Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
the law explicitly applies to any mill enclosed in a structure where palay is received mainly for milling
the
business
of
VERSOLA
cannot
be
accomplished
without
keeping
the
palay
for
some
time
in
the
mill,
and,
hence,
without
storing
therein
said
commodity.
During
harvest
and
milling
seasons,
the
milling
house
of
VERSOLA
is
bound
to
be
heavily
pressed
by
the
demands
of
its
customers
during
the
milling
season.
As
a
consequence,
not
all
palay
brought
to
the
mill
could
always
be
hulled
immediately,
much
less
removed
therefrom
within
one
hour.
Moreover,
the
customers
would
need
to
cultivate
more
than
a
can
of
petroleum
or
sack
of
palay
in
order
to
support
their
family
When
a
cavan
cannot
be
milled
immediately,
he
would
need
to
leave
it
in
the
camarin,
for
it
would
be
inconvenient
and
impractical
for
him
to
take
the
grains
back
to
his
place,
not
only
because
of
the
time
consumed,
the
trouble
taken,
and
the
expenses
incurred
in
bringing
the
cereals
to
the
mill,
but
also,
because
he
would
have
to
haul
the
palay
once
more
to
the
mill,
either
the
next
day
or
at
some
other
time,
without
any
assurance
that
others
might
not
be
ahead
of
him.
LEX. ANGEL. JOBEN. GEORGE. NORBY. KEITH. MAITI. KARL. MARIANA. DONDON. CJ. GASTON. ZEP. RIO. JECH. JED
2C 2015
In
other
words,
it
is
generally
more
advantageous
for
said
customer
to
leave
in
the
camarin
the
palay
above
referred
to,
for
hulling
when
its
turn
should
come.
Hence:
whenever
a
rice
mill,
engaged
in
the
business
of
hulling
palay
for
others,
is
housed
in
acamarin,
the
keeping
of
palay
or
rice
therein
follows
as
a
necessary
consequence.
Doctrine:
the
rice
mill
operator
is
responsible
for
the
palay
or
rice,
while
the
same
is
in
his
possession,
and
public
policy
or
public
interest
demands
that
the
rights
of
the
owners
of
commodity
which
is
our
main
staple
be
duly
protected.
Hence,
the
need
of
securing
the
license
prescribed
in
Act
No.
3893,
in
order
that
the
Director
of
Commerce
could
determine
the
conditions
under
which
the
mill
may
be
authorized
to
operate,
conformably
with
the
objective
of
said
legislation,
and
the
amount
of
the
bond
to
be
required
for
the
protection
of
the
people
who
avail
themselves
of
its
services.
POSSIBLE
trick
questions
Versolas
camarin
used
to
be
6x6
meteres,
he
modified
to
become
6x8
meters
Fine
imposed
to
him
was
10php
Lower
court
cannot
order
Versola
to
pay
license
and
filling
of
bond,
not
part
of
penalty
prescribed
by
law,
but
within
the
administrative
jurisdiction
of
Director
of
Commerce.
2.
VDA
DE
LIMJOCO
V.
DIRECTOR
OF
COMMERCE
ANGEL
VIRGINIA
I.
VDA.
DE
LIMJOCO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
vs.
THE
DIRECTOR
OF
COMMERCE,
Respondent-Appellee.
Emergency
Recit:
Virginia
I.
De
Limjoco
operates
a
rice
mill
commonly
called
"kiskisan"
and
is
engaged
in
the
business
of
milling
palay
belonging
to
customers
for
the
purpose
of
removing
its
hull
and
converting
it
into
rice.
The
facilities
of
the
rice
mill
are
open
to
the
public
in
the
sense
that
anybody
who
wants
his
palay
to
be
milled
and
converted
into
rice
may
deliver
the
same
to
the
rice
mill
paying
P0.40
per
cavan
of
palay
for
the
services
of
the
petitioner
in
milling
it.
The
mill
is
within
a
building
which
the
petitioner
calls
a
"camalig".
There
were
occasions
when
her
customers
brought
more
palay
than
could
be
milled
in
one
day,
whereupon
they
would
leave
the
palay
in
the
custody
of
Virginia,
piled
inside
the
"camalig"
to
await
its
turn
to
be
milled.
