive on
November 29, 2015. Documentary requirements
were submitted by Calumpit MPC except the
proof of payment to the suppliers. For which
reason NFA was not able to process the Import
Permits;

9.

Despite the fact that Calumpit MPC is fully

aware that under the MAV Guidelines,
application for Import Permits cannot be
processed unless there is submission of the
complete documentary requirements, it filed
several applications for their other shipments
without complying to the required documents;

10. On December 09, 2015, Calumpit MPC applied

for the issuance of Import Permit for its 300 MT
rice shipment which is due to arrive on December
10, 2015. Again, the Import Permit was not
processed for failure to submit proof of payment
to the supplier;
11. In sum, there were four (4) shipments without
Import Permits (IP) due to incomplete
documents and the same arrived at MCIP
without the required Import Permits in
violation of the Guidelines for the Crop Year
2014-2015 Minimum Access Volume Omnibus
Origin (MAV-OO) Rice Importation Program.
Details of the shipments were indicated in the
following bill of lading:
Bill of Lading No.
AISCMNL1511011

Quantity (MT)
1,100 (5% brokens)

Date of
Arrival
November
4

AISCMNL1511010

450 (25% brokens)

AISCMNL1511014

1,100 (5% brokens)

AISCMNL1512002

300 (25% brokens)

TOTAL

2,950

23, 2015
November
29, 2015
November
29, 2015
December
10, 2015

Copies of the Bills of Lading are hereto attached

as ANNEXES 4, 4A, 4B and 4C;
12. On January 07, 2016, Respondent through Atty.
Judy Carol Dansal, Department Manager of
Internal Services Department referred the letter
of Mr. Gerardo M. Macatangay, Chief, ACDDMICP, Bureau of Custom (BOC), to Calumpit
MPC, on their rice importation consisting of 106
x 20 containers from Thailand. Copy of her
memorandum is hereto attached as ANNEX 5;
13. In answer to the query, Engr. Lemuel R.
Pagayunan, Department Manager of GMOD,
informed Mr. Macatangay, that NFA has not
issued the import Permits on the 2,966,400 kg.
Thai White Rice shipments of Calumpit MPC,
copy of the letter is hereto attached as ANNEX
6;
14. On January 07, 2016, Calumpit MPC submitted
to NFA two (2) Debit Advices issued by LBP, dated
January 06, 2016. The same constitute its
payment of the principal plus negotiation charges
for its rice imports which arrived at Manila North
Port on November 23, 2015 (Bill of Lading No,
AISCMNL1511011 for 1,100 MT 5% brokens) and
December 10, 2015 (Bill of Lading No.
AISCMNL1512002 for 300 MT 25% brokens),
amounting to PHP 4,500,549.47 and PHP
17,000,276.50 respectively. Copies of which is
herein attached as ANNEXES 7 and 7A;
5

15. Petitioner, through its authorized representative,

Ms. Salgado, wrote Respondent explaining the
reasons for their failure to submit required
documents for their shipments. It contends that as
regards their proof of payment instruction from
LBP, Petitioner alleges that their supplier in
Thailand spent early holiday mid November 2015,
which caused miscommunication and the
unavailability of the original document needed for
the Land Bank plus fact that their request for
amendment of the commodity specification was
disapproved;
16. On January 20, 2016, Petitioner again wrote
Respondent narrating the circumstances why
they failed to comply with all the required preimportation documents. Ms. Salgado stated
among others , that: they had no intention to
abandon their four (4) shipments; that they took
them a very long time to settle the amount with the
LBP because they have no funds for the past
few months; that they were able to pay their
two (2) shipments with Bill of Lading nos.
AISCMNL1512002 and AISCMNL1511011 on
January 6 and 7, 2016, however, they failed to
process the import permit; that they thought they
can still process their import permit; that they
merely waited the proceeds of their sales to pay
the said shipments; that as of this moment, it is
impossible for them to pay the other two (2)
shipments and they take responsibility to pay at
the LBP before January 31, 2016 once the two (2)
import permits are available; that with regard to
their pending shipment for a total balance of 2,240
MT, the 625 MT, the same will depart from
Thailand on January 19, 2016 and with a
tentative date of arrival on January 23 or 24,
2016; and the balance of 1,275 MT is scheduled
for loading and depart from Thailand on January
26, 2016 with tentative date of arrival on January
6

