Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaSECOND DIVISIONG.R. No. 158540 July 8, 2004SOUTHERN CROSS CEMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.THE PHILIPPINE CEMENT MANUFACTURERS CORP., THE SECRETARY OF THE EPARTMENT OF TRAE !INUSTRY, THE SECRETARY OF THE EPARTMENT OF FINANCE, "#$ THE COMMISSIONER OF THE %UREAU OF CUSTOMS, respondents.D E C I S I O NTINGA, J.&!ood fences "a#e $ood nei$hbors, so observed Robert %rost, the archet&pe of traditional Ne' En$land detach"ent. (he Frost ethos has been heeded b& nations ad)ustin$ to the effects of the liberali*ed $lobal "ar#et.+ (he Philippines, for one, enacted Republic ,ct -Rep. ,ct. No. /01+ -on the i"position of countervailin$ duties., Rep. ,ct No. /012 -on the i"position of anti3du"pin$ duties. and, finall&, Rep. ,ct No. //44, also #no'n as the Safe$uard Measures ,ct -SM,.2 soon after it )oined the !eneral ,$ree"ent on (ariff and (rade -!,((. and the 5orld (rade Or$ani*ation -5(O. ,$ree"ent.6(he SM, provides the structure and "echanics for the i"position of e"er$enc& "easures, includin$ tariffs, to protect do"estic industries and producers fro" increased i"ports 'hich inflict or could inflict serious in)ur& on the".7 (he 'isdo" of the policies behind the SM,, ho'ever, is not put into 8uestion b& the petition at bar. (he 8uestions sub"itted to the Court relate to the "eans and the procedures ordained in the la' to ensure that the deter"ination of the i"position or non3i"position of a safe$uard "easure is proper.Antecedent FactsPetitioner Southern Cross Ce"ent Corporation -Southern Cross. is a do"estic corporation en$a$ed in the business of ce"ent "anufacturin$, production, i"portation and e9portation. Its principal stoc#holders are (aihei&o Ce"ent Corporation and (o#u&a"a Corporation, purportedl& the lar$est ce"ent "anufacturers in :apan.1Private respondent Philippine Ce"ent Manufacturers Corporation; -Philce"cor. is an association of do"estic ce"ent "anufacturers. It has ei$hteen -+/. "e"bers,0 per Record. 5hile Philce"cor heralds itself to be an association of do"estic ce"ent "anufacturers, it appears that considerable e8uit& holdin$s, if not controllin$ interests in at least t'elve -+2. of its "e"ber3corporations, 'ere ac8uired b& the three lar$est ce"ent "anufacturers in the 'orld, na"el& %inanciere ureau of Custo"s ->OC. of the i"ple"entin$ Customs Memorandum Order.+2 (he correspondin$ Customs Memorandum Order 'as issued on +4 Dece"ber 244+, to ta#e effect that sa"e da& and to re"ain in force for t'o hundred -244. da&s.+6In the "eanti"e, the (ariff Co""ission, on +? Nove"ber 244+, received a re8uest fro" the D(I for a for"al investi$ation to deter"ine 'hether or not to i"pose a definitive safe$uard "easure on i"ports of $ra& Portland ce"ent, pursuant to Section ? of the SM, and its I"ple"entin$ Rules and Re$ulations. , notice of co""ence"ent of for"al investi$ation 'as published in the ne'spapers on 2+ Nove"ber 244+. Individual notices 'ere li#e'ise sent to concerned parties, such as Philce"cor, various i"porters and e9porters, the E"bassies of Indonesia, :apan and (ai'an, contractorsAbuilders associations, industr& associations, ce"ent 'or#ersB $roups, consu"er $roups, non3$overn"ent or$ani*ations and concerned $overn"ent a$encies.+7 , preli"inar& conference 'as held on 20 Nove"ber 244+, attended b& several concerned parties, includin$ Southern Cross.+1 Subse8uentl&, the (ariff Co""ission received several position papers both in support and a$ainst Philce"corBs application.+;(he (ariff Co""ission also visited the corporate offices and "anufacturin$ facilities of each of the applicant co"panies, as 'ell as that of Southern Cross and t'o other ce"ent i"porters.+0On +6 March 2442, the (ariff Co""ission issued its %or"al Investi$ation Report -Report.. ,"on$ the factors studied b& the (ariff Co""ission in its Report 'ere the "ar#et share of the do"estic industr&,+/ production and sales,+? capacit& utili*ation,24 financial perfor"ance and profitabilit&,2+ and return on sales.22 (he (ariff Co""ission arrived at the follo'in$ conclusionsC+. (he circu"stances provided in ,rticle DID of !,(( +??7 need not be de"onstrated since the product under consideration -$ra& Portland ce"ent. is not the sub)ect of an& Philippine obli$ation or tariff concessionunder the 5(O ,$ree"ent. Nonetheless, such in8uir& is $overned b& the national le$islation -R.,. //44. and the ter"s and conditions of the ,$ree"ent on Safe$uards.2. (he collective output of the t'elve -+2. applicant co"panies constitutes a "a)or proportion of the total do"estic production of $ra& Portland ce"ent and blended Portland ce"ent.6. OC fro" i"ple"entin$ the 8uestioned Decision and Report. It pra&ed that the Court of ,ppeals direct the D(I Secretar& to disre$ard the Report and to render )ud$"ent independentl& of the Report. Philce"cor ar$ued that the D(I Secretar&, vested as he is under the la' 'ith the po'er of revie', is not bound to adopt the reco""endations of the (ariff Co""ission@ and, that the Report is void, as it is predicated on a fla'ed fra"e'or#, inconsistent inferences and erroneous "ethodolo$&.2?On +4 :une 2442, Southern Cross filed its Comment.64 It ar$ued that the Court of ,ppeals had no )urisdiction over Philce"corBs Petition, for it is on the Court of (a9 ,ppeals -C(,. that the SM, conferred )urisdiction to revie' rulin$s of the Secretar& in connection 'ith the i"position of a safe$uard "easure. It li#e'ise ar$ued that Philce"corBs resort to the special civil action of certiorari is i"proper, considerin$ that 'hat Philce"cor sou$ht to rectif& is an error of )ud$"ent and not an error of )urisdiction or $rave abuse of discretion, and that a petition for revie' 'ith the C(, 'as available as a plain, speed& and ade8uate re"ed&. %inall&, Southern Cross echoed the DO: Opinion that Section +6 of the SM, precludes a revie' b& the D(I Secretar& of a ne$ative findin$ of the (ariff Co""ission.,fter conductin$ a hearin$ on +? :une 2442 on Philce"corBs application for preli"inar& in)unction, the Court of ,ppealsB ('elfth Division6+ $ranted the 'rit sou$ht in its Reso"ution dated 2+ :une 2442.62 Seven da&s later, on 2/ :une 2442, the t'o3hundred -244.3da& period for the i"position of the provisional "easure e9pired. Despite the lapse of the period, the >OC continued to i"pose the provisional "easure on all i"portations of Portland ce"ent "ade b& Southern Cross. (he uninterrupted assess"ent of the tariff, accordin$ to Southern Cross, 'or#ed to its detri"ent to the point that the continued i"position 'ould eventuall& lead to its closure.66Southern Cross ti"el& filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Reso"ution on ? Septe"ber 2442. ,lle$in$ that Philce"cor 'as not entitled to provisional relief, Southern Cross li#e'ise sou$ht a clarificator& order as to 'hether the $rant of the 'rit of preli"inar& in)unction could e9tend the earlier i"position of the provisional "easure be&ond the t'o hundred -244.3da& li"it i"posed b& la'. (he appealsB court failed to ta#e i""ediate action on Southern CrossBs "otion despite the four -7. "otions for earl& resolution the latter filed bet'een Septe"ber of 2442 and %ebruar& of 2446. ,fter si9 -;. "onths, on +? %ebruar& 2446, the Court of ,ppeals directed Philce"cor to co""ent on Southern CrossBs Motion for Reconsideration.67 ,fter Philce"cor filed its Opposition61 on +6 March 2446, Southern Cross filed another set of four -7. "otions for earl& resolution.Despite the efforts of Southern Cross, the Court of ,ppeals failed to directl& resolve the Motion for Reconsideration. Instead, on 1 :une 2446, it rendered a Decision,6; $rantin$ in part Philce"corBs petition. (he appellate court ruled that it had )urisdiction over the petition for certiorari since it alle$ed $rave abuse of discretion. It refused to annul the findin$s of the (ariff Co""ission, citin$ the rule that factual findin$s of ad"inistrative a$encies are bindin$ upon the courts and its corollar&, that courts should not interfere in "atters addressed to the sound discretion and co"in$ under the special technical #no'led$e and trainin$ of such a$encies.60 Nevertheless, it held that the D(I Secretar& isnot bound b& the factual findin$s of the (ariff Co""ission since such findin$s are "erel& reco""endator& and the& fall 'ithin the a"bit of the Secretar&Bs discretionar& revie'. It deter"ined that the le$islative intent is to $rant the D(ISecretar& the po'er to "a#e a final decision on the (ariff Co""issionBs reco""endation.6/ (he dispositive portion of the Decision readsC(HEREFORE, based on the fore$oin$ pre"ises, petitionerBs pra&er to set aside the findin$s of the (ariff Co""ission in its assailed Report dated March +6, 2442 is ENIE. On the other hand, the assailed ,pril 1,2442 Decision of the Secretar& of the Depart"ent of (rade and Industr& is hereb& SET ASIE. Conse8uentl&, the case is REMANE to the public respondent Secretar& of Depart"ent of (rade and Industr& for a final decision in accordance 'ith R, //44 and its I"ple"entin$ Rules and Re$ulations.SO ORERE.6?On 26 :une 2446, Southern Cross filed the present petition, assailin$ the appellate courtBs Decision for departin$ fro" the accepted and usual course of )udicial proceedin$s, and not decidin$ the substantial 8uestions in accordance 'ith la' and )urisprudence. (he petition ar$ues in the "ain that the Court of ,ppeals has no )urisdiction over Philce"corBs petition, the proper re"ed& bein$ a petition for revie' 'ith the C(, confor"abl& 'ith the SM,, and@ that the factual findin$s of the (ariff Co""ission on the e9istence or non3e9istence conditions 'arrantin$ the i"position of $eneral safe$uard "easures are bindin$ upon the D(I Secretar&.