8/10/2019 Olsen and Co. v Rafferty

1/1

OLSEN AND CO. V RAFFERTY

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 ofcigars presented to the Collector. The cigars were duly packed according to the regulations. Plaintiff produced thestatement 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 PhilippineIslands, 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 theInsular Collector of Customs. The application was refused on the ground that the certificate of the Collector of InternalRevenue covering the origin of the cigars had not been issued and presented with the application as required by thecustoms regulations. Plaintiff Olsen thus filed a petition for mandamus under that claim that such refusal to grant thecertificate was arbitrary, illegal and void. A demurrer was filed on the ground that "the facts stated do not entitle Olsento the relief since it does not appear that respondents failed or refused to perform any duty incumbent upon either ofsaid officers."

ISSUE:WON Executive Order No. 41 and the regulations of the Insular Collector of Customs and the Collector of InternalRevenue may be considered as laws within the meaning of the section of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizing theissuance of writs of mandamus

HELD:Executive Order No. 41 confers no legal rights on anyone. It requires the adoption by the Insular Collector ofCustoms and the Collector of Internal Revenue of such rules and regulations as will insure that the Government ofthe United States will not be defrauded by a Philippine exporter who, by manufactured evidence or otherwise, mayattempt to introduce into the United States free of duty articles which are not the product of the Philippine Islands andwhich do not fall within the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1913. While it protects the United States against fraud, itdoes not confer a legal right, a right on which an action in a court of law may be predicated, or one which may beenforced against the officials charged with the formulation of the required evidence by any process known to the law. Itis nothing more or less than a command from a superior to an inferior. It is administrative in their nature and do notpass 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.