Olsen vs. 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 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:

1. 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
   
2. 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 ofmandamus
   

Ruling:

1. No. 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.
   
2. No. Executive Order No. 41 confers nolegal rights 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.