(he ti"el& filin$ of Southern CrossBs petition before this Court necessaril& prevented the Court of ,ppealsDecision fro" beco"in$ final.74 Get on 21 :une 2446, the D(I Secretar& issued a ne' Decision, rulin$ this ti"e that that in li$ht of the appellate courtBs Decision there 'as no lon$er an& le$al i"pedi"ent to his decidin$ Philce"corBs application for definitive safe$uard "easures.7+ =e "ade a deter"ination that, contrar& to the findin$s of the (ariff Co""ission, the local ce"ent industr& had suffered serious in)ur& as a result of the i"port sur$es.72 ,ccordin$l&, he i"posed a definitive safe$uard "easure on the i"portation of $ra& Portland ce"ent, in the for" of a definitive safe$uard dut& in the a"ount of P24.;4A74 #$. ba$ for three &ears on i"ported $ra& Portland Ce"ent.76On 0 :ul& 2446, Southern Cross filed 'ith the Court a #ery $rgent App"ication for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or A %rit of Pre"iminary n!unction -(RO App"ication., see#in$ to en)oin the D(I Secretar& fro" enforcin$ hisDecision of 21 :une 2446 in vie' of the pendin$ petition before this Court. Philce"cor filed an opposition, clai"in$, a"on$ others, that it is not this Court but the C(, that has )urisdiction over the application under the la'.On + ,u$ust 2446, Southern Cross filed 'ith the C(, a Petition for Re&ie', assailin$ the D(I Secretar&Bs 21 :une 2446 Decision 'hich i"posed the definite safe$uard "easure. Prescindin$ fro" this action, Philce"cor filed 'ith this Court a Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss in re$ard to Southern CrossBs petition, alle$in$ that it deliberatel& and 'illfull& resorted to foru"3shoppin$. It points out that Southern CrossBs (RO App"ication see#s to en)oin the D(I Secretar&Bs second decision, 'hile its Petition before the C(, pra&s for the annul"ent of the sa"e decision.77Reiteratin$ its Comment on Southern CrossBs Petition for Re&ie', Philce"cor also ar$ues that the C(,, bein$ a special court of li"ited )urisdiction, could onl& revie' the rulin$ of the D(I Secretar& 'hen a safe$uard "easure is i"posed, and that the factual findin$s of the (ariff Co""ission are not bindin$ on the D(I Secretar&.71,fter $ivin$ due course to Southern CrossBs Petition, the Court called the case for oral ar$u"ent on +/ %ebruar& 2447.7; ,t the oral ar$u"ent, attended b& the counsel for Philce"cor and Southern Cross and the Office of the Solicitor !eneral, the Court si"plified the issues in this 'iseC -i. 'hether the Decision of the D(I Secretar& is appealable to the C(, or the Court of ,ppeals@ -ii. assu"in$ that the Court of ,ppeals has )urisdiction, 'hether itsDecision is in accordance 'ith la'@ and, -iii. 'hether a Temporary Restraining Order is 'arranted.70Durin$ the oral ar$u"ents, counsel for Southern Cross "anifested that due to the i"position of the $eneral safe$uard "easures, Southern Cross 'as forced to cease operations in the Philippines in Nove"ber of 2446.7/Propriety of the Temporary Restraining Order>efore the "erits of the Petition, a brief co""ent on Southern CrossBs application for provisional relief. It sou$ht to en)oin the D(I Secretar& fro" enforcin$ the definitive safe$uard "easure he i"posed in his 21 :une 2446Decision. (he Court did not $rant the provisional relief for it 'ould be tanta"ount to en)oinin$ the collection of ta9es, a pere"ptor& )udicial act 'hich is traditionall& fro'ned upon,7? unless there is a clear statutor& basis for it.14 In that re$ard, Section 2+/ of the (a9 Refor" ,ct of +??0 prohibits an& court fro" $rantin$ an in)unction to restrain the collection of an& national internal revenue ta9, fee or char$e i"posed b& the internal revenue code.1+, si"ilar philosoph& is e9pressed b& Section 2? of the SM,, 'hich states that the filin$ of a petition for revie' before the C(,does not stop, suspend, or other'ise toll the i"position or collection of the appropriate tariff duties or the adoption ofother appropriate safe$uard "easures.12 (his evinces a clear le$islative intent that the i"position of safe$uard "easures, despite the availabilit& of )udicial revie', should not be en)oined not'ithstandin$ an& ti"el& appeal of the i"position.The Forum()hopping ssueIn the sa"e breath, 'e are not convinced that the alle$ation of foru"3shoppin$ has been dul& proven, or that sanction should befall upon Southern Cross and its counsel. (he standard b& Section 1, Rule 0 of the +??0 Rules ofCivil Procedure in order that sanction "a& be had is that the acts of the part& or his counsel clearl& constitute 'illfuland deliberate foru" shoppin$.16 (he standard i"plies a "alicious intent to subvert procedural rules, and such state of "ind is not evident in this case.The *urisdictiona" ssueOn to the "erits of the present petition.In its assailed Decision, the Court of ,ppeals, after assertin$ onl& in brief that it had )urisdiction over Philce"corBsPetition, discussed the issue of 'hether or not the D(I Secretar& is bound to adopt the ne$ative reco""endation of the (ariff Co""ission on the application for safe$uard "easure. (he Court of ,ppeals "aintained that it had )urisdiction over the petition, as it alle$ed $rave abuse of discretion on the part of the D(I Secretar&, thusC, perusal of the instant petition reveals alle$ations of $rave abuse of discretion on the part of the D(I Secretar& in renderin$ the assailed ,pril 1, 2442 Decision 'herein it 'as ruled that he had no alternative butto abide b& the findin$s of the Co""ission on the "atter of safe$uard "easures for the local ce"ent industr&. ,buse of discretion is ad"ittedl& 'ithin the a"bit of certiorari.!rave abuse of discretion i"plies such capricious and 'hi"sical e9ercise of )ud$"ent as is e8uivalent to lac# of )urisdiction. It is alle$ed that, in the assailed Decision, the D(I Secretar& $ravel& abused his discretion in 'antonl& evadin$ to dischar$e his dut& to render an independent deter"ination or decision in i"posin$ a definitive safe$uard "easure.175e do not doubt that the Court of ,ppealsB certiorari po'ers e9tend to correctin$ $rave abuse of discretion on the part of an officer e9ercisin$ )udicial or 8uasi3)udicial functions.11 =o'ever, the special civil action of certiorari is available onl& 'hen there is no plain, speed& and ade8uate re"ed& in the ordinar& course of la'.1; Southern Cross relies on this li"itation, stressin$ that Section 2? of the SM, is a plain, speed& and ade8uate re"ed& in the ordinar&course of la' 'hich Philce"cor did not avail of. (he Section readsCSection 2?. *udicia" Re&ie'. H ,n& interested part& 'ho is adversel& affected b& the )ul*#+ o, -./ S/0)/-")y*# 0o##/0-*o# 1*-. -./ *23o4*-*o# o, " 4",/+u")$ 2/"4u)/ "a& file 'ith the C(,, a petition for revie' of such rulin$ 'ithin thirt& -64. da&s fro" receipt thereof. Provided, ho'e&er, that the filin$ of such petition for revie' shall not in an& 'a& stop, suspend or other'ise toll the i"position or collection of the appropriate tariff duties or the adoption of other appropriate safe$uard "easures, as the case "a& be.