P

a
g
e

5

o
f

5
AISPORNA vs COURT OF APPEALS | G.R. No L-39419
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-39419 April 12 19!2
MAPALA" AISPORNA petitioner,
vs.
T#E COURT OF APPEALS $%& T#E PEOPLE OF T#E P#ILIPPINES respondents.

"E CASTRO J.:
In this petition for certiorari, petitioneraccused !isporna see"s the reversal of the decision dated !u#ust $%, $&'%
1
in (!).R.
No. $*+%*(R entitled ,People of the Philippines, plaintiffappellee, vs. Mapalad !isporna, defendantappellant, of respondent
(ourt of !ppeals affir-in# the .ud#-ent of the (it/ (ourt of (abanatuan
2
rendered on !u#ust +, $&'$ 0hich found the
petitioner #uilt/ for havin# violated Section $1& of the Insurance !ct 2!ct No. +%+', as a-ended3 and sentenced her to pa/ a
fine of P455.55 0ith subsidiar/ i-prison-ent in case of insolvenc/, and to pa/ the costs.
Petitioner !isporna 0as char#ed in the (it/ (ourt of (abanatuan for violation of Section $1& of the Insurance !ct on Nove-ber
+$, $&'5 in an infor-ation
3
0hich reads as follo0s6
That on or before the +$st da/ of 7une, $&8&, in the (it/ of (abanatuan, Republic of the Philippines, and
0ithin the .urisdiction of this 9onorable (ourt, the abovena-ed accused, did then and there, 0ilfull/,
unla0full/ and feloniousl/ act as a#ent in the solicitation or procure-ent of an application for insurance b/
solicitin# therefor the application of one :u#enio S. Isidro, for and in behalf of Perla (o-pania de Se#uros,
Inc., a dul/ or#ani;ed insurance co-pan/, re#istered under the la0s of the Republic of the Philippines,
resultin# in the issuance of a <road Personal !ccident Polic/ No. +1PIRS! 555$ in the a-ount not
e=ceedin# FIV: T9O>S!ND P:SOS 2P4,555.553 dated 7une +$, $&8&, 0ithout said accused havin# first
secured a certificate of authorit/ to act as such a#ent fro- the office of the Insurance (o--issioner,
Republic of the Philippines.
(ONTR!R? TO @!A.
The facts,
4
as found b/ the respondent (ourt of !ppeals are Buoted hereunder6
IT R:S>@TIN)6 That there is no debate that since ' March, $&8& and as of +$ 7une, $&8&, appellantCs
husband, Rodolfo S. !isporna 0as dul/ licensed b/ Insurance (o--ission as a#ent to Perla (o-pania de
Se#uros, 0ith license to e=pire on *5 7une, $&'5, :=h. (D on that date, at (abanatuan (it/, Personal
!ccident Polic/, :=h. D 0as issued b/ Perla thru its author representative, Rodolfo S. !isporna, for a
period of t0elve 2$+3 -onths 0ith beneficiar/ as !na M. Isidro, and for P4,555.55D apparentl/, insured died
b/ violence durin# lifeti-e of polic/, and for reasons not e=plained in record, present infor-ation 0as filed
b/ Fiscal, 0ith assistance of private prosecutor, char#in# 0ife of Rodolfo 0ith violation of Sec. $1& of
Insurance @a0 for havin#, 0ilfull/, unla0full/, and feloniousl/ acted, ,as a#ent in the solicitation for
insurance b/ solicitin# therefore the application of one :u#enio S. Isidro for and in behalf of Perla
(o-paEa de Se#uros, ... 0ithout said accused havin# first secured a certificate of authorit/ to act as such
a#ent fro- the office of the Insurance (o--ission, Republic of the Philippines.,
and in the trial, People presented evidence that 0as hardl/ disputed, that afore-entioned polic/ 0as
issued 0ith active participation of appellant 0ife of Rodolfo, a#ainst 0hich appellant in her defense sou#ht
to sho0 that bein# the 0ife of true a#ent, Rodolfo, she naturall/ helped hi- in his 0or", as cler", and that
polic/ 0as -erel/ a rene0al and 0as issued because Isidro had called b/ telephone to rene0, and at that
ti-e, her husband, Rodolfo, 0as absent and so she left a note on top of her husbandCs des" to rene0 ...
VIII. LATIN MAXIMS | CASSUS OMISSUS PRO OMISSO HABENDUS EST | STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION |
P
a
g
e

