FIRST
DIVISION
|
|
|
|
|
|
FERTILIZER and PESTICIDE AUTHORITY
(FPA), Petitioner, - versus - MANILA Respondents. |
G.R. No. 161594 Present: PUNO, CJ.,
Chairperson, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, AZCUNA,
and GARCIA,
JJ. Promulgated:
|
x- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
PUNO, CJ.:
On appeal are the Decision[1] dated July 31, 2003 and
the Resolution[2]
dated January 8, 2004 of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CV No. 67175. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City, which ruled that the
Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA) did not have jurisdiction or regulatory power over the
acts and business operations of Manila Pest Control Company (MAPECON).
Petitioner FPA is an attached agency of the Department
of Agriculture. It was created pursuant
to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1144, “Creating the Fertilizer and Pesticide
Authority and Abolishing the Fertilizer Industry Authority,” that took effect
on May 30, 1977.
Respondent MAPECON is a franchised and licensed urban
pest control operator, and duly accredited by the National Committee on Urban
Pest Control (NCUPC). MAPECON and its
branches nationwide are licensed and accredited to engage in the manufacture,
distribution, and application of its 38 patented pest control products. It has operated its urban pest control business
since the 1960s. Respondent Woodrow
Catan is the MAPECON Dumaguete City branch manager.
Upon the request of Pablo Turtal, Jr., Manager of
Supreme Pest Control (SUPESCON) who was holding office in Sibulan, Negros
Oriental, Vicente Lañohan, the FPA Dumaguete Office Provincial Coordinator,
issued an undated certificate that MAPECON-Dumaguete City branch had no license
to operate, and that its pesticide products were not registered with the
FPA. Thus, it could not engage in pest
control operation “until such time that this above-mentioned business entity
can secure a license from the [FPA].”[3] Lañohan also sent a letter to the Department
of Trade and Industry, Dumaguete Office, dated December 29, 1993, wherein he
requested the office to suspend the processing, approval, and/or release of the
business trade name registration of MAPECON because of its alleged violation of
the provisions of P.D. No. 1144.[4]
Using the certificate issued by Lañohan, Turtal sent
letters to respondents’ current and prospective clients, urging them to desist
from dealing with respondent MAPECON. As
a result, respondent claimed that it was disqualified and prohibited from
participating in several private and public biddings, and that almost all of
the winning bids had been awarded to SUPESCON, the pest control business of
Turtal.
Respondents MAPECON and Catan filed a complaint[5] on January 18, 1994, for
injunction with a prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or
restraining order and damages, against Vicente Lañohan and Pablo Turtal, Jr.,
before the RTC of Dumaguete City. Respondents
sought to enjoin Lañohan and Turtal
from disturbing their business operations and from requiring them to obtain a
license from the FPA; and to desist from prohibiting respondents from
participating in any and all private and public biddings. Respondents also sought payment of damages
for the alleged evident bad faith of Lañohan and Turtal, who had allegedly conspired
in easing respondents out of business.
In an Order dated January 19, 1994, the trial court restrained
Lañohan and Turtal, their agents, and all persons acting for them, for 20 days,
“from stopping and disturbing in any form, the business operation of plaintiffs
as described in said complaint, from requiring plaintiffs to obtain a license
and/or permit from the [FPA], and to cease and desist immediately from
prohibiting plaintiffs from participating in any and all private and public bidding
related to its business.”[6]
On January 27, 1995, respondents MAPECON and Catan
filed an amended complaint,[7] which impleaded the FPA
and its officers Francisco C. Cornejo and Nicholas R. Deen, Executive Director
III and Deputy Executive Director III, respectively, as defendants. Respondents alleged in their amended complaint
that Cornejo and Deen, as officers of the FPA, had also sent letters to several
clients of MAPECON, advising them to desist from dealing with the company,
because it had no license to engage in pest control. Respondents further claimed that, despite
knowledge of the pendency of the instant case, Cornejo and Deen had issued
certifications and released news items stating, among other things, that
MAPECON had no license to operate from the FPA.
Lastly, respondents MAPECON and Catan alleged that they were being eased
out of business, and that their good name and reputation were being destroyed
by Cornejo and Deen, in connivance with the other defendants.