(he petition for revie' shall co"pl& 'ith the sa"e re8uire"ents and shall follo' the sa"e rules of procedure and shall be sub)ect to the sa"e disposition as in appeals in connection 'ith adverse rulin$s on ta9 "atters to the Court of ,ppeals.10 -E"phasis supplied.It is not difficult to divine 'h& the le$islature sin$led out the C(, as the court 'ith )urisdiction to revie' the rulin$ of the D(I Secretar& in connection 'ith the i"position of a safe$uard "easure. (he Court has lon$ reco$ni*ed the le$islative deter"ination to vest sole and e9clusive )urisdiction on "atters involvin$ internal revenue and custo"s duties to such a speciali*ed court.1/ >& the ver& nature of its function, the C(, is dedicated e9clusivel& to the stud& and consideration of ta9 proble"s and has necessaril& developed an e9pertise on the sub)ect.1?,t the sa"e ti"e, since the C(, is a court of li"ited )urisdiction, its )urisdiction to ta#e co$ni*ance of a case should be clearl& conferred and should not be dee"ed to e9ist on "ere i"plication.;4 Concededl&, Rep. ,ct No. ++21, the statute creatin$ the C(,, does not e9tend to it the po'er to revie' decisions of the D(I Secretar& in connection 'ith the i"position of safe$uard "easures.;+ Of course, at that ti"e 'hich 'as before the advent of trade liberali*ation the notion of safe$uard "easures or safet& nets 'as not &et in vo$ue.Indeniabl&, ho'ever, the SM, e9panded the )urisdiction of the C(, b& includin$ revie' of the rulin$s of the D(I Secretar& in connection 'ith the i"position of safe$uard "easures. =o'ever, Philce"cor and the public respondents a$ree that the C(, has appellate )urisdiction over a decision of the D(I Secretar& i"posin$ a safe$uard"easure, but not 'hen his rulin$ is #o- to i"pose such "easure.In a related develop"ent, Rep. ,ct No. ?2/2, enacted on 64 March 2447, e9pressl& vests unto the C(, )urisdiction over EdFecisions of the Secretar& of (rade and Industr&, in case of nona$ricultural product, co""odit& or article 999 involvin$ 999 4",/+u")$ 2/"4u)/4 u#$/) R/3u5l*0 A0- No. 8800, 1./)/ /*-./) 3")-y 2"y "33/"l -./ $/0*4*o# -o *23o4/ o) #o- -o *23o4/ 4"*$ $u-*/4.;2 =ad Rep. ,ct No. ?2/2 alread& been in force at the be$innin$ of the incidents sub)ect of this case, there 'ould have been no need to "a#e an& deeper in8uir& as to the e9tent of the C(,Bs )urisdiction. >ut as Rep. ,ct No. ?2/2 cannot be applied retroactivel& to the present case, the 8uestion of 'hether such )urisdiction e9tends to a decision not to i"pose a safe$uard "easure 'ill have to be settled principall&on the basis of the SM,.Inder Section 2? of the SM,, there are three re8uisites to enable the C(, to ac8uire )urisdiction over the petition forrevie' conte"plated thereinC -i. there "ust be a rulin$ b& the D(I Secretar&@ -ii. the petition "ust be filed b& an interested part& adversel& affected b& the rulin$@ and -iii. such rulin$ "ust be in connection 'ith the i"position of a safe$uard "easure. (he first t'o re8uisites are clearl& present. (he third re8uisite deserves closer scrutin&.Contrar& to the stance of the public respondents and Philce"cor, in this case 'here the D(I Secretar& decides not to i"pose a safe$uard "easure, it is the C(, 'hich has )urisdiction to revie' his decision. (he reasons are as follo'sCFirst. Split )urisdiction is abhorred.Essentiall&, respondentsB position is that )udicial revie' of the D(I Secretar&Bs rulin$ is e9ercised b& t'o different courts, dependin$ on 'hether or not it i"poses a safe$uard "easure, and in either case the court e9ercisin$ )urisdiction does so to the e9clusion of the other. (hus, if the D(I decision involves the i"position of a safe$uard "easure it is the C(, 'hich has appellate )urisdiction@ other'ise, it is the Court of ,ppeals. Such setup is as novel and unusual as it is cu"berso"e and un'ise. Essentiall&, respondents advocate that Section 2? of the SM, has established split appellate )urisdiction over rulin$s of the D(I Secretar& on the i"position of safe$uard "easure.(his interpretation cannot be favored, as the Court has consistentl& refused to sanction split )urisdiction.;6 (he po'erof the D(I Secretar& to adopt or 'ithhold a safe$uard "easure e"anates fro" the sa"e statutor& source, and it bo$$les the "ind 'h& the appeal "odalit& 'ould be such that one appellate court is 8ualified if 'hat is to be revie'ed is a positive deter"ination, and it is not if 'hat is appealed is a ne$ative deter"ination. In decidin$ 'hether or not to i"pose a safe$uard "easure, provisional or $eneral, the D(I Secretar& 'ould be evaluatin$ onl& one bod& of facts and appl&in$ the" to one set of la's. (he revie'in$ tribunal 'ill be called upon to e9a"ine the sa"e facts and the sa"e la's, 'hether or not the deter"ination is positive or ne$ative.In short, if 'e 'ere to rule for respondents 'e 'ould be confir"in$ the e9ercise b& t'o )udicial bodies of )urisdiction over basicall& the sa"e sub)ect "atterJprecisel& the split3)urisdiction situation 'hich is anathe"a to the orderl& ad"inistration of )ustice.;7 (he Court cannot accept that such 'as the le$islative "otive especiall& considerin$ that the la' e9pressl& confers on the C(,, the tribunal 'ith the speciali*ed co"petence over ta9 and tariff "atters, the role of )udicial revie' 'ithout "ention of an& other court that "a& e9ercise corollar& or ancillar& )urisdiction in relation to the SM,. (he provision refers to the Court of ,ppeals but onl& in re$ard to procedural rules and dispositions of appeals fro" the C(, to the Court of ,ppeals.;1(he principle enunciated in Te!ada &. +omestead Property Corporation;; is applicable to the case at barC(he Court a$rees 'ith the observation of the EthatF 'hen an ad"inistrative a$enc& or bod& is conferred 8uasi3)udicial functions, "ll 0o#-)o6/)4*/4 )/l"-*#+ -o -./ 4u57/0- 2"--/) 3/)-"*#*#+ -o *-4 43/0*"l*8"-*o# ")/ $//2/$ -o 5/ *#0lu$/$ 1*-.*# -./ 7u)*4$*0-*o# o, 4"*$ "$2*#*4-)"-*6/ "+/#0y o) 5o$y. S3l*- 7u)*4$*0-*o# *4 #o- ,"6o)/$.;0)econd. (he interpretation of the provisions of the SM, favors vestin$ untra""eled appellate )urisdiction on the C(,., plain readin$ of Section 2? of the SM, reveals that Con$ress did not e9pressl& bar the C(, fro" revie'in$ a ne$ative deter"ination b& the D(I Secretar& nor conferred on the Court of ,ppeals such revie' authorit&. Respondents note, on the other hand, that neither did the la' e9pressl& $rant to the C(, the po'er to revie' a ne$ative deter"ination. =o'ever, under the clear te9t of the la', the C(, is vested 'ith )urisdiction to revie' the rulin$ of the D(I Secretar&*# 0o##/0-*o# 1*-.the i"position of a safe$uard "easure. =ad the la' been couched instead to incorporate the phrase the rulin$ i"posin$ a safe$uard "easure, then respondentBs clai" 'ould have indisputable "erit. Indoubtedl&, the phrase in connection 'ith not onl& 8ualifies but clarifies the succeedin$ phrase i"position of a safe$uard "easure. ,s e9pounded later, the phrase also enco"passes the opposite or converse rulin$ 'hich is the non3i"position of a safe$uard "easure.In the ,"erican case of )ha' &. De"ta Air ,ines, nc.,;/ the Inited States Supre"e Court, in interpretin$ a #e& provision of the E"plo&ee Retire"ent Securit& ,ct of +?07, construed the phrase relates to in its nor"al sense 'hich is the sa"e as if it has connection 'ith or reference to.;? (here is no serious dispute that the phrase in connection 'ith is s&non&"ous to relates to or reference to, and that all three phrases are broadl& e9pansive. (his is affir"ed not )ust b& )urisprudential fiat, but also the ac8uired connotative "eanin$ of in connection 'ith in co""on parlance. Conse8uentl&, 'ith the use of the phrase in connection 'ith, Section 2? allo's the C(, to revie' not onl& the rulin$ i"posin$ a safe$uard "easure, but all other )ul*#+4 )/l"-/$ o) ."6/ )/,/)/#0/ -o -./ "33l*0"-*o# ,o) 4u0. 2/"4u)/.No', let us deter"ine the "a9i"u" scope and reach of the phrase in connection 'ith as used in Section 2? of theSM,. , literalist readin$ or lin$uistic surve& "a& not satisf&. Even the IS Supre"e Court in -e' .or/ )tate 0"ue Cross P"ans &. Tra&e"ers ns.04 conceded that the phrases relate to or in connection 'ith "a& be e9tended to the farthest stretch of indeter"inac& for, universall&, relations or connections are infinite and stop no'here.0+(hus, in the case the IS =i$h Court, e9a"inin$ the sa"e phrase of the sa"e provision of la' involved in )ha', resorted to loo#in$ at the statute and its ob)ectives as the alternative to an uncritical literalis".02 , si"ilar in8uir& into the other provisions of the SM, is in order to deter"ine the scope of revie' accorded therein to the C(,.06(he authorit& to decide on the safe$uard "easure is vested in the D(I Secretar& in the case of non3a$ricultural products, and in the Secretar& of the Depart"ent of ,$riculture in the case of a$ricultural products.07 Section 2? is li#e'ise e9plicit that onl& the rulin$s of the D(I Secretar& or the ,$riculture Secretar& "a& be revie'ed b& the C(,.01 (hus, the acts of other bodies that 'ere $ranted so"e po'ers b& the SM,, such as the (ariff Co""ission, are not sub)ect to direct revie' b& the C(,.Inder the SM,, the Depart"ent Secretar& concerned is authori*ed to decide on several "atters. 