G.R. No. L-16933 December 29, 1964
TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO., INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICENTE G. BUNUAN, ETC., ET AL., respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Petitioner-appellee Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., owner and operator of a sugar central, held sugar quotas under the Sugar Limitation Law ( Act No. 4166 ). For the 1956-1957 crop year, shortages occurred in the A (export) and B (domestic) sugar allotments in its mill district, while a surplus of C (reserve) sugar was available, mostly owned by the milling company. The Sugar Quota Administrator, pursuant to Section 8-A of the Sugar Limitation Law, reallocated these shortages on October 14, 1957, by converting the available C sugar to fill the A and B shortages. While the conversion for A sugar was carried out, the conversion for B sugar was disapproved by the Secretary of Commerce and Industry, who invoked Sugar Order No. 5 (issued October 17, 1957), which required prior approval from the Secretary for such conversions. The Secretary directed the Permit Agent not to sign the corresponding warehouse receipt permits, preventing the milling company from utilizing its C sugar to fill the B sugar shortage. The milling company’s protest was ignored, leading to a petition for mandamus to compel the officials to authorize the conversion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents, the Sugar Quota Administrator and the Secretary of Commerce and Industry, unlawfully neglected their duty under the Sugar Limitation Law by refusing to authorize the conversion of C sugar to B sugar to fill the allotment shortages for the 1956-1957 crop year, and whether mandamus is the proper remedy.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision granting the writ of mandamus. The Court held that under Sections 8 and 8-A of the Sugar Limitation Law, it is the mandatory duty of the Sugar Quota Administrator to reallocate unfilled sugar allotments to other holders within the same district to ensure the quota for that year is filled. The reallocation made on October 14, 1957, was in fulfillment of this duty. The subsequent Sugar Order No. 5 could not validly frustrate this statutory mandate, as the Secretary’s rule-making authority under Section 12 of the law is intended to carry out, not defeat, the law’s purpose of ensuring the actual production of the fixed quota. The respondents’ concern about potential market glut for the following crop year was not a valid ground to refuse the reallocation, as the remedy lay in adjusting the next year’s quota, not in disregarding the legal duty to fill the current year’s shortages. Procedurally, the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies did not bar mandamus, as no statute provided for an appeal to the President from the Secretary’s action, and any such appeal would not be an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.