5

o
f

5
AISPORNA vs COURT OF APPEALS | G.R. No L-39419
(onseBuentl/, the trial court found herein petitioner #uilt/ as char#ed. On appeal, the trial courtCs decision 0as affir-ed b/ the
respondent appellate court findin# the petitioner #uilt/ of a violation of the first para#raph of Section $1& of the Insurance !ct.
9ence, this present recourse 0as filed on October ++, $&'%.
'
In its resolution of October +1, $&'%,
(
this (ourt resolved, 0ithout #ivin# due course to this instant petition, to reBuire the
respondent to co--ent on the aforesaid petition. In the co--ent
)
filed on Dece-ber +5, $&'%, the respondent, represented
b/ the Office of the Solicitor )eneral, sub-itted that petitioner -a/ not be considered as havin# violated Section $1& of the
Insurance !ct.
!
On !pril *, $&'4, petitioner sub-itted his <rief
9
0hile the Solicitor )eneral, on behalf of the respondent, filed a
-anifestation
1*
in lieu of a <rief on Ma/ *, $&'4 reiteratin# his stand that the petitioner has not violated Section $1& of the
Insurance !ct.
In see"in# reversal of the .ud#-ent of conviction, petitioner assi#ns the follo0in# errors
11
alle#edl/ co--itted b/ the appellate
court6
$. T9: R:SPOND:NT (O>RT OF !PP:!@S :RR:D IN FINDIN) T9!T R:(:IPT OF (OMP:NS!TION
IS NOT !N :SS:NTI!@ :@:M:NT OF T9: (RIM: D:FIN:D <? T9: FIRST P!R!)R!P9 OF
S:(TION $1& OF T9: INS>R!N(: !(T.
+. T9: R:SPOND:NT (O>RT OF !PP:!@S :RR:D IN )IVIN) D>: A:I)9T TO :F9I<ITS F, F$, TO
F$', IN(@>SIV: S>FFI(I:NT TO :ST!<@IS9 P:TITION:RCS )>I@T <:?OND R:!SON!<@: DO><T.
*. T9: R:SPOND:NT (O>RT OF !PP:!@S :RR:D IN NOT !(G>ITTIN) 9:R:IN P:TITION:R.
Ae find the petition -eritorious.
The -ain issue raised is 0hether or not a person can be convicted of havin# violated the first para#raph of Section $1& of the
Insurance !ct 0ithout reference to the second para#raph of the sa-e section. In other 0ords, it is necessar/ to deter-ine
0hether or not the a#ent -entioned in the first para#raph of the aforesaid section is #overned b/ the definition of an insurance
a#ent found on its second para#raph.
The pertinent provision of Section $1& of the Insurance !ct reads as follo0s6
No insurance co-pan/ doin# business 0ithin the Philippine Islands, nor an/ a#ent thereof, shall pa/ an/
co--ission or other co-pensation to an/ person for services in obtainin# ne0 insurance, unless such
person shall have first procured fro- the Insurance (o--issioner a certificate of authorit/ to act as an
a#ent of such co-pan/ as hereinafter provided. No person shall act as a#ent, suba#ent, or bro"er in the
solicitation of procure-ent of applications for insurance, or receive for services in obtainin# ne0 insurance,
an/ co--ission or other co-pensation fro- an/ insurance co-pan/ doin# business in the Philippine
Islands, or a#ent thereof, 0ithout first procurin# a certificate of authorit/ so to act fro- the Insurance
(o--issioner, 0hich -ust be rene0ed annuall/ on the first da/ of 7anuar/, or 0ithin si= -onths thereafter.
Such certificate shall be issued b/ the Insurance (o--issioner onl/ upon the 0ritten application of
persons desirin# such authorit/, such application bein# approved and countersi#ned b/ the co-pan/ such
person desires to represent, and shall be upon a for- approved b/ the Insurance (o--issioner, #ivin#
such infor-ation as he -a/ reBuire. The Insurance (o--issioner shall have the ri#ht to refuse to issue or
rene0 and to revo"e an/ such certificate in his discretion. No such certificate shall be valid, ho0ever, in
an/ event after the first da/ of 7ul/ of the /ear follo0in# the issuin# of such certificate. Rene0al certificates
-a/ be issued upon the application of the co-pan/.
!n/ person 0ho for compensation solicits or obtains insurance on behalf of an/ insurance co-pan/, or
trans-its for a person other than hi-self an application for a polic/ of insurance to or fro- such co-pan/
or offers or assu-es to act in the ne#otiatin# of such insurance, shall be an insurance agent within the
intent of this section, and shall thereb/ beco-e liable to all the duties, reBuire-ents, liabilities, and
penalties to 0hich an a#ent of such co-pan/ is sub.ect.
!n/ person or co-pan/ violatin# the provisions of this section shall be fined in the su- of five hundred
pesos. On the conviction of an/ person actin# as a#ent, suba#ent, or bro"er, of the co--ission of an/
VIII. LATIN MAXIMS | CASSUS OMISSUS PRO OMISSO HABENDUS EST | STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION |
P
a
g
e

