Planters Products Inc. vs. Fertiphil

7/26/2019 Planters Products Inc. vs. Fertiphil

1/4

PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC.vs.

FERTIPHIL CORPORATION

I. PARTIES

A. Planters Products Inc. - petitioner, a private corporation incorporatedunder Philippine laws engaged in the importation and distribution offertilizers, pesticides and agricultural chemicals.

B. Fertiphil Corporation, respondent, also a private corporation incorporatedunder Philippine laws and engaged in the importation and distributionof fertilizers, pesticides and agricultural chemicals.

C. itigation !tatus - complaint for collection and damages against FPA and

PPI

II. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

"une #, $%&' ( )arcos issued *I +o. $' which provided, among others, forthe imposition of a capital recover component /C0C1 on the domesticsale of all grades of fertilizers in the Philippines.- Pursuant to the *I, Fertiphil paid P$2 for ever bag of fertilizer it soldin the domestic mar3et to the FPA who then remitted the amountcollected to the Far 4ast Ban3 and 5rust Compan, the depositarban3 of PPI.

After the $%& 4dsa 0evolution - FPA voluntaril stopped the imposition ofthe P$2 lev demanded from PPI and demanded the refund of theamounts it paid under *I +o. $', but PPI refused to accede to thedemand

05C- Fertiphil 6led a complaint for collection and damages against FPA andPPI 7uestioning the constitutionalit of *I +o. $' for being un8ust,unreasonable, oppressive, invalid and an unlawful imposition thatamounted to a denial of due process of law, alleging also that the *Isolel favored PPI, a privatel owned corporation, which used the

proceeds to maintain its monopol of the fertilizer industr- decided in favor of Fertiphil- PPI moved for reconsideration but its motion was denied, PPI then6led a notice of appeal with the 05C but it failed to pa the re7uisiteappeal doc3et fee.

!eparate but related !C proceeding - allowed the appeal of PPI andremanded the case to the CA for proper disposition

CA- a9rmed with modi6cation the decision of the 05C- ruled that the lis motaof the complaint for collection was the

constitutionalit of *I +o. $' and held that even on the assumptionthat *I +o. $' was issued under the police power of the state, it isstill unconstitutional because it did not promote public welfare- did not accept PPI:s claim that the lev imposed under *I +o. $'was for the bene6t of Planters Foundation, Inc.- PPI moved for reconsideration but its motion was denied- PPI then 6led a petition for certiorari with !C


2/4

III. THEORIES OF THE PARTIES

Fertiphil also argues that, even if the *I is enacted under the policepower, it is still unconstitutional because it did not promote the generalwelfare of the people or public interest. It also counters that theconstitutionalit of the *I was ade7uatel pleaded in its complaint.

PPI on the other hand argues that /$1 Fertiphil has no locus standito7uestion the constitutionalit of *I +o. $' and that the constitutionalit of*I +o. $' cannot be collaterall attac3ed and be decreed via a default8udgment in a case 6led for collection and damages where the issue ofconstitutionalit is not the ver lis mota of the case /;1 *I $' constitutesa valid legislation pursuant to the e


3/4

PPI argues that Fertiphil has no locus standi to 7uestion theconstitutionalit of *I +o. $' because it does not have a @personal andsubstantial interest in the case or will sustain direct in8ur as a result of itsenforcement.@ It asserts that Fertiphil did not su=er an damage from theimposition because @incidence of the lev fell on the ultimate consumer or

the farmers themselves, not on the seller fertilizer compan and alsobecause the amount collected under the capital recover component wasremitted to the government, and became government funds pursuant to ane=ective and validl enacted law which imposed duties and conferred rightsb virtue of the principle of >operative fact? prior to an declaration ofunconstitutionalit of *I $' and that the principle of un8ust enrichment6nds no application in this case.

In the proceeding before the 05C and CA, both favored the claim ofFertiphil.

VI. ISSUES

5he principal issue is whether or not *I +o. $' is unconstitutional.5he issue of fact is whether or not Fertiphil has locus standito 7uestion

the constitutionalit of *I +o. $'.5he issue of law is whether or not it was proper for the trial court to

e


4/4

enrichment. 5he refund is a mere conse7uence of the law being declared

unconstitutional. 5he 05C surel cannot order PPI to refund Fertiphil if it does

not declare the *I unconstitutional. It is the unconstitutionalit of the *I

which triggers the refund. 5he issue of constitutionalit is the ver lis

motaof the complaint with the 05C.

e agree with the 05C that the imposition of the lev was an e

Documents

Planters Products Inc. vs. Fertiphil