Virginia
did
not
charge
the
customers
for
keeping
the
palay.
Since
the
time
the
license
expired,
Virginia
refused
to
renew
such
from
the
Bureau
of
Commerce
claiming
that
her
business
does
not
fall
within
the
provisions
of
Act
3893
as
amended
by
Republic
Act
247.
The
Director
of
Commerce
ruled
that
Virginias
rice
milling
business
falls
under
Section
2
of
the
General
Bonded
Warehousing
Act,
required
her
to
secure
the
corresponding
renewal
license
and
started
steps
for
her
prosecution
in
view
of
her
refusal
to
do
so.
The
move,
it
seems,
was
subsequently
held
in
abeyance
upon
the
filing
of
the
petition
herein.
The
trial
court
upheld
the
ruling
of
the
Director
of
Commerce.
Issue:
Whether
Virginias
rice
milling
business
falls
under
Section
2
of
the
General
Bonded
Warehousing
Act,
consequently
requiring
her
to
secure
the
corresponding
renewal
license.
Yes
It
is
enough
that
the
palay
is
delivered,
even
if
only
to
have
it
milled.
Delivery
connotes
transfer
of
physical
possession
or
custody;
and
it
may
indeed
be
seriously
doubted
if
the
concept
of
"storage"
under
the
law
would
LEX. ANGEL. JOBEN. GEORGE. NORBY. KEITH. MAITI. KARL. MARIANA. DONDON. CJ. GASTON. ZEP. RIO. JECH. JED
2C 2015
cover
a
situation
where
one
merely
utilizes
the
services
of
the
mill
but
keeps
the
palay
under
his
physical
control
all
steps
of
the
way.
The
main
intention
of
the
lawmaker
is
to
give
protection
to
the
owner
of
the
commodity
against
possible
abuses
(and
we
might
add
negligence)
of
the
person
to
whom
the
physical
control
of
his
properties
is
delivered."
Whenever
a
rice
mill
engaged
in
the
business
of
hulling
palay
for
others,
is
housed
in
a
"camarin",
the
keeping
of
palay
or
rice
follows
as
a
necessary
consequence.
This
is
true,
even
if
the
grains
were
received
therein
exclusively
for
milling
purposes.
Hence,
one
way
or
the
other,
there
is
a
form
of
storage,
the
duration
of
which
may
vary,
depending
upon
circumstances.
In
any
event,
the
ricemill
operator
is
responsible
for
the
palay
or
rice,
while
the
same
is
in
his
possession,
and
public
policy
or
public
interest
demands
that
the
rights
of
the
owners
of
the
commodity
-
which
is
our
main
staple
-
be
duly
protected.
Hence,
the
need
of
securing
the
license--
in
order
that
the
Director
of
Commerce
could
determine
1.
the
conditions
under
which
the
mill
may
be
authorized
to
operate
and
2.
the
amount
of
the
bond
to
be
required
for
the
protection
of
the
people
who
avail
themselves
of
its
services.
MAKALINTAL, J.:
This
case,
filed
as
a
petition
for
declaratory
relief
in
the
Court
of
First
Instance
of
Manila,
involves
the
interpretation
of
Section
2
of
the
General
Bonded
Warehousing
Act
(Act
No.
3893
as
amended
by
Republic
Act
No.
247),
specifically
in
relation
to
the
rice
milling
business
of
petitioner-appellant
Vda.
De
Limjoco.
Facts
It
appears
that
sometime
prior
to
March
22,
1950,
petitioner
Virginia
I.
De
Limjoco
and
her
husband,
the
late
Bonifacio
T.
Limjoco,
were
the
owners
of
a
rice
mill
commonly
called
"kiskisan"
and
were
engaged
in
the
business
of
milling
palay
belonging
to
their
customers
for
the
purpose
of
removing
its
hull
and
converting
it
into
rice.
On
July
31,
1952
Bonifacio
T.
Limjoco
died,
leaving
the
milling
business
in
the
hands
of
his
surviving
spouse,
Virginia.