5ithin thirt& -64. da&s fro" receipt of a petition see#in$ the i"position of a safe$uard "easure, or fro" the date he "ade motu proprio initiation, the Secretar& shall "a#e a preli"inar& deter"ination on 'hether the increased i"ports of the product under consideration substantiall& cause or threaten to cause serious in)ur& to the do"estic industr&.0;Such rulin$ is crucial since onl& upon the Secretar&Bs positive preli"inar& deter"ination that a threat to the do"estic industr& e9ists shall the "atter be referred to the (ariff Co""ission for for"al investi$ation, this ti"e, to deter"ine 'hether the $eneral safe$uard "easure should be i"posed or not.00 Pursuant to a positive preli"inar& deter"ination, the Secretar& "a& also decide that the i"position of a provisional safe$uard "easure 'ould be 'arranted under Section / of the SM,.0/ (he Secretar& is also authori*ed to decide, after receipt of the report of the (ariff Co""ission, 'hether or not to i"pose the $eneral safe$uard "easure, and if in the affir"ative, 'hat $eneral safe$uard "easures should be applied.0? Even after the $eneral safe$uard "easure is i"posed, the Secretar& is e"po'ered to e9tend the safe$uard "easure,/4 or ter"inate, reduce or "odif& his previous rulin$s on the $eneral safe$uard "easure./+5ith the e9plicit $rant of certain po'ers involvin$ safe$uard "easures b& the SM, on the D(I Secretar&, it follo's that he is e"po'ered to rule on several issues. (hese are the issues 'hich arise in connection 'ith, or in relation to,the i"position of a safe$uard "easure. (he& "a& arise at different sta$es H the preli"inar& investi$ation sta$e, the post3for"al investi$ation sta$e, or the post3safe$uard "easure sta$e H &et all these issues do beco"e ripe for resolution because an initiator& action has been ta#en see#in$ the i"position of a safe$uard "easure. It is the initiator& action for the i"position of a safe$uard "easure that sets the 'heels in "otion, allo'in$ the Secretar& to "a#e successive rulin$s, be$innin$ 'ith the preli"inar& deter"ination.Clearl&, therefore, the scope and reach of the phrase in connection 'ith, as intended b& Con$ress, pertain to all rulin$s of the D(I Secretar& or ,$riculture Secretar& 'hich arise fro" the ti"e an application or motu proprioinitiation for the i"position of a safe$uard "easure is ta#en. Indeed, the incidents 'hich re8uire resolution co"e to the fore onl& because there is an initial application or action see#in$ the i"position of a safe$uard "easure.%ro" the le$islative standpoint, it 'as a "atter of sense and practicalit& to lu"p up the 8uestions related to the initiator& application or action for safe$uard "easure and to assi$n onl& one court and@ that is the C(, to initiall& revie' all the rulin$s related to such initiator& application or action. >oth directions Con$ress put in place b& e"plo&in$ the phrase in connection 'ith in the la'.!iven the relative e9panse of decisions sub)ect to )udicial revie' b& the C(, under Section 2?, 'e do not doubt that a ne$ative rulin$ refusin$ to i"pose a safe$uard "easure falls 'ithin the scope of its )urisdiction. On a literal level, such ne$ative rulin$ is a rulin$ of the Secretar& in connection 'ith the i"position of a safe$uard "easure, as it is one of the possible outco"es that "a& result fro" the initial application or action for a safe$uard "easure. On a "ore critical level, the rulin$s of the D(I Secretar& in connection 'ith a safe$uard "easure, ho'ever diverse the outco"e "a& be, arise fro" the sa"e $rant of )urisdiction on the D(I Secretar& b& the SM,./2 (he refusal b& the D(ISecretar& to $rant a safe$uard "easure involves the sa"e $rant of authorit&, the sa"e statutor& prescriptions, and the sa"e de$ree of discretion as the i"position b& the D(I Secretar& of a safe$uard "easure.(he position of the respondents is one of uncritical literalis"/6 incon$ruent 'ith the ani"us of the la'. Moreover, a funda"entalist approach to Section 2? is not 'arranted, considerin$ the absurdit& of the conse8uences.Third. nterpretatio Ta"is n Ambiguis )emper Fienda 1st, $t 1&itur ncon&eniens 1t Absurdum./7Even assu"in$ arguendo that Section 2? has not e9pressl& $ranted the C(, )urisdiction to revie' a ne$ative rulin$ of the D(I Secretar&, the Court is precluded fro" favorin$ an interpretation that 'ould cause inconvenience and absurdit&./1 ,doptin$ the respondentsB position favorin$ the C(,Bs "ini"al )urisdiction 'ould unnecessaril& lead to illo$ical and onerous results.Indeed, it is illiberal to assu"e that Con$ress had intended to provide appellate relief to rulin$s i"posin$ a safe$uard "easure but not to those declinin$ to i"pose the "easure. Respondents "i$ht ar$ue that the ri$ht to relief fro" a ne$ative rulin$ is not lost since the applicant could, as Philce"cor did, 8uestion such rulin$ throu$h a special civil action for certiorari under Rule ;1 of the +??0 Rules of Civil Procedure, in lieu of an appeal to the C(,. Get these t'o reliefs are of differin$ natures and $rava"en. 5hile an appeal "a& be predicated on errors of fact or errors of la', a special civil action for certiorari is $rounded on $rave abuse of discretion or lac# of or e9cess of )urisdiction on the part of the decider. %or a special civil action for certiorari to succeed, it is not enou$h that the 8uestioned act of the respondent is 'ron$. ,s the Court clarified in )empio &. Court of Appea"sC, tribunal, board or officer acts 'ithout )urisdiction if itAhe does not have the le$al po'er to deter"ine the case. (here is e9cess of )urisdiction 'here, bein$ clothed 'ith the po'er to deter"ine the case, the tribunal, board or officer oversteps itsAhis authorit& as deter"ined b& la'. ,nd there is $rave abuse of discretion 'here the tribunal, board or officer acts in a capricious, 'hi"sical, arbitrar& or despotic "anner in the e9ercise of his )ud$"ent as to be said to be e8uivalent to lac# of )urisdiction. Certiorari is often resorted to in order to correct errors of )urisdiction. 5here the error is one of la' or of fact, 'hich is a "ista#e of )ud$"ent,appeal is the re"ed&./;It is ver& conceivable that the D(I Secretar&, after deliberate thou$ht and careful evaluation of the evidence, "a& either "a#e a ne$ative preli"inar& deter"ination as he is so e"po'ered under Section 0 of the SM,, or refuse to adopt the definitive safe$uard "easure under Section +6 of the sa"e la'. ,doptin$ the respondentsB theor&, this ne$ative rulin$ is susceptible to reversal onl& throu$h a special civil action for certiorari, thus deprivin$ the affected part& the chance to elevate the rulin$ on appeal on the rudi"entar& $rounds of errors in fact or in la'. Instead, and despite 'hatever indications that the D(I Secretar& acted 'ith "easure and 'ithin the bounds of his )urisdiction are,the a$$rieved part& 'ill be forced to resort to a $&"nastic e9ercise, contortin$ the strai$ht and narro' in an effort to disco"bobulate the courts into believin$ that 'hat 'as 'ithin 'as actuall& be&ond and 'hat 'as studied and deliberate actuall& 'hi"sical and capricious. 5hat then 'ould be the re"ed& of the part& a$$rieved b& a ne$ative rulin$ that si"pl& erred in interpretin$ the facts or the la'K It certainl& cannot be the special civil action for certiorari, for as the Court held in )i"&erio &. Court of Appea"s2 Certiorari is a re"ed& narro' in its scope and infle9ible in its character. It is not a $eneral utilit& tool in the le$al 'or#shop./0%ortunatel&, this theoretical 8uandar& need not co"e to pass. Section 2? of the SM, is 'orded in such a 'a& that it places under the C(,Bs )udicial revie' all rulin$s of the D(I Secretar&, 'hich are connected 'ith the i"position of a safe$uard "easure. (his is sound and proper in li$ht of the speciali*ed )urisdiction of the C(, over ta9 "atters. In the sa"e 'a& that a 8uestion of 'hether to ta9 or not to ta9 is properl& a ta9 "atter, so is the 8uestion of 'hether to i"pose or not to i"pose a definitive safe$uard "easure.On another note, the second para$raph of Section 2? si"ilarl& reveals the le$islative intent that rulin$s of the D(I Secretar& over safe$uard "easures should first be revie'ed b& the C(, and not the Court of ,ppeals. It readsC(he petition for revie' shall co"pl& 'ith the sa"e re8uire"ents and shall follo' the sa"e rules of procedure and shall be sub)ect to the sa"e disposition as in appeals in connection 'ith adverse rulin$s on ta9 "atters to the Court of ,ppeals.(his is the onl& passa$e in the SM, in 'hich the Court of ,ppeals is "entioned. (he e9press 'ish of Con$ress is that the petition confor" to the re8uire"ents and procedure under Rule 76 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Since Con$ress "andated that the for" and procedure adopted be analo$ous to a revie' of a C(, rulin$ b& the Court of ,ppeals, the le$islative conte"plation could not have been that the appeal be directl& ta#en to the Court of ,ppeals.ssue of 0inding 1ffect of TariffCommission3s Factua" Determinationon DT )ecretary.