30 and 31. Copy of the said letter is attached as

ANNEX 8;
17. Thus, Respondent issued a mission order
directing the Security Services and Investigation
Department (SSID) of NFA to conduct an
investigation on the rice shipments of Calumpit
MPC which were not released by Customs due to
its failure to comply with the requirements on
the application for Import Permit. Respondent
issued summons to Petitioner dated January 21,
2016 requiring the latter to submit its
explanation/answer on or before January 26,
2016. Copies of the Mission Order and
Summons are herein attached as ANNEXES 9
and 9A respectively;
18. On January 21, 2016 Calumpit MPC through Ms.
Salgado submitted its answer to the summons
issued by the Security Services and Investigation
Department (SSID) of NFA reiterating her earlier
explanation as contained in her previous letter
dated January 20, 2016. Copy of which is herein
attached as ANNEX 10;
19. Sometime in the second week of January 2016,
Calumpit MPC applied for issuance of Import
Permit for its shipment of 625 MT (which is
apart from the earlier four (4) subject
shipments) of Thai White Rice from Thailand.
Respondent did not accept the pre-importation
documentary requirements because Calumpit
MPC still has four (4) shipments without Import
Permits on account of its non submission of
Debit Advice from LBP and the same are under
investigation;
20. On January 27, 2016, Ms. Salgado and three (3)
officers from the Calumpit MPC appeared before
the handling investigator. They reiterated their
earlier explanation contained in the written
answer previously submitted and that the nonsubmission of the required proof of payment was
7

due to some financial difficulties they encounter

during the past months;
21. On January 28, 2016, Calumpit MPC submitted
a Debit Advice issued by the LBP, dated January
27, 2016, in the amount of PHP 6,976,995.65,
as payment for its shipment which arrived at the
Manila North Port on November 29, 2015 (Bill of
Lading No. AISCMNL1511010 for 450 MT). Copy
of the same is hereto attached as ANNEX 11;
22. Meanwhile, on January 29, 2016, the Bureau of
Customs (BOC) issued a Warrant of Seizure and
detention (WSD) on the rice shipments of
Calumpit MPC, for approximately 2,950 MT of
Thai White Rice, all arrived at the Manila North
Port on November 23, 29 (2 shipments) and
December 10, 2015;
23. On February 01, 2016, Calumpit MPC submitted
the Debit Advice issued by LBP, dated January
29, 2016, as proof of payment of its 1,100 MT
Thai Rice (5% brokens) from Thailand which
arrived in Manila North Port on November 29,
2015 (Bill of Lading No. AISCMNL1511014), in
the total amount of PHP 17,269,344.06 Copy of
the Debit Advice is herein attached as ANNEX
12;
24. On March 10, 2016, Petitioner Calumpit MPC
filed a Petition for Injunction with Prayer for
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary
Injunction before the Regional Trial Court of
Manila Branch 49 and on March 14, 2016,
Petitioner filed its amended Petition to include
National Food Authority (NFA) as a necessary
party;
25. In the continuation of the hearing last March 16,
2016, the Regional Trial Court issued the assailed
order in open court recalling the TRO previously

