G.R. No. 211146 & G.R. No. 211375, April 11, 2023
SECRETARY PROCESO J. ALCALA, AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY COUNCIL, AND THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER JOHN PHILLIP P. SEVILLA, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE JUDGE EMMANUEL C. CARPIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 16, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN DAVAO CITY, AND JOSEPH MANGUPAG NGO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 211375] SECRETARY PROCESO J. ALCALA, AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY COUNCIL, AND THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER JOHN PHILLIP P. SEVILLA, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE JUDGE CICERO D. JURADO, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 11, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN MANILA, DANILO G. GALANG, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE ST. HILDEGARD GRAINS ENTERPRISES, AND IVY M. SOUZA, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE BOLD BIDDER MARKETING AND GENERAL MERCHANDISE, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The controversy centers on the Philippines’ commitments under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, which generally prohibits quantitative import restrictions. The Philippines had secured exemptions to impose such restrictions on rice, a predominant staple. Its second exemption expired on June 30, 2012. A third exemption was applied for but was only granted on July 24, 2014, creating a gap period. During this gap period, private respondents Joseph M. Ngo and Danilo G. Galang separately imported rice shipments into the ports of Davao and Manila. The shipments were seized by the Bureau of Customs for being imported without the licenses required by National Food Authority (NFA) Memorandum Circular No. AO-2K13-03-003, which implemented quantitative restrictions. Private respondents filed separate complaints for injunction before the Regional Trial Courts (RTC) of Davao and Manila, arguing that with the expiration of the second WTO exemption, the district collectors had no authority to enforce the NFA’s license requirement. Presiding Judge Emmanuel C. Carpio of RTC Davao and Presiding Judge Cicero D. Jurado, Jr. of RTC Manila each granted writs of preliminary injunction (WPI) ordering the release of the rice shipments. The NFA and Bureau of Customs filed petitions for certiorari, claiming the judges gravely abused their discretion in issuing the WPIs. During the pendency of the petitions, the third WTO exemption was granted (July 24, 2014), and later, Republic Act No. 11203 (the Rice Tariffication Law) was enacted, lifting quantitative restrictions on rice.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judges gravely abused their discretion in issuing the writs of preliminary injunction ordering the release of the rice shipments imported during the gap period between the expiration of the second WTO exemption and the grant of the third exemption.

RULING

The dissenting opinion of Justice Caguioa argues that the consolidated petitions should be dismissed for lack of merit and that the respondent judges did not gravely abuse their discretion. The dissent presents the following points:
1. The issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is preliminary and non-conclusive, based only on a sampling of evidence, and does not preempt the final resolution of the principal action regarding the validity of the NFA Memorandum Circular.
2. Based on the evidence before them, the respondent judges did not gravely abuse their discretion in preliminarily finding that private respondents had a clear and unmistakable right to import the rice shipments. This right existed because, during the gap period, there was no subsisting WTO exemption allowing the Philippines to impose non-tariff quantitative restrictions on rice. Therefore, the NFA’s license requirement, which implemented such restrictions, lacked a legal basis.
3. The district collectors had no legal basis to bar the rice shipments since there was no applicable WTO exemption in effect at the time of importation.
4. Given the subsequent passage of the rice tariffication law and the novel legal question presented, any finding on the invalidity of the NFA Memorandum Circular for contravening WTO obligations should be made pro hac vice (for this occasion only).
The dissent concludes that the respondent judges’ orders were based on a legitimate preliminary finding that private respondents established the requisites for an injunctive writ, as the Philippines could not impose non-tariff measures on rice imports during the period when no WTO exemption was in force.