Lichauco & Company, Inc. v.

Apostol
December 4, 1922 | Street, J. | General and special statutes

PETITIONER: Lichauco & Company, Inc.

RESPONDENTS: Silverio Apostol, as Director of Agriculture, and Rafael Corpus, as Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources

SUMMARY: Lichauco & Company, Inc. question the prohibition of the Bureau of Agriculture on the import of cattle. Lichauco &
Company cite that the law allows for unrestricted importation of cattle.

The Court sided with the Bureau of Agriculture as it views Sec. 1770 of the Administrative Code to be a specific statute that limits the
definition of Sec. 1762. As a result, the prohibition on bringing infected animals overpowers the right to unhampered importation of
cattle.

DOCTRINE: General and special statutes – Special statutes define and provide limitations to general statutes, particularly when they
are found within the same law.

FACTS:
1. Lichauco & Company file writ of mandamus and injunction against Apostol and Corpus following their refusal to admit the
shipment of draft cattle and bovine cattle.
2. Apostol and Corpus argue that Sec. 1770 of the Administrative Code and Admin. Order no. 21 of the Bureau of Agriculture
needs to be upheld as it requires immunization from rinderpest before admission of cattle.
3. Lichauco & Company argue that Sec. 1762 of the Administrative Code as amended by Act No. 3052 involving the
unrestricted right to import carabao and other draft animals should be upheld.

ISSUE/s:
1. WoN the restriction on importation implemented by the Bureau of Agriculture is valid - YES

RULING:
Upon the whole we are of the opinion that the petition does not show sufficient ground for granting the writs of mandamus and
injunction. The demurrer interposed thereto by the respondents in their return to the order to show cause, dated October 7, 1922, is
therefore sustained, and the temporary restraining order heretofore promulgated in this cause, dated September 21, 1922, is dissolved;
and unless within five days after notification hereof the petitioner shall so amend his petition as to show a sufficient cause of action, an
order absolute will be entered, dismissing the same, with costs. So ordered.

Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, and Ostrand, JJ., concur.

RATIO:

1. The Court favors the Bureau of Agriculture as the raised petition of Lichauco & Company that Sec. 1762 of the
Administrative Code is of a general nature and should not be able to repeal nor conflict with Sec. 1770. Instead, Sec.
1770 should be considered as a special condition that limits the validity of Sec. 1762 in allowing unrestricted entry of cattle.

The ruling is based on the notion that a particular enactment would overrule the general enactment in the same statute.
However, the harmonious relationship between Sec. 1762 and Sec. 1770 does not support Admin Order no. 21 as
immunization at the port is not sufficient basis to accept imported goods.

 Justice Johns dissents citing that Act No. 3052 substitutes for Sec. 1762 of the Administrative Code. As a result, the
interpretation of Sec. 1770 should be changed as the implicit repealing of Sec. 1762 causes discord between two
provisions.