issued against Respondents on the ground that it

had no jurisdiction over the Petition;
26. On March 18, 2016, Petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration to the Order from the Respondent
Regional Trial Court which was later withdrawn
by Petitioner in its Manifestation dated March 22,
2016;
27. Thus, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with
Urgent Application for the issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary
Injunction before this Honorable Court.
ISSUES
I
WHETHER PETITIONER CALUMPIT MPC
COMPLIED WITH ALL THE DOCUMENTARY
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE MINIMUM
ACCESS VOLUME COUNTRY SPECIFIC
QUOTA (MAV-CSQ) FOR THE YEAR 2015
SPECIFICALLY THE SUBMISSION OF
DEBIT ADVICE FROM LBP AS PROOF OF
PAYMENT TO THE SUPPLIER PRIOR TO
THE ARRIVAL OF THE FOUR (4) SUBJECT
SHIPMENTS?
II
WHETHER RESPONDENTS NON-ISSUANCE
OF IMPORT PERMITS IN RELATION TO
THE FOUR (4) SUBJECT SHIPMENTS FOR
FAILURE OF PETITIONER TO SUBMIT THE
DEBIT ADVICE FROM LBP AS REQUIRED
BY THE MINIMUM ACCESS VOLUME
COUNTRY SPECIFIC QUOTA (MAV-CSQ)
FOR THE YEAR 2015 IS JUSTIFIED?
III
9

WHETHER A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO

COMPEL RESPONDENT DALISAY TO
ISSUE THE IMPORT PERMITS SHOULD
BE GRANTED?

IV
WETHER PETITIONERS PRAYER FOR
TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING
ORDER
AND/OR
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
SHOULD BE GRANTED?
V
WHETHER RESPONDENT COMMITTED
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRECTION AND
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN LIFTING THE
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IN
FAVOR OF PETITIONER PREVIOUSLY
ISSUED IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER
ON THE GROUND OF ALLEGED LACK OF
JURISCTION OVER PETITIONERS CASE
ARGUMENTS
I
Petitioner failed to comply with
the documentary requirements
under the Minimum Access
Volume Country Specific Quota
(MAV-CSQ) for the year 2015
28. With respect to the issuance of Import Permit,
Item X of NFA Memorandum Circular No. AO2015-06-012 entitled General Guidelines in the
importation of 805,200 Metric Tons, White Rice
Under the Minimum Access Volume Country
Specific Quota (MAV-CSQ) and the Minimum
Access Volume Omnibus Origins (MAV-OO) for the
year 2015 by the Private Sector provides:
10

X. ISSUANCE AND USE OF IMPORT

PERMIT (IP)
1. To obtain an Import Permit (ANNEX 9) the
importer shall submit to the GMOD-FOD
electronic copies of shipping documents
submitted to the LBP prior arrival of the
carrying vessel at designated Port of
Discharge. These documents are as
follows:
1.1. Arrival Information Notice
(ANNEX 10)
1.2. Bill of Lading
1.3. Commercial Invoice
1.4. Certificate of Origin
1.5. Certificate of Fumigation
1.6. Phytosanitary Certificate
1.7. Certificate of Weight and
Inspection of the quality
and weight of rice and the
condition of bags
1.8. Inspection Certificate as to
the Condition of the Vessel
(for break bulk shipment)
1.9. Packing list
1.10.Notice of Arrival issued by the
Shipping Lines
1.11.Other documents as required
by the LBP
2. The importer shall provide the NFA
a copy of the LBP issued proof of
payment to suppliers and stamped
documents before the arrival of the
shipment. LBP shall likewise provide
NFA a copy of these documents
through e-mail.
3. The NFA Administrator shall issue the
import permit upon recommendation of
11

