Case Title: Casco vs. Gimenez, 7 SCRA 347.

Topic: Enrolled Bill Doctrine

Enrolled Bill is defined as one "which has been duly introduced, finally passed by both Houses,
signed by the proper officers of each, approved by the President."
Facts:
This is a petition for review of a decision of the Auditor General denying the claim for refund of
petitioner Casco.
The main facts are not disputed. Only how certain wording of the provision is to be construed.
(I started with the defendant because its easier to dissect this particular case with this format)
Defendant:
Pursuant to the provisions of RA No. 2609 ( the Foreign Exchange Margin Fee Law), the Central
Bank of the Philippines issued its Circular No. 95 fixing a uniform margin fee of 25% on foreign
exchange transactions. To supplement the circular, the Bank later promulgated a memorandum
establishing the procedure for applications for exemption from the payment of said fee, as
provided in said RA No. 2609.
Although the Central Bank issued corresponding margin fee vouchers for the refund of the said
amount to Casco, the Auditor of the Bank refused upon the ground that the exemption granted by
the Monetary Board for petitioner's separate importation of urea and formaldehyde is not in accord
with the provisions of Sec. 2, par. 18 of RA No. 2609.
Paragraph 18 states, " urea formaldehyde for the manufacture of plywood and hardwood when
imported by and for the exclusive use of end-users."
Note: look at the phrase " urea formaldehyde " because this would be the bone of contention.
Petitioner:
Petitioner Casco, which is engaged in the manufacture of synthetic resin glues, used in bonding
lumber and veneer by plywood and hardwood producers, bought foreign exchange for the
importation of urea AND formaldehyde, which are the main raw materials in the production of
said glues.
The said fee initially amounted to P33,765.42. A second payment of P6,345.72 was also made by
Casco.
The petitioner then sought a refund declaring that the importation of urea and formaldehyde is
exempt from said fee.

Petitioner maintains that the term "urea formaldehyde" appearing in this provision should be
construed as "urea AND formaldehyde." The former is a finished product while the latter are
separate articles used in the manufacture of synthetic resin known as "urea formaldehyde"
Issue:
Whether the original provision of the RA No. 2609 on the presence of the copulative conjunction
"AND" should be recognized than the enrolled version of the law.
Court Decisions:
In this case, no lower court was subjected to the proceedings but only on the following
circumstances:
1. The Monetary Board of the Central Bank approved the margin fee vouchers for the refund to
Casco.
2. These vouchers were refused by the Auditior of the Bank
3. The Auditor General affirmed the decision of the Auditior of the Bank
4. Petitioner sought refuge to the Supreme Court
Supreme Court Decision:
The Court dismissed the case and validated the decision of the Auditor General.
Eventhough the bill approved by Congress contained the copulative conjunction "and" between
the term 'urea' and 'formaldehyde', it is well settled that the ENROLLED BILL - which uses the
term 'urea formaldehyde' instead of 'urea and formaldehyde' - is CONCLUSIVE upon the courts as
regards the tenor of the measure passed by Congress and approved by the President.
If there has been any MISTAKE in the printing of the bill before it was certified by the officers of
Congress and approved by the Executive - on which we cannot speculate without jeopardizing the
principle of separation of powers and undermining one of the cornerstones of our democratic
system - THE REMEDY IS BY AMENDMENT OR CURATIVE LEGISLATION, NOT BY
JUDICIAL DECREE.
LESSON LEARNED: PROOF READ EVERYTHING BEFORE AFFIXING
SIGNATURE. DILI PWEDE MAGTANGA TANGA LIKE OUR CONGRESSMEN.

YOUR