(he ne9t issue for resolution is 'hether the factual deter"ination "ade b& the (ariff Co""ission under the SM, is bindin$ on the D(I Secretar&. Other'ise stated, the 8uestion is 'hether the D(I Secretar& "a& i"pose $eneral safe$uard "easures in the absence of a positive final deter"ination b& the (ariff Co""ission.(he Court of ,ppeals relied upon Section +6 of the SM, in rulin$ that the findin$s of the (ariff Co""ission do not necessaril& constitute a final decision. Section +6 details the procedure for the adoption of a safe$uard "easure, as 'ell as the steps to be ta#en in case there is a ne$ative final deter"ination. (he i"plication of the Court of ,ppealsB holdin$ is that the D(I Secretar& "a& adopt a definitive safe$uard "easure, not'ithstandin$ a ne$ative deter"ination "ade b& the (ariff Co""ission.Indoubtedl&, Section +6 prescribes certain li"itations and restrictions before $eneral safe$uard "easures "a& be i"posed. =o'ever, -./ 2o4- ,u#$"2/#-"l )/4-)*0-*o# o# -./ TI S/0)/-")y94 3o1/) *# -."- )/43/0- *4 0o#-"*#/$ *# S/0-*o# 5 o, -./ SMA:-."- -./)/ 4.oul$ ,*)4- 5/ " 3o4*-*6/ ,*#"l $/-/)2*#"-*o# o, -./ T")*,, Co22*44*o#J'hich the Court of ,ppeals curiousl& all but i$nored. Section 1 readsCSec. 1. Conditions for the App"ication of 4enera" )afeguard Measures. 5 (he Secretar& 4."ll "33ly " +/#/)"l 4",/+u")$ 2/"4u)/ u3o# " 3o4*-*6/ ,*#"l $/-/)2*#"-*o# o, -./ ;T")*,,< Co22*44*o# that a product is bein$ i"ported into the countr& in increased 8uantities, 'hether absolute or relative to the do"estic production, as to be a substantial cause of serious in)ur& or threat thereof to the do"estic industr&@ ho'ever, in the case of non3a$ricultural products, the Secretar& shall first establish that the application of such safe$uard "easures 'ill be in the public interest. -e"phasis supplied.(he plain "eanin$ of Section 1 sho's that it is the (ariff Co""ission that has the po'er to "a#e a positive final deter"ination. (his po'er lod$ed in the (ariff Co""ission, "ust be distin$uished fro" the po'er to i"pose the $eneral safe$uard "easure 'hich is properl& vested on the D(I Secretar&.//,ll in all, there are t'o condition precedents that "ust be satisfied before the D(I Secretar& "a& i"pose a $eneral safe$uard "easure on $re& Portland ce"ent. %irst, there "ust be a positive final deter"ination b& the (ariff Co""ission that a product is bein$ i"ported into the countr& in increased 8uantities -'hether absolute or relative todo"estic production., as to be a substantial cause of serious in)ur& or threat to the do"estic industr&. Second, in thecase of non3a$ricultural products the Secretar& "ust establish that the application of such safe$uard "easures is in the public interest./? ,s Southern Cross ar$ues, Section 1 is 8uite clear3cut, and it is i"possible to fina$le a different conclusion even throu$h overarchin$ "ethods of statutor& construction. (here is no safer nor better settled canon ofinterpretation that 'hen lan$ua$e is clear and una"bi$uous it "ust be held to "ean 'hat it plainl& e9pressesC?4 In the 8uotable 'ords of an illustrious "e"ber of this Court, thusCEIFf a statute is clear, plain and free fro" a"bi$uit&, it "ust be $iven its literal "eanin$ and applied 'ithout atte"pted interpretation. (he &erba "egis or plain "eanin$ rule rests on the valid presu"ption that the 'ordse"plo&ed b& the le$islature in a statute correctl& e9press its intent or 'ill and preclude the court fro" construin$ it differentl&. (he le$islature is presu"ed to #no' the "eanin$ of the 'ords, to have used 'ords advisedl&, and to have e9pressed its intent b& the use of such 'ords as are found in the statute.?+Moreover, Rule 1 of the I"ple"entin$ Rules and Re$ulations of the SM,,?2 'hich interprets Section 1 of the la', li#e'ise re8uires a positive final deter"ination on the part of the (ariff Co""ission before the application of the $eneral safe$uard "easure.(he SM, establishes a distinct allocation of functions bet'een the (ariff Co""ission and the D(I Secretar&. (he plain "eanin$ of Section 1 sho's that it is the (ariff Co""ission that has the po'er to "a#e a positive final deter"ination. (his po'er, 'hich belon$s to the (ariff Co""ission, "ust be distin$uished fro" the po'er to i"pose $eneral safe$uard "easure properl& vested on the D(I Secretar&. (he distinction is vital, as a positive final deter"ination clearl& antecedes, as a condition precedent, the i"position of a $eneral safe$uard "easure. ,t the sa"e ti"e, a positive final deter"ination does not necessaril& result in the i"position of a $eneral safe$uard "easure. Inder Section 1, not'ithstandin$ the positive final deter"ination of the (ariff Co""ission, the D(I Secretar& is tas#ed to decide 'hether or not that the application of the safe$uard "easures is in the public interest.It is also clear fro" Section 1 of the SM, that the positive final deter"ination to be underta#en b& the (ariff Co""ission does not entail a "ere $atherin$ of statistical data. In order to arrive at such deter"ination, it has to establish causal lin#a$es fro" the statistics that it co"piles and evaluatesC after findin$ there is an i"portation in increased 8uantities of the product in 8uestion, that such i"portation is a substantial cause of serious threat or in)ur&to the do"estic industr&.(he Court of ,ppeals relies heavil& on the le$islative record of a con$ressional debate durin$ deliberations on the SM, to assert a purported le$islative intent that the findin$s of the (ariff Co""ission do not bind the D(I Secretar&.?6 Get as e9plained earlier, the plain "eanin$ of Section 1 e"phasi*es that onl& if the (ariff Co""ission renders a positive deter"ination could the D(I Secretar& i"pose a safe$uard "easure. Resort to the con$ressional records to ascertain le$islative intent is not 'arranted if a statute is clear, plain and free fro" a"bi$uit&. (he le$islature is presu"ed to #no' the "eanin$ of the 'ords, to have used 'ords advisedl&, and to have e9pressed its intent b& the use of such 'ords as are found in the statute.?7Indeed, the le$islative record, if at all to be availed of, should be approached 'ith e9tre"e caution, as le$islative debates and proceedin$s are po'erless to var& the ter"s of the statute 'hen the "eanin$ is clear.?1 Our holdin$ in Ci&i" ,iberties $nion &. 16ecuti&e )ecretary?; on the resort to deliberations of the constitutional convention to interpret the Constitution is li#e'ise appropriate in ascertainin$ statutor& intentC5hile it is per"issible in this )urisdiction to consult the debates and proceedin$s of the constitutional convention in order to arrive at the reason and purpose of the resultin$ Constitution, resort thereto "a& be had onl& 'hen other $uides fail as said proceedin$s are po'erless to var& the ter"s of the Constitution 'hen the "eanin$ is clear. Debates in the constitutional convention are of value as sho'in$ the vie's of the individual "e"bers, and as indicatin$ the reasons for their votes, but the& $ive us no li$ht as to the vie's of the lar$e "a)orit& 'ho did not tal# 999. 5e thin# it safer to construe the constitution fro" 'hat appears upon its face.?0Moreover, it is eas& to selectivel& cite passa$es, so"eti"es out of their proper conte9t, in order to assert a "isleadin$ interpretation. (he effect can be dan$erous. Minorit& or solitar& vie's, anecdotal ru"inations, or even the occasional crude 'itticis"s, "a& i"properl& ac8uire the "antle of le$islative intent b& the sole virtue of their publication in the authoritative con$ressional record. =ence, resort to le$islative deliberations is allo'able 'hen the statute is crafted in such a "anner as to leave roo" for doubt on the real intent of the le$islature.Section 1 plainl& evinces le$islative intent to restrict the D(I Secretar&Bs po'er to i"pose a $eneral safe$uard "easure b& preconditionin$ such i"position on a positive deter"ination b& the (ariff Co""ission. Such le$islative intent should be $iven full force and effect, as the e9ecutive po'er to i"pose definitive safe$uard "easures is but a dele$ated po'erJthe po'er of ta9ation, b& nature and b& co""and of the funda"ental la', bein$ a preserve of thele$islature.?/ Section 2/-2., ,rticle VI of the +?/0 Constitution confir"s the dele$ation of le$islative po'er, &et ensures that the prero$ative of Con$ress to i"pose li"itations and restrictions on the e9ecutive e9ercise of this po'erC(he Con$ress "a&, b& la', authori*e the President to fi9 'ithin specified li"its, and sub)ect to such li"itations and restrictions as it "a& i"pose, tariff rates, i"port and e9port 8uotas, tonna$e and 'harfa$e dues, and other duties or i"posts 'ithin the fra"e'or# of the national develop"ent pro$ra" of the !overn"ent.??