GMOD-FOD, ODAMO (Office of the

Deputy Administrator for Marketing
Operations), and OAAMO (Office of the
Assistant Administrator for Marketing
Operations)
that
all
documents
/requirements have been fully complied
in accordance to the Guidelines. The
import permit shall be signed by the
NFA Administrator and shall be in form
as embodied in ANNEX 11 of these
Guidelines.
4. The shipment shall be considered
illegal in the event the shipment
arrives without a valid permit.
5. Xxxxxxxxx
6. Xxxxxxxxx
7. Xxxxxxxxx
8. Xxxxxxxxxx (Emphasis supplied)
Copy of NFA Memorandum Circular No. AO-201506-012 is herein attached as ANNEX O;
29. In the instant case, Petitioner submitted four (4)
separate applications for the issuance of Import
Permits dated November 22 and 27 (2
shipments), 2015 and December 09, 2015
respectively, however, Petitioner failed to
submit the required Debit Advice from the
Land Bank as proof of payment to the supplier
for its imported rice. Thus, these subject
applications were all denied and no Import
Permits were issued by the Respondent for the
four (4) subject importations;
30. Petitioners payment of the advance taxes/tarif
duties alone cannot justify the issuance of Import
Permits. Simply put, Tarif duties and the
submission of Debit Advice from Land Bank are two
12

separate requirements under NFA Memorandum

Circular No. AO-2015-06-012 and both should be
complied in order to secure Import Permits for their
shipments;
31. Petitioner failed to pay the supplier and submit
the required Debit Advices prior to the arrival
their imported rice. As such, Respondent cannot
be compelled to issue the necessary Import
Permits by filing this petition since Calumpit MPC
at the very onset failed to comply with the
requirements set fort by NFA Memorandum
Circular No. AO-2015-06-012;
II
Respondents failure to issue the
import permits is justified since
the shipment is considered illegal
32. Under NFA Memorandum Circular No. AO-201506-012, The shipment shall be considered illegal
in the event the shipment arrives without a valid
permit. Thus, Respondents failure to issue the
import permits on account of petitioners failure
to submit the required documents is justified
under the circumstances;
33. Petitioners failure to pay the supplier and submit
the Debit Advice from Land Bank is undisputed.
In its letter dated January 11 and 20, 2016,
Petitioner contends that their failure to pay the
supplier was due to their lack of funds, granting
that Petitioner had no intention of abandoning
their shipment, Respondent cannot easily issue
the Import Permits and have petitioner release the
subject shipments otherwise, Respondent will be
sued for the non payment of the supplier;
34. It must be stressed that the four (4) subject
shipments in dispute arrived on November 23, 29
(2 shipments) and December 10, 2015 respectively.
While the Debit Advices corresponding to the
13

subject shipments were only paid and submitted

on January 07 and January 28 2016, such
belated submission which rendered the shipments
illegal for lack of Import Permits and later on
subjected to seizure by the Bureau of Customs
cannot be imputed to Respondent;
III
A Writ of Mandamus to compel
Respondent Dalisay to issue the
Import Permits should not be
granted
35. Mandamus is a Writ issued in the name of the
state, to an inferior tribunal, corporation, board
or person commanding the performance of an act
which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an
office, trust or station;
36. Thus, a Writ of Mandamus may be issued when a
tribunal, board, officer or a person; (1) unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an
office, trust or station; or (2) the said tribunal,
etc., unlawfully excludes another from the use or
enjoyment of a right or office to which such
others are entitled;
37. Petitioner must show that he has a well defined,
clear and certain right to warrant thereof (Avenue
Arrastre & Stevedoring Corp v. Commissioner of
Customs, L-44674, February 28, 1983);
38. In the instant case, as discussed, Petitioners
failed to comply with the requirements under the
Minimum Access Volume Country Specific Quota
(MAV-CSQ). To reiterate, Petitioner failed to pay
the suppliers prior to the arrival of its shipment
and as a consequence, no debit advice from LBP
was submitted as proof of payment. Therefore,
Petitioner has no defined, clear and certain right
to warrant the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus
14