5

o
f

5
AISPORNA vs COURT OF APPEALS | G.R. No L-39419
offense connected 0ith the business of insurance, the Insurance (o--issioner shall i--ediatel/ revo"e
the certificate of authorit/ issued to hi- and no such certificate shall thereafter be issued to such convicted
person.
! careful perusal of the aboveBuoted provision sho0s that the first para#raph thereof prohibits a person fro- actin# as a#ent,
suba#ent or bro"er in the solicitation or procure-ent of applications for insurance 0ithout first procurin# a certificate of
authorit/ so to act fro- the Insurance (o--issioner, 0hile its second para#raph defines 0ho is an insurance a#ent 0ithin the
intent of this section and, finall/, the third para#raph thereof prescribes the penalt/ to be i-posed for its violation.
The respondent appellate court ruled that the petitioner is prosecuted not under the second para#raph of Section $1& of the
aforesaid !ct but under its first para#raph. Thus H
... it can no lon#er be denied that it 0as appellantCs -ost active endeavors that resulted in issuance of
polic/ to Isidro, she 0as there and then actin# as a#ent, and received the pa/ thereof H her defense that
she 0as onl/ actin# as helper of her husband can no lon#er be sustained, neither her point that she
received no co-pensation for issuance of the polic/ because
an/ person 0ho for co-pensation solicits or obtains insurance on behalf of an/
insurance co-pan/ or trans-its for a person other than hi-self an application for a
polic/ of insurance to or fro- such co-pan/ or offers or assu-es to act in the
ne#otiatin# of such insurance, shall be an insurance a#ent 0ithin the intent of this
section, and shall thereb/ beco-e liable to all the duties, reBuire-ents, liabilities, and
penalties, to 0hich an a#ent of such co-pan/ is sub.ect. para#raph +, Sec. $1&,
Insurance @a0,
no0 it is true that infor-ation does not even alle#e that she had obtained the insurance,
for co-pensation
0hich is the #ist of the offense in Section $1& of the Insurance @a0 in its +nd para#raph, but 0hat appellant
apparentl/ overloo"s is that she is prosecuted not under the +nd but under the $st para#raph of Sec. $1&
0herein it is provided that,
No person shall act as a#ent, suba#ent, or bro"er, in the solicitation or procure-ent of
applications for insurance, or receive for services in obtainin# ne0 insurance an/
co--ission or other co-pensation fro- an/ insurance co-pan/ doin# business in the
Philippine Island, or a#ent thereof, 0ithout first procurin# a certificate of authorit/ to act
fro- the insurance co--issioner, 0hich -ust be rene0ed annuall/ on the first da/ of
7anuar/, or 0ithin si= -onths thereafter.
therefore, there 0as no technical defect in the 0ordin# of the char#e, so that :rrors + and % -ust be
overruled.
12
Fro- the above-entioned rulin#, the respondent appellate court see-s to i-pl/ that the definition of an insurance a#ent under
the second para#raph of Section $1& is not applicable to the insurance a#ent -entioned in the first para#raph. Parentheticall/,
the respondent court concludes that under the second para#raph of Section $1&, a person is an insurance a#ent if he solicits
and obtains an insurance for co-pensation, but, in its first para#raph, there is no necessit/ that a person solicits an insurance
for co-pensation in order to be called an insurance a#ent.
Ae find this to be a reversible error. !s correctl/ pointed out b/ the Solicitor )eneral, the definition of an insurance a#ent as
found in the second para#raph of Section $1& is intended to define the 0ord ,a#ent, -entioned in the first and second
para#raphs of the aforesaid section. More si#nificantl/, in its second para#raph, it is e=plicitl/ provided that the definition of an
insurance a#ent is 0ithin the intent of Section $1&. 9ence H
!n/ person 0ho for co-pensation ... shall be an insurance agent within the intent of this section, ...
VIII. LATIN MAXIMS | CASSUS OMISSUS PRO OMISSO HABENDUS EST | STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION |
P
a
g
e