(he safe$uard "easures 'hich the D(I Secretar& "a& i"pose under the SM, "a& ta#e the follo'in$ variations, to 'itC -a. an increase in, or i"position of an& dut& on the i"ported product@ -b. a decrease in or the i"position of a tariff3rate 8uota on the product@ -c. a "odification or i"position of an& 8uantitative restriction on the i"portation of the product into the Philippines@ -d. one or "ore appropriate ad)ust"ent "easures, includin$ the provision of trade ad)ust"ent assistance@ and -e. an& co"bination of the above3described actions. E9cept for the provision of trade ad)ust"ent assistance, the "easures enu"erated b& the SM, are essentiall& i"posts, 'hich precisel& are the sub)ect of dele$ation under Section 2/-2., ,rticle VI of the +?/0 Constitution.+44(his dele$ation of the ta9ation po'er b& the le$islative to the e9ecutive is authori*ed b& the Constitution itself.+4+,t the sa"e ti"e, the Constitution also $rants the dele$atin$ authorit& -Con$ress. the ri$ht to i"pose restrictions and li"itations on the ta9ation po'er dele$ated to the President.+42 (he restrictions and li"itations i"posed b& Con$ress ta#e on the "antle of a constitutional co""and, 'hich the e9ecutive branch is obli$ed to observe.(he SM, e"po'ered the D(I Secretar&, as a"ter ego of the President,+46 to i"pose definitive $eneral safe$uard "easures, 'hich basicall& are tariff i"posts of the t&pe spo#en of in the Constitution. =o'ever, the la' did not $rant hi" full, uninhibited discretion to i"pose such "easures. (he D(I Secretar& authorit& is derived fro" the SM,@ it does not flo' fro" an& inherent e9ecutive po'er. (hus, the li"itations i"posed b& Section 1 are absolute, 'arranted as the& are b& a constitutional fiat.+47Philce"cor cites our +?+2 rulin$ in ,amb &. Phipps+41 to assert that the D(I Secretar&, havin$ the final decision on the safe$uard "easure, has the po'er to evaluate the findin$s of the (ariff Co""ission and "a#e an independent )ud$"ent thereon. !iven the constitutional and statutor& li"itations $overnin$ the present case, the citation is "isplaced. ,amb pertained to the discretion of the Insular ,uditor of the Philippine Islands, 'ho", as the Court reco$ni*ed, EtFhe statutes of the Inited States re8uireEdF 999 to e9ercise his )ud$"ent upon the le$alit& 999 EofF provisions of la' and resolutions of Con$ress providin$ for the pa&"ent of "one&, the "eans of procurin$ testi"on&upon 'hich he "a& act.+4;(hus in ,amb, 'hile the Court reco$ni*ed the 'ide latitude of discretion that "a& have been vested on the Insular ,uditor, it also reco$ni*ed that such latitude flo'ed fro", and is conse8uentl& li"ited b&, statutor& $rant. =o'ever, inthis case, the provision of the Constitution in point e9pressl& reco$ni*es the authorit& of Con$ress to prescribe li"itations in the case of tariffs, e9portAi"port 8uotas and other such safe$uard "easures. (hus, the broad discretion $ranted to the Insular ,uditor of the Philippine Islands cannot be analo$ous to the discretion of the D(I Secretar& 'hich is circu"scribed b& Section 1 of the SM,.%or that "atter, Cari7o &. Commissioner on +uman Rights,+40 li#e'ise cited b& Philce"cor, is also inapplicable o'in$to the different statutor& re$i"es prevailin$ over that case and the present petition. In Cari7o, the Court ruled that the constitutional po'er of the Co""ission on =u"an Ri$hts -C=R. to investi$ate hu"an ri$htsB violations did not e9tend to ad)udicatin$ clai"s on the "erits.+4/ Philce"cor clai"s that the functions of the (ariff Co""ission bein$ onl& investi$ator&, it could neither decide nor ad)udicate.+4?(he applicable la' $overnin$ the issue in Cari7o is Section +/, ,rticle DIII of the Constitution, 'hich delineates the po'ers and functions of the C=R. (he provision does not vest on the C=R the po'er to ad)udicate cases, but onl& to investi$ate all for"s of hu"an ri$hts violations.++4 Get, 'ithout "odif&in$ the thorou$h dis8uisition of the Court in Cari7o on the $eneral li"itations on the investi$ator& po'er, the precedent is inapplicable because of the difference in the involved statutor& fra"e'or#s. (he Constitution does not repose bindin$ effect on the results of theC=RBs investi$ation.+++ On the other hand, throu$h Section 1 of the SM, and under the authorit& of Section 2/-2., ,rticle VI of the Constitution, Con$ress did intend to bind the D(I Secretar& to the deter"ination "ade b& the (ariff Co""ission.++2 It is of no conse8uence that such deter"ination results fro" the e9ercise of investi$ator& po'ers b& the (ariff Co""ission since Con$ress is 'ell 'ithin its constitutional "andate to li"it the authorit& of the D(I Secretar& to i"pose safe$uard "easures in the "anner that it sees fit.(he Court of ,ppeals and Philce"cor also rel& on Section +6 of the SM, and Rule +6 of the SM,Bs I"ple"entin$ Rules in support of the vie' that the D(I Secretar& "a& decide independentl& of the deter"ination "ade b& the (ariff Co""ission. ,d"ittedl&, there are certain infelicities in the lan$ua$e of Section +6 and Rule +6. >ut reliance should not be placed on the te9tual i"precisions. Rather, Section +6 and Rule +6 "ust be vie'ed in li$ht of the funda"ental prescription i"posed b& Section 1. ++6Section +6 of the SM, la&s do'n the procedure to be follo'ed after the (ariff Co""ission renders its report. (he provision reads in fullCSEC. +6. Adoption of Definiti&e Measures. L Ipon its positive deter"ination, the Co""ission shall reco""end to the Secretar& an appropriate definitive "easure, in the for" ofC-a. ,n increase in, or i"position of, an& dut& on the i"ported product@-b. , decrease in or the i"position of a tariff3rate 8uota -M,V. on the product@-c. , "odification or i"position of an& 8uantitative restriction on the i"portation of the product into the Philippines@-d. One or "ore appropriate ad)ust"ent "easures, includin$ the provision of trade ad)ust"ent assistance@-e. ,n& co"bination of actions described in subpara$raphs -a. to -d..(he Co""ission "a& also reco""end other actions, includin$ the initiation of international ne$otiations to address the underl&in$ cause of the increase of i"ports of the product, to alleviate the in)ur& or threat thereof to the do"estic industr&, and to facilitate positive ad)ust"ent to i"port co"petition.(he $eneral safe$uard "easure shall be li"ited to the e9tent of redressin$ or preventin$ the in)ur& and to facilitate ad)ust"ent b& the do"estic industr& fro" the adverse effects directl& attributed to the increased i"portsC Pro&ided, ho'e&er, (hat 'hen 8uantitative i"port restrictions are used, such "easures shall not reduce the 8uantit& of i"ports belo' the avera$e i"ports for the three -6. precedin$ representative &ears, unless clear )ustification is $iven that a different level is necessar& to prevent or re"ed& a serious in)ur&., $eneral safe$uard "easure shall not be applied to a product ori$inatin$ fro" a developin$ countr& if its share of total i"ports of the product is less than three percent -6M.C Pro&ided, ho'e&er, (hat developin$ countries 'ith less than three percent -6M. share collectivel& account for not "ore than nine percent -?M. ofthe total i"ports.(he decision i"posin$ a $eneral safe$uard "easure, the duration of 'hich is "ore than one -+. &ear, shall be revie'ed at re$ular intervals for purposes of liberali*in$ or reducin$ its intensit&. (he industr& benefitin$ fro" the application of a $eneral safe$uard "easure shall be re8uired to sho' positive ad)ust"ent 'ithin theallo'able period. , $eneral safe$uard "easure shall be ter"inated 'here the benefitin$ industr& fails to sho' an& i"prove"ent, as "a& be deter"ined b& the Secretar&.(he Secretar& shall issue a 'ritten instruction to the heads of the concerned $overn"ent a$encies to i"ple"ent the appropriate $eneral safe$uard "easure as deter"ined b& the Secretar& 'ithin fifteen -+1. da&s fro" receipt of the report.In the event of a ne$ative final deter"ination, or if the cash bond is in e9cess of the definitive safe$uard dut&assessed, the Secretar& shall i""ediatel& issue, throu$h the Secretar& of %inance, a 'ritten instruction to the Co""issioner of Custo"s, authori*in$ the return of the cash bond or the re"ainder thereof, as the case"a& be, previousl& collected as provisional $eneral safe$uard "easure 'ithin ten -+4. da&s fro" the date a final decision has been "adeC Pro&ided, (hat the $overn"ent shall not be liable for an& interest on the a"ount to be returned. (he Secretar& shall not accept for consideration another petition fro" the sa"e industr&, 'ith respect to the sa"e i"ports of the product under consideration 'ithin one -+. &ear after the date of renderin$ such a decision.5hen the definitive safe$uard "easure is in the for" of a tariff increase, such increase shall not be sub)ect or li"ited to the "a9i"u" levels of tariff as set forth in Section 74+-a. of the (ariff and Custo"s Code of the Philippines.(o better co"prehend Section +6, note "ust be ta#en of the distinction bet'een the investi$ator& and reco""endator& functions of the (ariff Co""ission under the SM,.