and Respondent Dalisay did not unlawfully

neglect the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from his
Office;
IV
Calumpit MPCS prayer for Preliminary
Injunction should be denied since its
right to injunctive relief has not been
clearly and unmistakably demonstrated
39. The purpose of a preliminary injunction, then, is
to prevent threatened or continuous irremediable
injury to some of the parties before their claims
can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated. Its
sole aim is to preserve the status quo until the
merits of the case can be heard fully. Thus, it will
be issued only upon a showing of a clear and
unmistakable right that is violated. Moreover, an
urgent and permanent necessity for its issuance
must be shown by the applicant. (First Global
Realty v. San Agustin February 19, 2002);
40. To entitle a petitioner to the grant of a writ of
preliminary injunction, he must establish the
following requisites: (a) the invasion of the right
sought to be protected is material and substantial;
(b) the right of the complainant is clear and
unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and
paramount necessity for the writ to prevent
serious damage. (Cortez-Estrada v. Samat
February 14, 2005);
41. Based on the facts as previously discussed,
Petitioner failed to show that it has clear and
unmistakable right over the subject shipments
and become entitled to the relief sought
because: (1) it failed to pay the supplier prior to
arrival of the subject shipments and submit the
required Debit Advices from Land bank; (2)
15

such failure rendered the subject shipments

illegal;
42. Further, Calumpit MPC in filing this subject
petition collaterally challenges Respondents
authority with respect to the implementation of
2015 Minimum Access Volume Country Specific
Quota (MAV-CSQ). Petitioner alleges that
Respondents requirement to pay in advance the
custom duty/tarif is illegal and unconscionable;
43. It is respectfully submitted that Respondent NFA
has the authority to establish rules and
regulations governing the importation of rice,
corn and other grains and their substitutes
and/or by-products/end-products. Section 6 (a)
(xii) of Presidential Decree No. 4 provides:
Section 6. Administration- Powers,
Organizations and Management and
Exemptions. (Sec. 6 paragraph 1, P.D.
1485) The powers, organization and
management of the Administration shall be
as follows:
a) x x x x x x x x x x
xii) To establish rules and regulations
governing the importation of rice, corn and
other grains and their substitutes and/or
by-products/end-products and to (Sec. 6 A
(xii) license, impose and collect fees and
charges for said importation for the purpose
of equalizing the selling price of such
imported grains and their substitutes
and/or their by-products/end-products with
the normal prevailing domestic prices
In the exercise of this power, the Council
after consultation with the Office of the
President shall first certify to a shortage of
grains and/or their substitutes that may
16

occur as a result of a shortfall in

production, a critical demand-supply gap, a
state of calamity or other verified reasons
that may warrant the need for importation.
The Authority shall undertake the direct
importation
of
grains
and/or
their
substitutes or it may allocate import quotas
among certified and licensed importers, and
the
distribution
thereof
through
cooperatives and other marketing channels,
at prices to be determined by the Council
regardless of existing floor prices and the
subsidy thereof, if any, shall be borne by the
National Government.
44. At any rate, questions on the wisdom and validity
of any provisions of NFA Memorandum Circular
No. AO-2015-06-012 in relation to the 2015
Minimum Access Volume Country Specific Quota
(MAV-CSQ) should be raised in a proper forum
and not under this petition for injunction which
aims to compel Respondent to issue the subject
Import Permits;
45. Lastly, it is respectfully submitted that
controversies involving facts and exercise of
discretion in the implementation of Minimum
Access Volume Country Specific Quota (MAVCSQ) are not proper subject of a Petition for
Mandatory Injunction;
46. The prohibition pertained to the issuance of
injunctions or restraining orders by courts
against administrative acts in controversies
involving facts or the exercise of discretion in
technical cases. To allow the courts to judge
these matters would disturb the smooth
functioning of the administrative machinery.
However, on issues definitely outside of this
dimension and involving questions of law, courts
could not be prevented by the decree from
17

exercising their power to restrain or prohibit

administrative acts. (Malaga v. Penachos, Jr.
213 SCRA 516);

