[ G.R. No. 21241. April 07, 1924 ] 46 Phil. 8
[ G.R. No. 21241. April 07, 1924 ]
COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE. D E C I S I O N
AVANCEÑA, C.J.: On March 6, 1923, the appellant paid under protest to the Insular Collector of Customs at Manila the sum of P1,427.26 under the provisions of section 14 of the Act of Congress of the United States of August 5, 1909, entitled “An Act to raise revenue for the Philippine Islands, and for other purposes.” This action is brought to recover of the defendant Insular Collector of Customs the sum of P1,427.26 alleged to have been illegally collected. The judgment appealed from absolves the defendant from the complaint.
The appellant contends that section 14 of the Act of Congress of August 5, 1909, was repealed by section 11 of the Jones Law, passed by the same Congress.
The Act of Congress of August 5, 1909, in its sections 13 and 14, says literally as follows:
“EXPORT DUTIES
“SEC. 13. That upon the exportation to any foreign country from the Philippine Islands, or the shipment thereof to the United States or any of its possessions, of the following articles, there shall be levied, collected and paid thereon the following export duties: Provided, however, That all articles the growth and product of the Philippine Islands coming directly from said Islands to the United States or any of its possessions for use and consumption therein, shall be exempt from any export duties imposed in the Philippine Islands:
Abaca (hemp), gross weight, one hundred kilos, seventy-five cents.
Sugar, gross weight, one hundred kilos, five cents.
Copra, gross weight, one hundred kilos, ten cents.
Tobacco, gross weight:
(a) Manufactured or unmanufactured, except as otherwise provided, one hundred kilos, one dollar and thirty cents.
(b) Stems, clippings, and other wastes of tobacco, one hundred kilos, fifty cents.
“WHARFAGE
“SEC. 14. That there shall be levied and collected upon all articles, goods, wares, or merchandise, except coal, timber and cement, the product of the Philippine Islands, exported through ports’ of entry of the Philippine Islands, or shipped therefrom to the United States or any of its possessions, a duty of one dollar per gross ton of one thousand kilos, as a charge for wharfage, whatever be the port of destination or nationality of the exporting vessel: Provided, That articles, goods, wares, or merchandise imported, exported, or shipped in transit for the use of the Government of the United States, or of that of the Philippine Islands, shall be exempt from the charges prescribed in this section.”
Section 11 of the Jones Law is as follows:
“SEC. 11. That no export duty shall be levied or collected on exports from the Philippine Islands, * * *.”
It is claimed that this section 11 of the Jones Law impliedly repealed section 14 of the Act of Congress of August 5, 1909. In our opinion it did not.
An implied repeal rests only on the presumption of the intention to repeal. This presumption arises when the new and the old law are absolutely incompatible. There is no such incompatibility between section 11 of the Jones Law and section 14 of the Act of Congress of August 5, 1909. What is prohibited in section 11 of the Jones’ Law is the collection of export duties upon articles exported from the Philippine Islands. Section 14 of the Act of Congress of August 5, 1909, refers to wharfage and not to export duties. A lengthy discussion is made in the appellant’s brief to the effect that the wharfage duties referred to in section 14 of the Act of Congress of August 5, 1909, are in fact export duties. Whatever may be the merit of the points of view of the appellant, the same are not, however, abstractly speaking, applicable to the case before us. The question at issue concerns two Acts enacted by the Congress of the United States. In the Act of August 5, 1909, section 13 was written under the caption of “Export Duties” and section 14 under the caption of “Wharfage.” Evidently, according to this, the Congress has considered both things, export duty and wharfage duty, as different. So much so that in the Tariff Law of 1913 of the same Congress, section 13 of the Act of August 5,1909, was expressly repealed and yet section 14 was preserved.
On the other hand, section 11 of the Jones Law is a general provision, while section 14 of the Act of August 5, 1909, is a special one. The rule is that a general law does not repeal another special one unless it is so expressly provided, or they are incompatible. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that the Jones Law was enacted to fix, in general terms, the powers of the Philippine Legislature and it is easy to conceive that in enacting this law the Congress had not in mind the idea of repealing any other special law on a determinate matter.
Although the negative form in which section 11 of the Jones Law was written creates a stronger inference in favor of the intention to repeal than if it had been in the affirmative form, yet the question, in the last analysis, is, What is the intention of the law? And such circumstance ceases to have any influence when otherwise, as in the instant case, such an intention does not appear, but on the contrary it rather appears that there was not such intention.
Furthermore, it is not proper to discuss the question whether this wharfage duty can be collected, when the articles exported did not pass through any wharf of the Government because it would be an abstract question in this case, inasmuch as there is no proof, nor does it appear in the agreed statement of facts, that the articles upon which the defendant collected the duty of P1,427.26 ever passed through any wharf of the Government.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed with the costs against the appellant. So ordered.
Street, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.