Virginia
continued
in
the
business,
which
prior
to
the
death
of
her
husband,
was
managed
by
the
latter
without,
however,
renewing
the
license
which
expired
on
December
31,
1950.
Since
then
and
up
to
the
present,
Virginia
refused
to
secure
a
license
from
the
Bureau
of
Commerce
claiming
that
her
business
does
not
fall
within
the
provisions
of
Act
3893
as
amended
by
Republic
Act
247.
It
appears
that
Virginia
owns
a
rice
mill
of
the
semicono
type.
The
facilities
of
the
rice
mill
are
open
to
the
public
in
the
sense
that
anybody
who
wants
his
palay
to
be
milled
and
converted
into
rice
may
deliver
the
same
to
the
rice
mill
paying
P0.40
per
cavan
of
palay
for
the
services
of
the
petitioner
in
milling
it.
The
mill
itself
is
within
a
building
which
the
petitioner
calls
a
"camalig"
about
ten
meters
long,
eight
meters
wide
and
five
meters
high.
The
"camalig"
is
totally
enclosed
partly
by
steelmatting,
partly
by
wood
and
partly
by
galvanized
iron
sheets.
There
were
occasions
when
her
customers
brought
more
palay
than
could
be
milled
in
one
day,
whereupon
they
would
leave
the
palay
in
the
custody
of
Virginia,
piled
inside
the
"camalig"
to
await
its
turn
to
be
milled.
o Sometimes
the
palay
left
in
her
possession
amounted
to
as
much
as
100
cavans,
and
at
other
times
as
little
as
10
cavans
o Virginia
did
not
charge
the
customers
for
keeping
the
palay.
The
arrangement
being,
in
accordance
with
the
customs
of
the
place,
a
favor
done
to
the
customers
LEX. ANGEL. JOBEN. GEORGE. NORBY. KEITH. MAITI. KARL. MARIANA. DONDON. CJ. GASTON. ZEP. RIO. JECH. JED
2C 2015
This
arrangement
also
benefited
Virginia
because
unless
she
acceded
thereto
the
customers
might
take
their
palay
for
milling
to
her
competitors.
The
Director
of
Commerce
ruled
that
Virginias
rice
milling
business
falls
under
Section
2
of
the
General
Bonded
Warehousing
Act,
required
her
to
secure
the
corresponding
renewal
license
and
started
steps
for
her
prosecution
in
view
of
her
refusal
to
do
so.
The
move,
it
seems,
was
subsequently
held
in
abeyance
upon
the
filing
of
the
petition
herein.
The
trial
court
upheld
the
Director
of
Commerce
and
ruled
that
the
law
in
question
is
applicable
in
this
case.
Issue:
Whether
Virginias
rice
milling
business
falls
under
Section
2
of
the
General
Bonded
Warehousing
Act,
consequently
requiring
her
to
secure
the
corresponding
renewal
license
Held:
Yes.
Decision
appealed
from
affirmed.
Ratio
Section
2
of
the
General
Bonded
Warehousing
Act
provides:
As
used
in
this
Act,
the
term
"Warehouse"
shall
be
deemed
to
mean
every
building,
structure,
or
other
protected
inclosure
in
which
rice
is
kept
for
storage.
The
term
"rice"
shall
be
deemed
to
mean
either
palay,
in
bundles,
or
in
grains,
or
clean
rice,
or
both.
"Person"
includes
a
corporation
or
partnership
or
two
or
more
persons
having
a
joint
or
common
interest;
"warehouseman"
means
a
person
engaged
in
the
business
of
receiving
rice
for
storage;
and
"receipt"
means
any
receipt
issued
by
a
warehouseman
for
rice
delivered
to
him.
For
the
purpose
of
this
Act,
the
business
of
receiving
rice
for
storage
shall
include
o (1)
any
contract
or
transaction
wherein
the
warehouseman
is
obligated
to
return
the
very
same
rice
delivered
to
him
or
pay
its
value;
o (2)
any
contract
or
transaction
wherein
the
rice
delivered
is
to
be
milled
for
and
on
account
of
the
owner
thereof;
o
(3)
any
contract
or
transaction
wherein
the
rice
delivered
is
commingled
with
rice
delivered
by
or
belonging
to
other
persons,
and
the
warehouseman
is
obligated
to
return
rice
of
the
same
kind
or
pay
its
value.