V
Respondent Hon. Daniel C. Villanueva did
not commit grave abuse of discretion and
reversible error in lifting the temporary
restraining order in favor of petitioner
previously issued on the ground of alleged
lack of jurisdiction over petitioners case.
47. Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious
and whimsical exercise of judgment as equivalent
to lack of jurisdiction, or in other words, where
the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic
manner by reason of passion or personal
hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a
virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to
act in contemplation of law. It is not sufficient
that a tribunal, in the exercise of its power,
abused its discretion; such abuse must be grave
(Benito v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 134913,
January 19, 2001);
48. In issuing the assailed order, Respondent Hon.
Daniel C. Villanueva committed no grave abuse of
discretion which would tantamount to lack of
jurisdiction and correctly pointed out that under
Section 602 of the Tarif & Customs Code of 1978,
PD 1464, the Bureau of Customs exercises
exclusive original jurisdiction over seizure and
forfeiture cases, thus, the regional trial courts are
precluded from assuming cognizance over such
matters, even through petitions for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus;

18

49. While Petitioner alleges certain irregularities in

the conduct of BOCs seizure proceedings, it must
be emphasized that under the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, courts cannot and will not determine
a controversy involving a question which is within
the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal,
where the question demands the exercise of sound
administrative
discretion
requiring
special
knowledge,
experience
and
services
of
administrative tribunal to determine technical and
intricate matters of fact, and a uniformity of
ruling is essential to comply with the purposes of
the regulatory stature administered;
50. Thus, the assailed auction sale should not be
considered an independent incident subject of
judicial review at this stage but an integral part of
the customs seizure proceedings.
BY WAY OF ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
51. The undersigned counsel, Atty. Jairus B. Rubio,
enters its appearance as counsel for the
Respondent Renan B. Dalisay in the aboveentitled case. Hence, it is respectfully requested
that all pleadings, orders and other notices of this
Honorable Court be sent to the following address:
NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY
Directorate for Legal Afairs
th
7 Floor PHILSUGIN Bldg. North Ave., Diliman
Quezon City
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, it is most
respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Court that Calumpit
MPCs Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with
Urgent Application for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining
Order and/or Preliminary Injunction be dismissed.
19

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed under the
premises.
Quezon City, Philippines this 13th day of May 2016
Respectfully submitted.
BY AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT
CORPORATE COUNSEL
NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY
Directorate for Legal Afairs
th
7 Floor PHILSUGIN Bldg. North Ave., Diliman
Quezon City

By:

ATTY. EDNA T. LOVERIA, CPA

Department Manager
Legal Affairs Department
Roll No. 30959
PTR No. 1384875; 1/5/16 Pasig City
IBP No. 1012265; 11/25/15 RSM
MCLE Compliance No. V-0004734; 12/10/14

ATTY. MA. THERESA C. SANTOS-VILLAFUERTE, CPA

Chief - Litigation and Prosecution Division
Roll No. 54066
PTR No. 0318062; January 5, 2015; Bulacan
IBP Lifetime Member No. 06659; Bulacan
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0016663

ATTY. JAIRUS B. RUBIO

Handling Lawyer
Roll No. 64701; April 28, 2015
PTR No. 2182274; January 06, 2016; Quezon City
IBP No. 1022990; Quezon City
MCLE Compliance in Process

20

Copy furnished with explanation:

MAGDALENA S. SALGADO
CALUMPIT MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE
Room 210D, Sitio Grande Building,
Soriano Avenue, Intramuros, Manila
ATTY. TRISTAN F. LANGCAY
ATTY. JULITO DORIA
Bureau of Customs Legal Service
MICT Law Division
Bureau of Customs Manila
ATTY. JOEL N. VILLASERAN
ATTY. CHRISTIAN P. CASTRO
ATTY. CERILOS DOLINO
Office of the Solicitor General
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
Makati City
Copies of this COMMENT/OPPOSITION was served to
the other parties by means of registered mail with return
receipt due to distance and lack of personnel to efect personal
service thereof.

ATTY. JAIRUS B. RUBIO

Counsel for the Respondent

21