EJUSDEM GENERIS
Ejusdem or Eiusdem Generis: Of the same kind or
nature. A rule of interpretation that where a class of
things is followed by general wording that is not itself
expansive, the general wording is usually restricted
things of the same type as the listed items.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v CA G.R. No. 33471 January
31, 1972
A shipment of 438 packages of foodstuffs, declared in the name of
private respondent Eusebio Dichoco under Entry No. 109924 (70)
arrived on December 16, 1970 at the Port of Manila. The shipment
was covered by a "Customs No-Dollar Declaration", dated
December 15, 1970. On December 28, 1970, the Collector of
Customs of Manila issued a warrant of seizure and detention (S.I.
Case No. 12055) for violation of Section 2530 (f) of the Tariff and
Customs Code, in relation to Central Bank Circular Nos. 247, 289,
and 295 and section 102 (k) of the said Code.
On the same date, private respondent requested the release of the
shipment upon the posting of a cash bond, which request, although
favorably recommended by the Collector of Customs, was denied
by the Commissioner of Customs. However, the proper taxes and
duties amounting to P25,998.00 were imposed on the shipment and
paid by private respondent. After hearing, the Collector of Customs
issued his decision, on January 19, 1971, decreeing the seizure and
forfeiture of the shipment "for the simple reason that claimants
failed to comply with the regulations, that is, with the Central Bank
circulars requiring the production of release certificates for
importations similar to the subject articles." On appeal, the
Commissioner of Customs affirmed the decision on January 21,
1971.
On January 27, 1971 private respondent filed before respondent
court a "petition for review, with a motion for release of goods
under bond", upon the grounds that the decision appealed from
was not supported by substantial evidence and that the goods
seized did not constitute prohibited importation as contemplated in
Sections 2530 (f) and 102 (k) of the Tariff and Customs Code. In his
answer filed before respondent court, the Commissioner of Customs
alleged that "the goods having been imported without the release
certificate required by the Central Bank", are "subject to forfeiture"
and the goods being of "prohibited importation," may not be
released under bond pursuant to the last paragraph of Section
2301 of the Tariff and Customs Code.
The respondent Court, in its resolution of February 3, 1971, granted
the motion to release the goods subject to the condition that a cash
bond in the sum of P43,854.59 be filed by private respondent with
the Bureau of Customs. The bond having been filed, respondent
Court issued an order, dated February 9, 1971, directing petitioner
to release the shipment. Petitioner filed on March 2, 1971a motion
for reconsideration upon the ground that the importation in
question, classified as non-essential consumer goods, is banned by
Central Bank Circulars No. 289, dated February 21, 1970, No. 294 of
March 10, 1970, and No. 295 of March 20, 1970, and "acquired the
status of prohibited importation or importation contrary to law" and
cannot be released under bond. Private respondent filed his
opposition dated March 4, 1971. Respondent court in its resolution
dated March 8, 1971, granted the motion for reconsideration,
declaring that "Section 2301 of the Tariff and Customs Code
provides that articles the importation of which is prohibited by law
cannot be released under bond" and set aside its resolutions of
February 3 and February 9, 1971. Private respondent filed a motion
for reconsideration of respondent court's resolution of March 8,
1971, and said court, in its resolution of March 24, 1971, reversed
its resolution of March 8, 1971 and reinstated the resolution of
February 3, 1971, ordering the immediate release of the foodstuffs.
Respondent court issued an order, dated April 12, 1971, requiring
petitioner to appear on April 16, 1971 and show cause why he
should not be declared in contempt of Court for non-compliance
with the resolution of March 24, 1971. Petitioner filed on April 16,
1971 his "Motion for Reconsideration and Explanation", explaining
why he should not be held in contempt and at the same time
praying for the reconsideration of the order of March 24, 1971,
which ordered the release of the goods upon the ground that goods
imported without release certificates required by the Central Bank
are "merchandise of prohibited importation" and cannot therefore
be released under any kind of bond.
April 19, 1971, respondent court found petitioner's explanation for
his failure to comply with the order of March 24, 1971 satisfactory,
but denied the motion for reconsideration upon the ground that it
was filed 23 days after his receipt of the resolution, and ordering
him to comply, within three days, with the order of March 24, 1971.
On April 22, 1971 petitioner filed an "Urgent Omnibus Motion and
Manifestation", praying the respondent court to reconsider and set
aside its order of March 24 and April 19, 1971 and reinstate its
order of March 8, 1971; that the case be immediately set for
hearing on the merits; and to excuse him from complying with the
order of April 19, 1971. Respondent court denied the omnibus
motion in its order dated April 27, 1971.
Hence the present petition before this Court.