(he 'ord deter"ination, as used in the SM,, pertains to the factual findin$s on 'hether there are increased i"ports into the countr& of the product under consideration, and on 'hether such increased i"ports are a substantial cause of serious in)ur& or threaten to substantiall& cause serious in)ur& to the do"estic industr&.++7(he SM, e9plicitl& authori*es the D(I Secretar& to "a#e a preli"inar& deter"ination,++1 and the (ariff Co""ission to "a#e the final deter"ination.++; (he distinction is funda"ental, as these functions are not interchan$eable. (he (ariffCo""ission "a#es its deter"ination onl& after a for"al investi$ation process, 'ith such investi$ation initiated onl& if there is a positive preli"inar& deter"ination b& the D(I Secretar& under Section 0 of the SM,.++0 On the other hand, the D(I Secretar& "a& i"pose definitive safe$uard "easure onl& if there is a positive final deter"ination "ade b& the (ariff Co""ission.++/In contrast, a reco""endation is a su$$ested re"edial "easure sub"itted b& the (ariff Co""ission under Section +6 after "a#in$ a positive final deter"ination in accordance 'ith Section 1. (he (ariff Co""ission is not e"po'ered to "a#e a reco""endation absent a positive final deter"ination on its part.++? Inder Section +6, the (ariff Co""ission is re8uired to reco""end to the ED(IF Secretar& an appropriate definitive "easure.+24 (he (ariff Co""ission "a& also reco""end other actions, includin$ the initiation of international ne$otiations to address the underl&in$ cause of the increase of i"ports of the products, to alleviate the in)ur& or threat thereof to the do"estic industr& and to facilitate positive ad)ust"ent to i"port co"petition.+2+(he reco""endations of the (ariff Co""ission, as rendered under Section +6, are not obli$ator& on the D(I Secretar&. Nothin$ in the SM, "andates the D(I Secretar& to adopt the reco""endations "ade b& the (ariff Co""ission. In fact, the SM, re8uires that the D(I Secretar& establish that the application of such safe$uard "easures is in the public interest, not'ithstandin$ the (ariff Co""issionBs reco""endation on the appropriate safe$uard "easure based on its positive final deter"ination.+22 (he non3bindin$ force of the (ariff Co""issionBs reco""endations is con$ruent 'ith the co""and of Section 2/-2., ,rticle VI of the +?/0 Constitution that onl& the President "a& be e"po'ered b& the Con$ress to i"pose appropriate tariff rates, i"portAe9port 8uotas and other si"ilar "easures.+26 It is the D(I Secretar&, as a"ter ego of the President, 'ho under the SM, "a& i"pose such safe$uard "easures sub)ect to the li"itations i"posed therein. , contrar& conclusion 'ould in essence undul& arro$ate to the (ariff Co""ission the e9ecutive po'er to i"pose the appropriate tariff "easures. (hat is 'h& the SM, e"po'ers the D(I Secretar& to adopt safe$uard "easures other than those reco""ended b& the (ariff Co""ission.Inli#e the reco""endations of the (ariff Co""ission, its deter"ination has a different effect on the D(I Secretar&. Onl& on the basis of a positive final deter"ination "ade b& the (ariff Co""ission under Section 1 can the D(I Secretar& i"pose a $eneral safe$uard "easure. Clearl&, then the D(I Secretar& is 5ou#$ 5y -./ $/-/)2*#"-*o#"ade b& the (ariff Co""ission.So"e confusion "a& arise because the si9th para$raph of Section +6+27 uses the variant 'ord deter"ined in a different conte9t, as it conte"plates the appropriate $eneral safe$uard "easure as deter"ined b& the Secretar& 'ithin fifteen -+1. da&s fro" receipt of the report. Nuite plainl&, the 'ord deter"ined in this conte9t pertains to the D(I Secretar&Bs po'er of choice of the appropriate safe$uard "easure, as opposed to the (ariff Co""issionBs po'er to deter"ine the e9istence of conditions necessar& for the i"position of an& safe$uard "easure. In relation toSection 1, such choice also relates to the "andate of the D(I Secretar& to establish that the application of safe$uard "easures is in the public interest, also 'ithin the fifteen -+1. da& period. Nothin$ in Section +6 contradictsthe instruction in Section 1 that the D(I Secretar& is allo'ed to i"pose the $eneral safe$uard "easures onl& if thereis a positive deter"ination "ade b& the (ariff Co""ission.Infortunatel&, Rule +6.2 of the I"ple"entin$ Rules of the SM, is captioned %inal Deter"ination b& the Secretar&. (he assailed Decision and Philce"cor latch on this phraseolo$& to i"pl& that the factual deter"ination rendered b& the (ariff Co""ission under Section 1 "a& be a"ended or reversed b& the D(I Secretar&. Of course, i"ple"entin$ rules should confor", not clash, 'ith the la' that the& see# to i"ple"ent, for a re$ulation 'hich operates to create arule out of har"on& 'ith the statute is a nullit&.+21 Get i"perfect drafts"anship aside, nothin$ in Rule +6.2 i"plies thatthe D(I Secretar& can set aside the deter"ination "ade b& the (ariff Co""ission under the ae$is of Section 1. (his can be seen b& e9a"inin$ the specific provisions of Rule +6.2, thusCRIe&ond the resultin$ confusion, ho'ever, the diver$ent use in Rule +6.2 is e9plicable as the Rule te9tuall& pertains to the po'er of the D(I Secretar& to revie' the reco""endations of the (ariff Co""ission, not thelatterBs deter"ination. Indeed, an e9a"ination of the specific provisions sho' that there is no real conflict to reconcile. Rule +6.2 respects the lo$ical order i"posed b& the SM,. (he Rule does not re"ove the essential re8uire"ent under Section 1 that a positive final deter"ination be "ade b& the (ariff Co""ission before a definitive safe$uard "easure "a& be i"posed b& the D(I Secretar&.(he assailed Decision characteri*es the findin$s of the (ariff Co""ission as "erel& reco""endator& and points to the D(I Secretar& as the authorit& 'ho renders the final decision.+2? ,t the sa"e ti"e, Philce"cor asserts that the (ariff Co""issionBs functions are "erel& investi$ator&, and as such do not include the po'er to decide or ad)udicate. (hese contentions, vie'ed in the conte9t of the funda"ental re8uisite set forth b& Section 1, are untenable. (he& run counter to the statutor& prescription that a positive final deter"ination "ade b& the (ariff Co""ission should first be obtained before the definitive safe$uard "easures "a& be laid do'n.5as it ano"alous for Con$ress to have provided for a s&ste" 'hereb& the (ariff Co""ission "a& preclude the D(I,an office of hi$her ran#, fro" i"posin$ a safe$uard "easureK Of course, this Court does not in8uire into the 'isdo"of the le$islature but onl& charts the boundaries of po'ers and functions set in its enact"ents. >ut then, it is not difficult to see the internal lo$ic of this statutor& fra"e'or#.%or one, as earlier stated, the D(I cannot e9ercise revie' po'ers over the (ariff Co""ission 'hich is not its subordinate office.Moreover, the "echanis" established b& Con$ress establishes a "easure of chec# and balance involvin$ t'o different $overn"ental a$encies 'ith disparate speciali*ations. (he "atter of safe$uard "easures is of such national i"portance that a decision either to i"pose or not to i"pose then could have ruinous effects on co"panies doin$ business in the Philippines. (hus, it is ideal to put in place a s&ste" 'hich affords all due deliberation and calls to fore various $overn"ental a$encies e9ercisin$ their particular speciali*ations.%inall&, if this arran$e"ent dra'n up b& Con$ress "a#es it difficult to obtain a $eneral safe$uard "easure, it is because such safe$uard "easure is the e9ception, rather than the rule. (he Philippines is obli$ed to observe its obli$ations under the !,((, under 'hose fra"e'or# trade liberali*ation, not protectionis", is laid do'n. Veril&, the !,(( actuall& prescribes conditions before a "e"ber3countr& "a& i"pose a safe$uard "easure. (he pertinent portion of the !,(( ,$ree"ent on Safe$uards readsC2. , Me"ber "a& onl& appl& a safe$uard "easure to a product onl& if that "e"ber has deter"ined, pursuant to the provisions set out belo', that such product is bein$ i"ported into its territor& in such increased 8uantities, absolute or relative to do"estic production, and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious in)ur& to the do"estic industr& that produces li#e or directl& co"petitive products.+646. -a. , Me"ber "a& appl& a safe$uard "easure onl& follo'in$ an investi$ation b& the co"petent authorities of that Me"ber pursuant to procedures previousl& established and "ade public in consonance 'ith ,rticle D of the !,(( +??7. (his investi$ation shall include reasonable public notice to all interested parties and public hearin$s or other appropriate "eans in 'hich i"porters, e9porters and other interested parties could present evidence and their vie's, includin$ the opportunit& to respond to the presentations of other parties and to sub"it their vie's, inter a"ia, as to 'hether or not the application of a safe$uard "easure 'ould be in the public interest. (he co"petent authorities shall publish a report settin$ forth their findin$s and reasoned conclusions reached on all pertinent issues of fact and la'.