1. Virginia
submits
that
the
test
to
determine
the
applicability
of
Act
No.
3893
as
amended
is
whether
or
not
she
is
engaged
in
the
business
of
receiving
palay
for
storage;
that
the
clause
in
section
2
thereof
which
refers
to
"any
contract
or
transaction
wherein
the
rice,
delivered
is
to
be
milled
for
and
on
account
of
the
owners"
must
be
understood
in
relation
to
the
subject
matter
of
the
statute
as
expressed
in
its
title,
namely,
"An
Act
to
Regulate
the
Business
of
Receiving
Commodity
for
Storage";
and
that
since
her
business
is
the
milling
of
palay,
the
delivery
thereof
to
her
is
merely
incidental
to
such
business
and
does
not
constitute
storage
within
the
meaning
of
the
statute.
Section
2,
however,
is
too
clear
to
permit
of
any
exercise
in
construction
or
semantics.
It
does
not
stop
at
the
bare
use
of
the
word
"storage,"
but
expressly
provides
that
any
contract
or
transaction
wherein
the
palay
delivered
is
to
be
milled
for
and
on
account
of
the
owner
shall
be
deemed
included
in
the
business
of
receiving
rice
for
storage
for
the
purpose
of
the
Act.
In
other
words,
it
is
enough
that
the
palay
is
delivered,
even
if
only
to
have
it
milled.
Delivery
connotes
transfer
of
physical
possession
or
custody;
and
it
may
indeed
be
seriously
doubted
if
the
concept
of
"storage"
under
the
LEX. ANGEL. JOBEN. GEORGE. NORBY. KEITH. MAITI. KARL. MARIANA. DONDON. CJ. GASTON. ZEP. RIO. JECH. JED
2C 2015
law
would
cover
a
situation
where
one
merely
utilizes
the
services
of
the
mill
but
keeps
the
palay
under
his
physical
control
all
steps
of
the
way.
But
in
this
case
it
is
a
fact
that
palay
is
delivered
to
appellant
and
sometimes
piled
inside
her
"camalig"
in
appreciable
quantities,
to
wait
for
its
turn
in
the
milling
process.
This
is
precisely
the
situation
covered
by
the
statute.
We
agree
with
the
trial
Judge,
when
he
said:
"There
is
a
reason
for
the
inclusion
of
the
business
of
the
petitioner
within
the
operation
of
Act
3893
as
amended
by
Republic
Act
247.
The
main
intention
of
the
lawmaker
is
to
give
protection
to
the
owner
of
the
commodity
against
possible
abuses
(and
we
might
add
negligence)
of
the
person
to
whom
the
physical
control
of
his
properties
is
delivered."
People
vs.
Versola
At
any
rate,
whenever
a
rice
mill
engaged
in
the
business
of
hulling
palay
for
others,
is
housed
in
a
"camarin"
like
that
of
appellant
herein,
the
keeping
of
palay
or
rice
therein
follows
as
a
necessary
consequence.
This
is
true,
even
if
the
grains
were
received
therein
exclusively
for
milling
purposes.
Hence,
one
way
or
the
other,
there
is
a
form
of
storage,
the
duration
of
which
may
vary,
depending
upon
circumstances.
In
any
event,
the
ricemill
operator
is
responsible
for
the
palay
or
rice,
while
the
same
is
in
his
possession,
and
public
policy
or
public
interest
demands
that
the
rights
of
the
owners
of
the
commodity
-
which
is
our
main
staple
-
be
duly
protected.
Hence,
the
need
of
securing
the
license
prescribed
in
Act
No.
3893,
in
order
that
the
Director
of
Commerce
could
determine
the
conditions
under
which
the
mill
may
be
authorized
to
operate,
conformably
with
the
objectives
of
said
legislation,
and
the
amount
of
the
bond
to
be
required
for
the
protection
of
the
people
who
avail
themselves
of
its
services.
2. Virginia
also
contends
that
the
inclusion
of
the
business
of
milling
palay
in
Act
No.