5

o
f

5
AISPORNA vs COURT OF APPEALS | G.R. No L-39419
Patentl/, the definition of an insurance a#ent under the second para#raph holds true 0ith respect to the a#ent -entioned in the
other t0o para#raphs of the said section. The second para#raph of Section $1& is a definition and interpretative clause
intended to Bualif/ the ter- ,a#ent, -entioned in both the first and third para#raphs of the aforesaid section.
!ppl/in# the definition of an insurance a#ent in the second para#raph to the a#ent -entioned in the first and second
para#raphs 0ould #ive har-on/ to the aforesaid three para#raphs of Section $1&. @e#islative intent -ust be ascertained fro- a
consideration of the statute as a 0hole. The particular 0ords, clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and
isolated e=pressions, but the 0hole and ever/ part of the statute -ust be considered in fi=in# the -eanin# of an/ of its parts
and in order to produce har-onious 0hole.
13
! statute -ust be so construed as to har-oni;e and #ive effect to all its
provisions 0henever possible.
14
The -eanin# of the la0, it -ust be borne in -ind, is not to be e=tracted fro- an/ sin#le part,
portion or section or fro- isolated 0ords and phrases, clauses or sentences but fro- a #eneral consideration or vie0 of the act
as a 0hole.
1'
:ver/ part of the statute -ust be interpreted 0ith reference to the conte=t. This -eans that ever/ part of the
statute -ust be considered to#ether 0ith the other parts, and "ept subservient to the #eneral intent of the 0hole enact-ent, not
separatel/ and independentl/.
1(
More i-portantl/, the doctrine of associated 0ords 2Noscitur a Sociis3 provides that 0here a
particular 0ord or phrase in a state-ent is a-bi#uous in itself or is eBuall/ susceptible of various -eanin#s, its true -eanin#
-a/ be -ade clear and specific b/ considerin# the co-pan/ in 0hich it is found or 0ith 0hich it is associated.
1)
(onsiderin# that the definition of an insurance a#ent as found in the second para#raph is also applicable to the a#ent
-entioned in the first para#raph, to receive a co-pensation b/ the a#ent is an essential ele-ent for a violation of the first
para#raph of the aforesaid section. The appellate court has established ulti-atel/ that the petitioneraccused did not receive
an/ co-pensation for the issuance of the insurance polic/ of :u#enio Isidro. Nevertheless, the accused 0as convicted b/ the
appellate court for, accordin# to the latter, the receipt of co-pensation for issuin# an insurance polic/ is not an essential
ele-ent for a violation of the first para#raph of Section $1& of the Insurance !ct.
Ae rule other0ise. >nder the Te=as Penal (ode $&$$, !rticle 81&, -a"in# it a -isde-eanor for an/ person for direct or indirect
co-pensation to solicit insurance 0ithout a certificate of authorit/ to act as an insurance a#ent, an infor-ation, failin# to alle#e
that the solicitor 0as to receive co-pensation either directl/ or indirectl/, char#es no offense.
1!
In the case of <olen vs.
Sta"e,
19
the provision of Section *'45, Sn/derCs (o-piled @a0s of O"laho-a $&5& is intended to penali;e persons onl/ 0ho
acted as insurance solicitors 0ithout license, and 0hile actin# in such capacit/ ne#otiated and concluded insurance contracts
for co-pensation. It -ust be noted that the infor-ation, in the case at bar, does not alle#e that the ne#otiation of an insurance
contracts b/ the accused 0ith :u#enio Isidro 0as one for co-pensation. This alle#ation is essential, and havin# been o-itted,
a conviction of the accused could not be sustained. It is 0ellsettled in Our .urisprudence that to 0arrant conviction, ever/
ele-ent of the cri-e -ust be alle#ed and proved.
2*
!fter #oin# over the records of this case, Ae are full/ convinced, as the Solicitor )eneral -aintains, that accused did not
violate Section $1& of the Insurance !ct.
A9:R:FOR:, the .ud#-ent appealed fro- is reversed and the accused is acBuitted of the cri-e char#ed, 0ith costs de oficio.
SO ORD:R:D.
Teehankee (Acting C.J.,) Makasiar, De Castro, Fernandez, uerrero and Me!encio"#errera, JJ., concur.
$!ana, J., took no part.
Foo+%o+,s
1 p. 21, Rollo.
2 p. 11, CA Rollo.
3 p. 10, CA Rollo.
4 pp. 2122, Rollo.
! p. ", Rollo.
# p. 3#, Rollo.
" p. !1, Rollo.
$ p. !$, Rollo.
% p. #%, Rollo.
10 p. "1, Rollo.
11 p. #%, Rollo& p. #, '()ef fo( *+e Pe*)*)o,e(.
12 pp. 2! a,- 2#, Rollo.
13 A(a,e*a ./. Co,0ep0)o,, %% P+)l. "0%& Ta1a2o ./. 3/ell,
3! P+)l. %!3& Lope4 ./. 5l 6oga( 7)l)p),o, 4" P+)l. 24%&
C+a(*e(e- 'a,8 ./. I1pe()al, 4$ P+)l. %31.
14 People ./. Pol1o, $# P+)l. 3!0.
1! $2 C.9.S., Se0*)o, 34!, pp. #%%"00.
1# Ta1a2o ./. 3/ell, 3! P+)l. %!3.
1" Co :)1 C+a1 ./. Val-e4 Ta, :e+ ; <)4o,, "! P+)l. 3"1.
1$ 9a/pe( ./. S*a*e, "3 Te=. C(. R 1%"& 1#4 S.>. $!1.
1% 14% p. 10"4, 11 O8la. C()1. !%4.
20 People ./. S2 3e/)o,g, #0 P+)l. #14.
!isporna v. (! of People, $$*S(R!%4&
VIII. LATIN MAXIMS | CASSUS OMISSUS PRO OMISSO HABENDUS EST | STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION |
P
a
g
e

