Scribd
Upload
356 views1 page

Olsen and Co. Vs Rafferty Digest

Walter E. Olsen & Co., a manufacturer and exporter of cigars in the Philippine Islands, applied to the Collector of Internal Revenue for a certificate covering the origin of a consignment of cigars to be exported. The Collector refused to issue the certificate on the grounds that the cigars did not conform to a certain export regulation. When Olsen applied to the Insular Collector of Customs, that application was also refused for lacking the certificate from the Collector of Internal Revenue. Olsen filed a petition for mandamus. The court ruled that neither the Collector of Internal Revenue nor the Insular Collector of Customs had a statutory duty to issue certificates of origin, and that the executive order and regulations regarding certificates did not confer

Uploaded by

KitsRelojo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
356 views1 page

Olsen and Co. Vs Rafferty Digest

Walter E. Olsen & Co., a manufacturer and exporter of cigars in the Philippine Islands, applied to the Collector of Internal Revenue for a certificate covering the origin of a consignment of cigars to be exported. The Collector refused to issue the certificate on the grounds that the cigars did not conform to a certain export regulation. When Olsen applied to the Insular Collector of Customs, that application was also refused for lacking the certificate from the Collector of Internal Revenue. Olsen filed a petition for mandamus. The court ruled that neither the Collector of Internal Revenue nor the Insular Collector of Customs had a statutory duty to issue certificates of origin, and that the executive order and regulations regarding certificates did not confer

Uploaded by

KitsRelojo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Olsen and Co. vs.

Rafferty
WALTER E. OLSEN & CO. vs. BERNARD HERSTEIN, as the Insular Collector of Customs of the Philippine Islands, and
JAMES J. RAFFERTY, as the Collector of Internal Revenue of the Philippine Islands
FACTS:
Walter E. Olsen & Co is a manufacturer and exporter of cigars composed of tobacco grown in the Philippine Islands.
Olsen applied to the Collector of Internal Revenue for a certificate covering the origin of a certain consignment of
cigars presented to the Collector. The cigars were duly packed according to the regulations. Plaintiff produced the
statement required by the rules of the BIR. The Collector refused and still refuses to issue a certificate covering the
origin of the cigars on the ground, not that the material composing the cigars was not the product of the Philippine
Islands, but that the cigars in question did not conform to a certain regulation relating to the exportation.
On the refusal of the Collector of Internal Revenue to issue the certificate prayed for, application was made to the
Insular Collector of Customs. The application was refused on the ground that the certificate of the Collector of
Internal Revenue covering the origin of the cigars had not been issued and presented with the application as
required by the customs regulations. Plaintiff Olsen thus filed a petition for mandamus under that claim that such
refusal to grant the certificate was arbitrary, illegal and void. A demurrer was filed on the ground that "the facts
stated do not entitle Olsen to the relief since it does not appear that respondents failed or refused to perform any
duty incumbent upon either of said officers."
ISSUE: WON there rests on the Collector of Internal Revenue and the Insular Collector of Customs a duty the
performance of which the courts will enforce by mandamus
RATIO:
Our Code of Civil Procedure authorizes the issuance of a writ of mandamus in two classes of cases only, "(a) where
an official unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from his
office," and "(b) where he unlawfully excluded the plaintiff from the use and enjoyment of a right to which he is
entitled and from which he is unlawfully precluded by such official." Olsen failed to show that it was entitled to the
benefits of either of these provisions. No statute requires either the Insular Collector of Customs or the Collector of
Internal Revenue to issue a certificate of origin of the materials composing any class of cigars, or of any other
Philippine product for that matter. The custom of issuing certificates of origin of Philippine products about to be
exported to the United States is based on no statute of the United States or of the Philippine Islands.

ISSUE: WON Executive Order No. 41 and the regulations of the Insular Collector of Customs and the Collector of
Internal Revenue may be considered as laws within the meaning of the section of the Code of Civil Procedure
authorizing the issuance of writs of mandamus.
Executive Order No. 41 confers no legalrights on anyone. It requires the adoption by the Insular Collector of
Customs and the Collector of Internal Revenue of such rules and regulations as will insure that the Government of
the United States will not be defrauded by a Philippine exporter who, by manufactured evidence or otherwise, may
attempt to introduce into the United States free of duty articles which are not the product of the Philippine Islands
and which do not fall within the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1913. While it protects the United States against fraud,
it does not confer a legal right, a right on which an action in a court of law may be predicated, or one which may be
enforced against the officials charged with the formulation of the required evidence by any process known to the
law. It is nothing more or less than a command from a superior to an inferior. It is administrative in their nature and
do not pass beyond the limits of the department to which they are directed or in which they are published, and,
therefore, create no rights in third persons.

You might also like