3893
infringes
the
constitutional
mandate
that
no
law
shall
embrace
more
than
one
subject
which
shall
be
expressed
in
the
title
thereof.
o
We
believe
the
subject
matter
of
said
Act
as
expressed
in
its
title,
namely,
the
regulation
of
the
business
of
receiving
commodity
for
storage,
is
sufficiently
broad
to
cover
the
business
of
milling
palay
where
the
palay
is
delivered
to
the
mill
operator
and
kept
in
a
construction
which
serves
the
purpose
of
a
warehouse,
as
in
this
case.
3. Virginia
says
her
"camalig"
is
neither
adequate
nor
suitable
for
storage.
o But
the
inadequacy
of
the
construction
insofar
as
the
safety
of
the
palay
is
concerned
is
not
a
valid
reason
to
remove
it
from
the
operation
of
the
statute,
for
otherwise
the
very
fact
of
non-compliance
with
the
legal
requirements
in
this
respect
would
be
its
own
excuse
from
the
liabilities
imposed.
o
2C 2015
-
-
The
main
intention
of
the
lawmaker,
in
requiring
the
millers
to
post
the
necessary
bond,
is
to
give
protection
to
the
owner
of
the
commodity
against
possible
abuses
(and
we
might
add
negligence)
of
the
person
to
whom
the
physical
control
of
his
properties
is
delivered.
ACCFAs
tobacco
is
insured
with
the
GSIS.
In
addition,
the
agreement
between
Phil
Tobacco
and
ACCFA
already
required
the
former
to
post
a
performance
bond
It
is
evident
that
the
ACCFA
is
amply
protected.
It
would
be
unreasonable
and
oppressive
to
compel
Phil
Tobacco
to
further
put
up
a
bond
and
subject
it
to
unnecessary
burden
of
the
premium
incident
to
such
bond
FACTS:
- 02/02/1959:
The
Philippine
Tobacco
Flue
Curing
and
Redrying
Corporation
(Phil
Tobacco)
and
the
Agricultural
Credit
and
Cooperative
Financing
Administration
(ACCFA),
by
a
memorandum
agreement,
agreed
that
Phil
Tobacco
"shall
redry,
pack
and
keep
in
storage
all
Virginia
leaf
tobacco
delivered
by
ACCFA
to
the
Phil
Tobaccos
redrying
and
repacking
plant,
the
same
to
be
done
according
to
standard
procedure
and
usages
of
the
trade,
including
fumigation
of
stored
tobacco
to
prevent
damage
by
pests."
o ACCFA,
in
turn,
agreed
to
pay
the
Phil
Tobacco
P0.18
per
kilo
for
the
redrying
and
packing
of
the
tobacco
and
a
monthly
warehousing
fee
of
P2.20
per
hogshead.
o To
guarantee
the
faithful
performance
of
the
agreement,
and
to
answer
for
any
damage
that
may
be
suffered
by
ACCFA
while
the
tobacco
is
in
the
plant
or
warehouse
of
the
corporation,
Phil
Tobacco
agreed
to
file
a
bond
in
the
amount
of
P200,000.00,
which
amount
"may
be
increased
at
the
option
of
the
ACCFA
as
the
amount
and
value
of
the
tobacco
delivered
to
the
plant
or
warehouse
of
the
corporation
increases.
o This
agreement
shall
be
in
effect
for
a
period
of
3
years
counting
from
03/01/1959,
and
extendible
from
year
to
year
thereafter,
upon
mutual
agreement
of
the
parties.