On March 9, 2000, the RTC ruled in favor of
respondents MAPECON and Catan. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing
considerations and finding the restraining order prayed for by the plaintiff to
be meritorious and well-founded, it is hereby ordered that defendants Vicente
Lañohan as an agent of FPA and Pablo Turtal, Jr. as the Manager of SUPESCON and
their representatives and other persons working for and in their behalf, to
cease and desist immediately from stopping and disturbing in any form the
business operations of the plaintiff, from requiring plaintiff to obtain a
license and/or permit from the FPA and from prohibiting plaintiff from
participating in any and all private and public biddings related to its
business. No pronouncement as to damages
and costs.
SO
ORDERED.[8]
Petitioner and Vicente Lañohan appealed to the Court
of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the trial court. The appellate court also denied petitioner
and Lañohan’s motion for reconsideration.
Hence, this appeal. Petitioner raises a lone issue for resolution,
which is whether the acts or business operations of respondent MAPECON are
under the jurisdiction or regulatory
power of petitioner FPA.
In defending its jurisdiction, petitioner FPA invokes
P.D. No. 1144 which created it. It cites
Sections 8 and 9 of said law, to wit:
Section
8. Prohibitions Governing
(a) To engage in any form of
production, importation, distribution, storage and sale in commercial
quantities without securing from the FPA a license therefor;
(b) To use any pesticide or
pesticide formulation on crops, livestock, and the environment in a manner
contrary to good agricultural practices as hereinabove defined;
(c) To deal in pesticides
and/or fertilizers which have not been previously registered with FPA, or which
registration has expired or has been suspended or revoked;
(d) To adulterate pesticides
formulation and fertilizer grade;
(e) To impose as a condition
for the purchase of fertilizer, the simultaneous purchase of pesticide for
other agricultural chemical inputs and vice-versa;
(f) To mislabel or make claims
which differ in substance from the representation made in connection with a
product's registration or from its actual effectiveness; and
(g) To violate such other rules
and regulations as may be promulgated by FPA.
Section
9. Registration and Licensing. No pesticides, fertilizers,
or other agricultural chemical shall be exported, imported, manufactured,
formulated, stored, distributed, sold or offered for sale, transported,
delivered for transportation or used unless it has been duly registered with
the FPA or covered by a numbered provisional permit issued by FPA for use in
accordance with the conditions as stipulated in the permit. Separate
registrations shall be required for each active ingredient and its possible
formulations in the case of pesticides or for each fertilizer grade in the case
of fertilizer.
No person shall engage in the
business of exporting, importing, manufacturing, formulating, distributing,
supplying, repacking, storing, commercially applying, selling, marketing, of
any pesticides, fertilizer and other agricultural chemicals except under a
license issued by the FPA.
The FPA, in the pursuit of
its duties and functions, may suspend, revoke, or modify the registration of
any pesticide, fertilizer and other agricultural chemicals after due notice and
hearing.
Petitioner also cites Ministry of Health
Administrative Order No. 39, s. 1979, which delisted “pesticide, insecticide
and other economic poisons as household hazardous substances under Category V”
from those subject to the licensing and registration requirements of the Food
and Drug Administration. According to
the Administrative Order, “under [P.D.] No. 1144 dated May 30, 1977, creating
the [FPA], it was found desirable ‘to have one Agency to regulate . . .
pesticide labelling, distribution, storage, transportation, use and disposal.’”[9]
Further, petitioner invokes the Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) dated July 15, 1980 between the Ministry of Health (MOH) and
the FPA, represented by then Ministry of Agriculture, which stated that the FPA
shall have jurisdiction over the registration of household pesticides,
insecticides and other economic poisons; the registration of handlers of
household pesticides; and the accreditation of all commercial pest control
operators.
Lastly, petitioner argues that P.D. No. 1144, which
requires the registration of pesticides with, and the licensing of their
handlers by the FPA, is a special law.
On the contrary, the laws invoked by respondents are laws of general
application which cannot excuse respondent MAPECON from complying with a
special law.
Respondents, on the other hand, contend that their products
are duly patented with the Philippine Patent Office and registered with the MOH
per P.D. No. 552 (Sanitation in Tourist Facilities), P.D. No. 865 (New
Sanitation Code), and Health Circular No. 155, s. 1975. Respondents’ products are also registered
with the Ministry of Public Works per P.D. No. 1096 (New Building Code), the
Ministry of Labor per P.D. No. 442 (Labor Code), and with the Philippine
Investors and the Ministry of Finance per P.D. No. 1423 (Philippine Inventors
Incentive Act).