5

o
f

5
AISPORNA vs COURT OF APPEALS | G.R. No L-39419
!ISPORN! VS (!
Facts
Mapalad !isporna 0as accused of actin# as an a#ent in solicitin# insurance 0ithout securin# the certificate of authorit/ fro- the
Insurance (o--ission in violation of section $1& of the Insurance !ct.
Mapalad contended that bein# the 0ife of a true a#ent, Rodolfo, she naturall/ helped hi- in his 0or". She said the polic/
issued to Isidro, a cient, 0as -erel/ a rene0al at the ti-e 0hen her husband 0as absent.
Issue
Aas Mapalad an insurance a#ent 0ithin the scope or intent of the Insurance !ctI
9eld
No. The first para#raph of section $1& prohibits a person fro- actin# as a#ent, suba#ent or bro"er in the solicitation or
procure-ent of applications for insurance 0ithout first procurin# a certificate of authorit/ so to act fro- the Insurance
(o--issionerD the second para#raph defines 0ho is an insurance a#ent 0ithin the intent of the sectionD and the third
para#raph prescribes the penalt/ to be i-posed for its violation.
@e#islative intent -ust be ascertained fro- a consideration of the statute as a 0hole. The particular 0ords, clauses and
phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated e=pressions, but the 0hole and ever/ part of the statute -ust be
considered in fi=in# the -eanin# of an/ of its parts and in order to produce har-onious 0hole.
VIII. LATIN MAXIMS | CASSUS OMISSUS PRO OMISSO HABENDUS EST | STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION |