G.R. No. L-20184. July 30, 1964.
JOSE B. LINGAD, as the Commissioner of Customs and PEDRO PACIS as Acting Collector of Customs, Manila, petitioners, vs. HON. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG and AGRO INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS, INC., respondents.

FACTS

This case arose from a prior Supreme Court decision (G.R. No. L-19440) upholding Agro Industrial Products, Inc.’s (Agro) right to import Virginia tobacco under 1961 terms. Following that decision, the parties, including the Customs authorities, executed an “Agreement for the Implementation of the Supreme Court decision” on June 7, 1962. Paragraph 6 of this agreement tentatively allowed Agro to transfer its imported tobacco from piers to customs bonded warehouses, pending a Supreme Court resolution on a motion for clarification, after the tobacco was weighed, examined, and duties were paid or secured, and upon compliance with pertinent customs rules.
On July 31, 1962, the Supreme Court resolved that the 1961 customs duties applied to Agro’s importation. Agro then requested the Customs authorities to release 1/6 of the shipment and to transfer the remaining 5/6 to bonded warehouses to avoid exorbitant storage charges at the piers. The Customs authorities delayed, imposing conditions for the transfer, including the filing of new warehousing entries under the Tariff and Customs Code. Agro filed an urgent motion in the Court of First Instance of Manila.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing a preliminary mandatory order directing the Customs authorities to transfer the tobacco to bonded warehouses without requiring the filing of new warehousing entries.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari, upholding the lower court’s order. The legal logic centers on the finality and binding effect of the prior Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. L-19440. In that case, the Court had already declared Agro’s 1961 import entries valid and improperly rejected by Customs. Consequently, the Customs authorities could not lawfully require Agro to file new warehousing entries for the same merchandise; such a demand would constitute a superfluous technicality and an unauthorized duplication of entries. The purpose of the implementation agreement was to give effect to the final decision, not to invalidate it.
The Court found that the respondent Judge’s order was in direct pursuance of the spirit and intent of the Supreme Court’s final resolution. The condition in the implementation agreement for compliance with “pertinent customs rules and regulations” could not be construed to require new entries, as this would effectively sabotage the prior final judgment. The Customs authorities’ insistence on retaining the goods at the piers, where storage fees were quadruple those of bonded warehouses, was viewed as penalizing the importer for having successfully litigated its rights. Since certiorari lies only to correct a grave abuse of discretion equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and no such abuse was present, the petition was dismissed.