We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
We hold that the FPA has jurisdiction only over
agricultural pesticides, not over urban pest control products. “Pesticides” in P.D. No. 1144 refer only to
those used in farming and other agricultural activities, as distinguished from
pesticides used in households, business establishments, and offices in urban
areas. The preamble of P.D. No. 1144 provides
the first glimpse of this interpretation.
It reads as follows:
WHEREAS, it is Government policy to provide
adequate assistance to the agricultural sector in line with the national
objective of increasing food production;
WHEREAS, fertilizer and pesticides are
vital inputs in food production and must be supplied in adequate
quantities at reasonable costs;
WHEREAS, improper pesticide
usage presents serious risks to users, handlers, and the public in general
because of the inherent toxicity of these compounds which are, moreover,
potential environmental contaminants;
WHEREAS, there is a need to
educate the agricultural sector on the benefits as well as the hazards
of pesticide use so that it can utilize pesticides properly to promote human
welfare while avoiding dangers to health and environmental pollution;
WHEREAS, the fertilizer and
pesticide industries have much in common in terms of clientele,
distribution channels, system of application in farmers' fields, and
technical supervision by the same farm management technicians under the
government's food production program;
WHEREAS, the foregoing
considerations make it desirable to have one agency to regulate fertilizer
importation, manufacture, formulation, distribution, delivery, sale, transport
and storage as well as pesticide labeling, distribution, storage,
transportation, use and disposal;
WHEREAS, the Fertilizer
Industry Authority was created by Presidential Decree No. 135, dated 22
February 1973, and amended by Presidential Decree Nos. 517 and 669, dated 19
July 1974 and 11 March 1975 respectively, in order to regulate, control and
develop the fertilizer industry but does not include the pesticide industry in
its jurisdiction;
WHEREAS, there is an urgent need to create a
technically-oriented government authority equipped with the required expertise
to regulate, control and develop both the fertilizer and the pesticide
industries;
[Emphases supplied.]
Further, P.D. No. 1144 uses the term “pesticides”
always in conjunction with “fertilizers” or with the phrase “fertilizers and
other agricultural chemicals/chemical inputs” or the phrase “other agricultural
chemicals,” thus:
Section
6. Powers and Functions. The FPA shall have jurisdiction, on over all
existing handlers of pesticides, fertilizers and other agricultural chemical
inputs. The FPA shall have the following powers and functions:
I. Common to Fertilizers,
Pesticides and other Agricultural Chemicals.
. . .
(2) To promote and coordinate
all fertilizer and pesticides research in cooperation with the
Philippine Council for Agriculture and Resources Research and other
appropriate agencies to ensure scientific pest control in the public interest,
safety in the use and handling of pesticides, higher standards and quality of
products and better application methods;
. . .
III. Pesticides and Other
Agricultural Chemicals
(1) To determine specific uses
or manners of use for each pesticide or pesticide formulation;
(2) To establish and enforce
tolerance levels and good agricultural practices for use of pesticides in
raw agricultural commodities;
(3) To restrict or ban the use
of any pesticide or the formulation of certain pesticides in specific areas or
during certain periods upon evidence that the pesticide is an imminent hazard,
has caused, or is causing widespread serious damage to crops, fish or
livestock, or to public health and the environment;
(4) To prevent the importation
of agricultural commodities containing pesticide residues above the
accepted tolerance levels and to regulate the exportation of agricultural
products containing pesticide residue above accepted tolerance levels;
(5) To inspect the
establishment and premises of pesticide handlers to insure that industrial
health and safety rules and anti-pollution regulations are followed;
(6) To enter and inspect
farmers' fields to ensure that only the recommended pesticides are used in
specific crops in accordance with good agricultural practice;
(7) To require if and when
necessary, of every handler of these products, the submission to the FPA of a
report stating the quantity, value of each kind of product exported, imported,
manufactured, produced, formulated, repacked, stored, delivered, distributed,
or sold;
(8) Should there be any
extraordinary and unreasonable increases in price or a severe shortage in
supply of pesticides, or imminent dangers or either occurrences, the FPA is
empowered to impose such controls as may be necessary in the public interest,
including but not limited to such restrictions and controls as the imposition
of price ceilings, controls on inventories, distribution, and transport, and
tax-free importations of such pesticides or raw materials thereof as may be in
short supply.
. .
.
