G.R. No. L-10971; March 4, 1916
BEAUMONT & TENNEY, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. BERNARD HERSTEIN, Insular Collector of Customs, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
Plaintiffs Beaumont & Tenney, a law firm in Manila, sought a writ of injunction against the Insular Collector of Customs, Bernard Herstein. The controversy arose after an attorney from the plaintiffs’ firm, H.V. Bamberger, approached the defendant regarding a routine immigration matter. The defendant told Bamberger that it was desirable to have all business with the plaintiffs’ firm transacted in writing. The plaintiffs interpreted this as a discriminatory order barring them from oral transactions with the Bureau of Customs, applicable only to their firm. Through a series of letters, the plaintiffs demanded clarification on whether this rule applied universally or specifically to them, but the defendant’s replies were deemed non-responsive. The plaintiffs elevated the matter to the Secretary of Finance and Justice and eventually to the Governor-General, but no satisfactory resolution was reached. The plaintiffs then filed a petition for injunction to restrain the defendant from enforcing the alleged order and from discriminating against them. The trial court denied the injunction, finding no evidence that the defendant intended to enforce such a rule or that the plaintiffs had attempted to test its application.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendant’s statement requiring the plaintiffs to transact business with the Bureau of Customs in writing constituted an enforceable order justifying the issuance of a writ of injunction.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the injunction. The Court held that the defendant’s statement, as reflected in the conversation and subsequent correspondence, did not constitute an order but merely expressed what was “desirable” for record-keeping purposes, particularly in complex immigration matters. The evidence showed that the defendant had no intention of issuing a general order barring the plaintiffs from oral transactions, and the plaintiffs never attempted to ascertain the actual scope or enforceability of the statement. The Collector of Customs, in the exercise of administrative discretion, may require certain transactions to be in writing to ensure proper documentation, especially when legal technicalities are involved. There was no showing of abuse of discretion or actual deprivation of the plaintiffs’ rights as attorneys. Consequently, no grounds existed for injunctive relief.