Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. HYPERMIX FEEDS CORPORATION

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 209331 2015-08-24	DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE v. MARINO M. DELA CRUZ CARPIO, J.
In Hypermix, Hypermix Feeds Corporation filed a Petition for declaratory relief before the Regional Trial Court, with the Petition challenging the validity and constitutionality of Customs Memorandum Order (CMO) 27-2003.[178] CMO 27-2003 classified wheat according to (1) importer or consignee; (2) country of origin; and (3) port of discharge, and imposed different tariff rates depending on such classification.[179] This court concluded that "a petition for declaratory relief is the right remedy given the circumstances of the case."[180] Hypermix cannot be applied because the circumstances in that case differ from the circumstances here as Hypermix does not involve a personnel action.
	GR No. 209331 2015-04-24	DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE v. MARINO M. DELA CRUZ CARPIO, J.
In Hypermix, Hypermix Feeds Corporation filed a Petition for declaratory relief before the Regional Trial Court, with the Petition challenging the validity and constitutionality of Customs Memorandum Order (CMO) 27-2003.[178] CMO 27-2003 classified wheat according to (1) importer or consignee; (2) country of origin; and (3) port of discharge, and imposed different tariff rates depending on such classification.[179] This court concluded that "a petition for declaratory relief is the right remedy given the circumstances of the case."[180] Hypermix cannot be applied because the circumstances in that case differ from the circumstances here as Hypermix does not involve a personnel action.
	GR No. 190837 2014-03-05	REPUBLIC v. DRUGMAKER’S LABORATORIES PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In general, an administrative regulation needs to comply with the requirements laid down by Executive Order No. 292, s. 1987, otherwise known as the "Administrative Code of 1987," on prior notice, hearing, and publication in order to be valid and binding, except when the same is merely an interpretative rule. This is because "[w]hen an administrative rule is merely interpretative in nature, its applicability needs nothing further than its bare issuance, for it gives no real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed. When, on the other hand, the administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that can facilitate or render least cumbersome the implementation of the law but substantially increases the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at least to those directly affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed, before that new issuance is given the force and effect of law."[36]