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

These are consolidated petitions for certiorari assailing various orders issued by Regional Trial Court (RTC) judges that preliminarily enjoined Bureau of Customs (BOC) district collectors from seizing, holding, and detaining private respondents’ rice shipments due to lack of National Food Authority (NFA) import licenses. The petitions also sought to restrain the RTC judges from proceeding with full-blown injunction hearings. Private respondent Joseph Mangupag Ngo entered into an agreement to buy imported rice from Starcraft International Trading Corp., with shipments arriving at Davao City in late 2013. The BOC informed Ngo that the shipments could not be released because they lacked the necessary NFA import permits. Ngo argued that an import permit was unnecessary as quantitative restrictions on rice importation were prohibited under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture. The Philippines, a WTO member, had obtained a special treatment for rice, allowing quantitative restrictions, which was set to expire. The Philippine government had submitted a Request for Waiver to extend this special treatment beyond June 30, 2012, pending WTO approval at the time of the shipments. Domestically, Presidential Decree No. 4, as amended, authorized the NFA (formerly the National Grains Authority) to establish rules and regulations governing rice importation and to license importers. Republic Act No. 8178 mandated the use of tariffs in lieu of quantitative restrictions for agricultural products, except rice. The NFA had issued guidelines for rice importation in 2013, requiring import licenses.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent RTC judges committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing writs of preliminary injunction to prevent the BOC from seizing rice shipments for lack of NFA import permits, based on the argument that the requirement for such permits had become invalid due to the expiration of the Philippines’ special treatment for rice under the WTO Agreement.

RULING

Yes, the respondent RTC judges committed grave abuse of discretion. The issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that requires a clear and unmistakable right. The private respondents failed to establish such a right. The power to issue the writ must be exercised sparingly and with great caution. The Court held that the NFA’s authority to require import licenses for rice remained valid under domestic law. The special treatment for rice under the WTO Agreement, which allowed quantitative restrictions, was still in effect at the time of the shipments because the Philippine government’s Request for Waiver for its extension was pending before the WTO. The WTO’s subsequent Decision on Waiver, issued in July 2014, confirmed the extension of the special treatment until June 30, 2017. Therefore, the quantitative restriction on rice, implemented through the NFA import license requirement, was legally operative. The RTC orders enjoining the BOC from performing its statutory duty to enforce customs and agricultural laws constituted an unwarranted interference with executive functions and were issued without legal basis. The petitions were granted, and the assailed RTC orders were annulled and set aside.