- 02/26/1960:
the
Director
of
Commerce
(DOC),
through
the
Bureaus
Chief
Commission
Agent,
required
Phil
Tobacco
to
file
an
additional
bond
of
P11,033,334,
later
on
increased
to
P12,366,667.22,
pursuant
to
the
General
Bonded
Warehouse
Act
(Warehouse
Act).
o Upon
investigation,
Phil
Tobacco
had
allegedly
received
for
storage
50,000
hogsheads
of
Virginia
tobacco
valued
at
P40,000,000
and
their
records
show
that
Phil
Tobacco
is
only
authorized
to
receive
for
storage
at
any
one
time
not
more
than
4,000
hogsheads
of
tobacco
equivalent
to
P2,300,000
- 03/12/1960:
Phil
Tobacco
informed
the
DOC
that
the
former
was
not
engaged
in
warehousing
and
storage
and
therefore
not
subject
to
the
provisions
of
the
Warehouse
Act.
o This
was
rejected
by
the
DOC
hence
Phil
Tobacco
appealed
to
the
Secretary
of
Commerce
and
Industry
(SCI).
o 05/12/1960:
SCI
rejected
Phil
Tobaccos
appeal
and
enjoining
it
to
file
the
bond
required
by
the
DOC.
- 05/19/1960:
Phil
Tobacco
and
ACCFA
entered
into
a
new
memorandum
agreement
o ACCFA
agreed
to
deliver
75%
of
the
tobacco
to
the
premises
of
Phil
Tobacco,
for
the
latter
to
perform
all
the
services
required
for
the
curing
and
the
treatment
of
the
tobacco
until
they
are
ready
for
the
manufacture
of
cigarettes
at
a
fee
of
P2.20
per
hogshead.
o As
security
for
performance,
Phil
Tobacco
shall
post
a
surety
bond
of
P700,000
in
favor
of
ACCFA.
o The
old
memorandum
agreement
(02/02/1959)
was
declared
extinguished
and
superseded
by
the
new
memorandum
agreement.
- 06/01/1960:
Phil
Tobacco
received
a
letter
from
the
DOC
requiring
them
to
file
an
additional
bond
of
P24,905,579.63
within
2
days
from
the
receipt
thereof.
LEX. ANGEL. JOBEN. GEORGE. NORBY. KEITH. MAITI. KARL. MARIANA. DONDON. CJ. GASTON. ZEP. RIO. JECH. JED
2C 2015
Phil
Tobacco
filed
with
the
CFI
of
Manila
a
petition
for
prohibition
with
a
writ
of
preliminary
injunction
against
the
DOC,
claiming
that
the
DOC
acted
with
grave
abuse
of
discretion
and
disregard
of
the
law
and
his
jurisdiction.
CFI
judgement:
Phil
Tobacco
was
not
engaged
in
the
business
of
warehousing
within
the
meaning
of
the
Warehouse
Law
as
far
as
the
ACCFAA
tobacco
is
concerned
and
should
not
be
obliged
to
file
the
bond;
declared
the
order
of
the
DOC
requiring
Phil
Tobacco
to
file
a
bond
null
and
void;
making
the
writ
of
preliminary
injunction
permanent
ISSUE:
WoN
Phil
Tobacco
should
post
an
additional
bond,
as
required
by
the
DOC,
pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
Secs.
4
and
5
of
Act
No.
3893,
as
amended,
otherwise
known
as
the
General
Bonded
Warehouse
Act.
RATIO:
- Phil
Tobacco
claims
that
the
contract
with
ACCFA
is
one
of
services
and
therefore
not
within
the
purview
of
the
Warehouse
Act.
- The
DOC
maintains
that
Phil
Tobacco
is
a
warehouseman
and
should
comply
with
the
provisions
of
the
General
Warehouse
Act
by
putting
up
the
additional
bond.
- Sec
4
of
the
Warehouse
Act:
"bond
shall
be
so
conditioned
as
to
respond
for
the
market
value
of
the
rice
actually
delivered
and
received
at
any
time
the
warehouseman
is
unable
to
return
the
rice
or
to
pay
its
value."
o The
main
intention
of
the
lawmaker,
in
requiring
the
millers
to
post
the
necessary
bond,
"is
to
give
protection
to
the
owner
of
the
commodity
against
possible
abuses
(and
we
might
add
negligence)
of
the
person
to
whom
the
physical
control
of
his
properties
is
delivered.