Section 8. Prohibitions
Governing
(a) To engage in any form of
production, importation, distribution, storage, and sale in commercial quantities
without securing from the FPA a license therefor;
(b) To use any pesticide or
pesticide formulation on crops, livestock, and the environment in a manner
contrary to good agricultural practices as hereinabove defined;
(c) To deal in pesticides and/or
fertilizers which have not been previously registered with FPA, or which
registration has expired or has been suspended or revoked;
(d) To adulterate pesticides
formulation and fertilizer grade;
(e) To impose as a condition
for the purchase of fertilizer, the simultaneous purchase of pesticide for
other agricultural chemical inputs and vice-versa;
(f) To mislabel or make claims
which differ in substance from the representation made in connection with a
product's registration or from its actual effectiveness; and
(g) To violate such other rules
and regulations as may be promulgated by FPA.
Section 9. Registration
and Licensing. No pesticides, fertilizers, or other agricultural
chemical shall be exported, imported, manufactured, formulated, stored,
distributed, sold or offered for sale, transported, delivered for
transportation or used unless it has been duly registered with the FPA or
covered by a numbered provisional permit issued by FPA for use in accordance
with the conditions as stipulated in the permit. Separate registrations shall
be required for each active ingredient and its possible formulations in the
case of pesticides or for each fertilizer grade in the case of fertilizer.
No person shall engage in the
business of exporting, importing, manufacturing, formulating, distributing,
supplying, repacking, storing, commercially applying, selling, marketing, of
any pesticides, fertilizer and other agricultural chemicals except under
a license issued by the FPA.
The
FPA, in the pursuit of its duties and functions, may suspend, revoke, or modify
the registration of any pesticide, fertilizer and other agricultural
chemicals after due notice and hearing.
Aside from the use of the word “pesticides” always in
conjunction with “fertilizers” or with the phrase “fertilizers and other
agricultural chemicals/chemical inputs” or the phrase “other agricultural
chemicals,” the italicized portions of P.D. No. 1144, as quoted above, buttress
the interpretation that the law applies only to pesticide use for agricultural
purposes.
Further, Section 1 of P.D. No. 1144 reads:
Section 1. Creation of the Fertilizer and
Pesticide Authority. The Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority, hereinafter
referred to as the FPA, is hereby created and attached to the Department of
Agriculture for the purpose of assuring the agricultural sector of
adequate supplies of fertilizer and pesticide at reasonable prices,
rationalizing the manufacture and marketing of fertilizer, protecting the
public from the risks inherent in the use of pesticides, and educating the
agricultural sector in the use of these inputs.
Significantly,
the above-quoted provision of P.D. No. 1144 sets the parameters of the powers
and duties of the FPA. First, the FPA is
designated as an attached agency of the Department of Agriculture. Urban pest control or pesticide use in
households, offices, hotels and other commercial establishments has nothing to
do with agriculture. Second, it spells
out the purposes for which the FPA was created, viz: “for the purpose of assuring
the agricultural sector of adequate supplies of fertilizer and pesticide at
reasonable prices, rationalizing the manufacture and marketing of fertilizer,
protecting the public from the risks inherent in the use of pesticides, and educating
the agricultural sector in the use of these inputs.” All these purposes limit the jurisdiction of
the FPA to agricultural pesticides.
We go back to the basics of statutory
construction. In interpreting the
meaning and scope of a term used in the law, a review of the whole law must be
made, and its intendment must be given effect.[10] The various provisions of P.D. No. 1144 show its
consistent intent to apply the term “pesticides” only to agricultural use. Thus, urban pest control operators and their
urban pesticides are excluded from its coverage.
Finally, we note that petitioner FPA, through House
Bill No. 18740 filed in 1991, attempted to amend certain provisions of P.D. No.
1144 to expand its powers and functions by including urban pest control in its jurisdictional
scope. Unfortunately for petitioner,
House Bill No. 18740 did not pass. It
was rejected by the bicameral committee. The amendment would result in petitioner FPA’s
usurpation of other governmental agencies’ authority.[11]
IN VIEW WHEREOF,
the petition is DENIED and the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CV No. 67175, dated July 31, 2003 and January 8, 2004, respectively,
are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
WE
CONCUR:
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions
in the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
* On leave.
[1] CA rollo, pp. 78-90.
[2] CA rollo, p. 129.
[3] Records, Complaint, Annex “C,” p. 9.
[4] Records, Complaint, Annex “B,” p. 8.
[5] Records, pp. 1-3, Civil Case No. 10855.
[6] Records, p. 11.
[7] Records, pp. 158-162.
[8] Records, p. 419.
[9] Rollo, p. 38.
[10] Ruperto G. Martin, Handbook on Statutory Construction, 1970 ed., p. 78.
[11] Records, p. 413.