+6+(he SM, 'as desi$ned not to contradict the !,((, but to co"ple"ent it. (he t'o re8uisites laid do'n in Section 1 for a positive final deter"ination are the sa"e conditions provided under the !,(( ,$ree"ent on Safe$uards for the application of safe$uard "easures b& a "e"ber countr&. Moreover, the investi$ator& procedure laid do'n b& theSM, confor"s to the procedure re8uired b& the !,(( ,$ree"ent on Safe$uards. Con$ress has chosen the (ariff Co""ission as the co"petent authorit& to conduct such investi$ation. Southern Cross stresses that appl&in$ the provision of the !,(( ,$ree"ent on Safe$uards, the (ariff Co""ission is clearl& e"po'ered to arrive at bindin$ conclusions.+62 5e a$reeC bindin$ on the D(I Secretar& is the (ariff Co""issionBs deter"inations on 'hether a product is i"ported in increased 8uantities, absolute or relative to do"estic production and 'hether an& such increase is a substantial cause of serious in)ur& or threat thereof to the do"estic industr&.+66Satisfied as 'e are 'ith the proper statutor& paradi$" 'ithin 'hich the SM, should be anal&*ed, the fla's in the reasonin$ of the Court of ,ppeals and in the ar$u"ents of the respondents beco"e apparent. (o better understand the d&na"ics of the procedure set up b& the la' leadin$ to the i"position of definitive safe$uard "easures, a brief step3b&3step recount thereof is in order.+. ,fter the initiation of an action involvin$ a $eneral safe$uard "easure,+67 the D(I Secretar& "a#es a preli"inar& deter"ination 'hether the increased i"ports of the product under consideration substantiall& cause or threaten to substantiall& cause serious in)ur& to the do"estic industr&,+61 and 'hether the i"position of a provisional "easure is 'arranted under Section / of the SM,.+6; If the preli"inar& deter"ination is ne$ative, it is i"plied that no further action 'ill be ta#en on the application.2. 5hen his preli"inar& deter"ination is positive, the Secretar& i""ediatel& trans"its the records coverin$ the application to the (ariff Co""ission for i""ediate for"al investi$ation.+606. (he (ariff Co""ission conducts its for"al investi$ation, #e&ed to'ards "a#in$ a final deter"ination. In the process, it holds public hearin$s, providin$ interested parties the opportunit& to present evidence or other'ise be heard.+6/ (o repeat, Section 1 enu"erates 'hat the (ariff Co""ission is tas#ed to deter"ineC -a. 'hether a product is bein$ i"ported into the countr& in increased 8uantities, irrespective of 'hether the product is absolute or relative to the do"estic production@ and -b. 'hether the i"portation in increased 8uantities is such that it causes serious in)ur& or threat to the do"estic industr&.+6? (he findin$s of the (ariff Co""ission as to these "atters constitute the final deter"ination, 'hich "a& be either positive or ne$ative.7. Inder Section +6 of the SM,, if the (ariff Co""ission "a#es a positive deter"ination, the (ariff Co""ission reco""ends to the ED(IF Secretar& an appropriate definitive "easure. (he (ariff Co""ission "a& also reco""end other actions, includin$ the initiation of international ne$otiations to address the underl&in$ cause of theincrease of i"ports of the products, to alleviate the in)ur& or threat thereof to the do"estic industr&, and to facilitate positive ad)ust"ent to i"port co"petition.+741. If the (ariff Co""ission "a#es a positive final deter"ination, the D(I Secretar& is then to decide, 'ithin fifteen -+1. da&s fro" receipt of the report, as to 'hat appropriate safe$uard "easures should he i"pose.;. =o'ever, if the (ariff Co""ission "a#es a ne$ative final deter"ination, the D(I Secretar& cannot i"pose an& definitive safe$uard "easure. Inder Section +6, he is instructed instead to return 'hatever cash bond 'as paid b& the applicant upon the initiation of the action for safe$uard "easure.The 1ffect of the Court3s Decision(he Court of ,ppeals erred in re"andin$ the case bac# to the D(I Secretar&, 'ith the instruction that the D(I Secretar& "a& i"pose a $eneral safe$uard "easure even if there is no positive final deter"ination fro" the (ariff Co""ission. More cruciall&, the Court of ,ppeals could not have ac8uired )urisdiction over Philce"corBs petition for certiorari in the first place, as Section 2? of the SM, properl& vests )urisdiction on the C(,. Conse8uentl&, the assailed Decision is an absolute nullit&, and 'e declare it as such.5hat is the effect of the nullit& of the assailed Decision on the 1 :une 2446 Decision of the D(I Secretar& i"posin$ the $eneral safe$uard "easureK 5e have reco$ni*ed that an& initial )udicial revie' of a D(I rulin$ in connection 'ith the i"position of a safe$uard "easure belon$s to the C(,. ,t the sa"e ti"e, the Court also reco$ni*es the funda"ental principle that a null and void )ud$"ent cannot produce an& le$al effect. (here is sufficient cause to establish that the 1 :une 2446 Decision of the D(I Secretar& resulted fro" the assailed Court of ,ppeals Decision, even if the latter had not &et beco"e final. Conversel&, it can be concluded that it 'as because of the putative i"pri"atur of the Court of ,ppealsB Decision that the D(I Secretar& issued his rulin$ i"posin$ the safe$uard "easure. Since the 1 :une 2446 Decision derives its le$al effect fro" the void Decision of the Court of ,ppeals, this rulin$ of the D(I Secretar& is conse8uentl& void. The spring cannot rise higher than the source.(he D(I Secretar& hi"self ac#no'led$ed that he dre' sti"ulatin$ force fro" the appellate courtBs Decision for in hiso'n 1 :une 2446 Decision, he declaredC%ro" the afore"entioned rulin$, the C, has re"anded the case to the D(I Secretar& for a final decision. (hus, there is no le$al i"pedi"ent for the Secretar& to decide on the application.+7+(he inescapable conclusion is that the D(I Secretar& needed the assailed Decision of the Court of ,ppeals to )ustif& his renderin$ a second Decision. =e e9plicitl& invo#ed the Court of ,ppealsB Decision as basis for renderin$ his 1 :une 2446 rulin$, and i"plicitl& reco$ni*ed that 'ithout such Decision he 'ould not have the authorit& to revo#e his previous rulin$ and render a ne', obverse rulin$.It is clear then that the 21 :une 2446 Decision of the D(I Secretar& is a product of the void Decision, it bein$ an atte"pt to carr& out such null )ud$"ent. (here is therefore no choice but to declare it void as 'ell, lest 'e sanction the perverse e9istence of a fruit fro" a non3e9istent tree. It does not even "atter 'hat the disposition of the 21 :une2446 Decision 'as, its nullit& 'ould be 'arranted even if the D(I Secretar& chose to uphold his earlier rulin$ den&in$ the application for safe$uard "easures.It is also an unfortunate spectacle to behold the D(I Secretar&, see#in$ to enforce a )udicial decision 'hich is not &etfinal and actuall& pendin$ revie' on appeal. =ad it been a )ud$e 'ho atte"pted to enforce a decision that is not &et final and e9ecutor&, he or she 'ould have readil& been sub)ected to sanction b& this Court. (he D(I Secretar& "a& be be&ond the a"bit of ad"inistrative revie' b& this Court, but 'e are capacitated to allocate the boundaries set b& the la' of the land and to e9act fealt& to the le$al order, especiall& fro" the instru"entalities and officials of $overn"ent.(HEREFORE, the petition is !R,N(ED. (he assailed Decision of the Court of ,ppeals is DECureau of Custo"s and the Chair"an of the (ariff Co""ission.?6 See Rollo, pp. /+3/2.?7 Supra note ?+.?1 See Civil ottlin$ Co"pan& of the Philippines, Inc. v. Municipalit& of (anauan, et. al., +;+ Phil. 1?+, ;44 -+?0;..?? ,rticle VI, Section 2/ -2., +?/0 Constitution. See Section +6, Rep. ,ct No. //44.+44 (hus, our funda"ental also distin$uishes bet'een ta9es, on the one hand, and i"posts H that is to sa&,tariff rates or duties i"posed for the i"portation of $oods H on the other. Procter P !a"ble Phil. Mf$. Corp. v. Co"". of Custo"s, +62 Phil. +;?, +01 -+?;/..+4+ ,s opined b& :ustice Irene Cortes, the indubitable authorit& in ,d"inistrative oo# IV, ,d"inistrative Code of +?/0.+2? Rollo, p. /4.+64 Section II-2., !,(( ,$ree"ent on Safe$uards.+6+ Section II-6.-a., !,(( ,$ree"ent on Safe$uards.+62 Rollo, p. +62+.+66 Supra note /?.+67 See Section 1, Rep. ,ct No. //44.+61 Supra note 04.+6; Section ;, Rep. ,ct No. //44.+60 Section 0, Rep. ,ct No. //44.+6/ See Section ?, Rep. ,ct No. //44.+6? Supra note /?.+74 Section +6, Rep. ,ct No. //44.+7+ Rollo, p. ;/2.