- In
the
case
at
bar,
ACCFA
had
insured
its
tobacco
with
the
GSIS
and
Phil
Tobacco
had
been
required
by
ACCFA
to
file
a
performance
bond,
which
may
be
increased
at
the
option
of
ACCFA
as
the
amount
and
value
of
tobacco
delivered
to
the
plant
or
warehouse
of
Phil
Tobacco
increases,
conditioned
upon
the
performance
of
the
agreement
and
to
answer
for
any
damage
suffered
by
ACCFA
while
the
tobacco
was
in
the
plant
or
warehouse
of
Phil
Tobacco.
o It
is
evident
that
the
ACCFA
is
amply
protected.
It
would
be
unreasonable
and
oppressive
to
compel
Phil
Tobacco
to
further
put
up
a
bond
and
subject
it
to
unnecessary
burden
of
the
premium
incident
to
such
bond.
- The
ACCFA
is
now
defunct
and
its
functions
have
been
taken
over
by
the
Agricultural
Credit
Administration.
o This
controversy
involves
the
keeping
of
tobacco,
harvested
in
1959,
for
curing
and
ageing
by
Phil
Tobacco,
which
was
contracted
more
than
15
years
ago.
o Witnesses
testified
that
the
ageing
process
takes
from
18
to
24
months
before
the
tobacco
is
sold
to
the
cigarette
manufacturers.
o The
commodity
kept
in
the
premises
of
Phil
Tobacco
for
curing
and
ageing
have
already
been
withdrawn
and
disposed
of
by
the
ACCFA,
in
which
case
the
filing
of
an
additional
bond
by
Phil
Tobacco
ceases
to
be
controversial.
UPON
THE
FOREGOING,
the
appeal
should
be,
as
it
is
hereby,
DISMISSED,
without
costs.
4.
BOG
&
CO
V.
HANOVER
FIRE
INSURANCE
-
GASTON
LEE
BOG
&
COMPANY,
plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
THE
HANOVER
FIRE
INSURANCE
COMPANY
OF
THE
CITY
OF
NEW
YORK,
ET
AL.,
defendants-appellants.
REPUBLIC
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
ET
AL.,
intervenors-appellees.
PEREZ
DE
TAGLE
LEX.
ANGEL.
JOBEN.
GEORGE.
NORBY.
KEITH.
MAITI.
KARL.
MARIANA.
DONDON.
CJ.
GASTON.
ZEP.
RIO.
JECH.
JED
2C 2015
LEX. ANGEL. JOBEN. GEORGE. NORBY. KEITH. MAITI. KARL. MARIANA. DONDON. CJ. GASTON. ZEP. RIO. JECH. JED
2C 2015
This
is
the
object
of
the
requirement
of
law
that
every
person
licensed,
under
this
Act1,
to
engage
in
the
business
of
receiving
rice
for
storage
shall
insure
the
rice
as
received
and
stored
against
fire.
o This
is
the
very
reason
why
BOG
insured
said
palay.
HANOVER
cannot
pretend
that
they
and
BOG
were
not
aware
of
the
fact
that
the
subject
matter
of
the
insurance
policies
upon
which
REPUBLIC
OF
THE
PH
(PH)
is
suing
was
solely
the
palay
covered
by
the
Bonded
Warehouse
Act.
Upon
the
other
hand,
policy
No.
1016373
issued
by
the
Hanover
Fire
Insurance
Company,
which
does
not
contain
a
clause
common
to
the
aforementioned
ten
policies,
referred
only
to
the
unbonded
deposits
of
the
appellee.
DOCTRINE
(lifted
from
the
De
Leon
Book):
Bonded
palay
and
unbonded
palay,
deposited
in
the
warehouse
of
a
rice
mill
are
treated
separately
for
insurance
purposes.
o The
law
required
that
bonded
palay
belonging
to
third
persons
should
be
insured
against
fire.
o IN
case
of
loss,
the
value
therein
is
payable
to
the
Bureau
of
Commerce.
o The
warehouse
receipts
may
prove
the
deposit
of
bonded
palay
o Unbonded
palay
may
be
determined
from
the
records
of
purchase
of
palay
and
sales
of
milled
rice.
1
Bonded
Warehouse
Act
LEX.
ANGEL.
JOBEN.
GEORGE.
NORBY.
KEITH.
MAITI.
KARL.
MARIANA.
DONDON.
CJ.
GASTON.
ZEP.
RIO.
JECH.
JED
2C 2015