Herein petitioner contends that the importation of the foodstuffs in
question is prohibited and the articles thus imported may be
subject to forfeiture under Section 2530 (f) and 102 (k) of the Tariff
and Customs Code; that the foodstuffs in question being articles of
prohibited importation cannot be released under bond; and that
respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting
to lack of jurisdiction, in ordering the release of the foodstuffs in
question. The petitioner prays that pending the determination of
this case on its merits, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued ex
parte enjoining the implementation of respondent court's
resolutions dated March 24, 1971 and April 19, 1971; and that after
due proceedings said resolutions be declared null and void and
ordered set aside.
This Court, by resolution dated May 5, 1971, issued a temporary
restraining order, and required respondents to file an answer. On
May 6, 1971 a temporary restraining order was issued restraining
respondent Court of Tax Appeals, its agents, representatives, etc.
from enforcing the resolutions dated March 24, 1971 and April 19,
1971 issued in its C.T.A. Case No. 2206; more specifically from
directing petitioner Commissioner of Customs to release under
bond to respondent Eusebio Dichoco the shipment of foodstuffs in
question pending final judgment of the case and from citing or
declaring said petitioner in contempt of court for failure to release
said foodstuffs, etc.
An answer was filed, by counsel, for both respondent Court of Tax
Appeals and Eusebio Dichoco. In their answer, respondent allege
special and affirmative defenses, contending that the instant
petition is fatally defective, and certiorari does not lie; that there is
no legal basis for the injunction; and that the importation was not a
"prohibited importation" and can be released under bond pursuant
to Section 2301 of the Tariff and Customs Code. Respondents pray
for the dismissal of the petition and the dissolution of the
temporary restraining order.
Private respondent Eusebio Dichoco, in contending that the instant
petition is without basis in fact and in law, does not deny that
"articles of prohibited importation cannot be released under bond"
as provided in section 2301 of the Tariff and Customs Code. He,
however, vigorously denies that the "foodstuffs in question are
articles of prohibited importation." He argues that the Tariff and
Customs Code distinguishes articles of "prohibited importation"
from those that can be imported "only upon conditions prescribed
by law" or "importation effected contrary to law". He further argues
that Section 102 of the Tariff and Customs Code, which enumerates
the articles of "prohibited importations", refers to contraband or
absolutely prohibited articles and concludes in its sub-paragraph (k)
with a general statement, "all other articles the importation of
which is prohibited by law". Respondent maintains that under the
well known rule of ejusdem generis, this general statement must be
restricted only to those articles which are absolutely prohibited or
those considered contraband. Respondent then insists that
foodstuffs belong to that kind of importation that are, under Section
1207 of the Tariff and Customs Code, "subject to importation only
upon conditions prescribed by law", as distinguished from articles
"of prohibited importation," mentioned in the same section; that
said foodstuffs, furthermore, can be classified under "importation
effected contrary to law" as distinguished from "prohibited
importation" mentioned in section 2530 of the same Code.
Respondent likewise argues that section 2307 also distinguishes
different kinds of importations when it provides that there can be
no redemption "where the importation is absolutely prohibited", but
allows redemption of other kinds of importation including forfeited
foodstuffs. Respondent claims that section 2601 also makes the
same distinction when it provides that "seized property, other than
contraband" shall be subject to sale. Respondent points out that
both the Central Bank and the Bureau of Customs, through their
authorized counsel, admitted that the foodstuffs are "not prohibited
importation under section 102 of the Tariff and Customs Code,
"which admission bars them from asserting the contrary. 1 It is,
therefore, asserted by respondent that the imported foodstuffs in
question are not contraband, and are not, as stated by respondent
court, among the prohibited importations enumerated in Section
102 of the Tariff and Customs Code, 2 and so said foodstuffs may
be released under bond as provided in Section 2301 of the same
Code. Respondent likewise points out that both the Central Bank
and the Bureau of Customs have been releasing outright imported
foodstuffs to selected importers. Respondent also urges that the
purpose of the release of the importation in question is legitimate,
for said foodstuffs are intended to be eaten, and eating is always
legitimate; and that the release under bond of the foodstuffs which
are fast deteriorating would be beneficial for all parties concerned.
Petitioner argues, finally, that Customs Administrative Order No. 19-
70, dated October 20, 1970, contravenes the Tariff and Customs
Code. 3.
We cannot sustain the stand of the respondents.
The importation in question is a prohibited importation under
Section 102 (k) of the Tariff and Customs Code which provides, in
part, as follows: .
SEC. 102. Prohibited Importations. The importation into the
Philippines of the following articles is prohibited:
k. all other articles the importation of which is prohibited by law." .
Respondents contend that this last paragraph must, by application
of the principles of ejusdem generis, be restricted only to those
articles the importation of which is "absolutely prohibited," or to
contraband. This contention is not acceptable. In the first place, the
specific things enumerated in paragraphs (a) to (j), inclusive, of
Section 102 have no distinguishable common characteristics and
they differ greatly from one another, and the rule of ejusdem
generis "applies only where the specific words preceding the
general expression are of the same nature. Where they are of
different genera, the meaning of the general word remains
unaffected by its connection with them." (Black, On Interpretation
of Laws, 2nd ed., p. 218; 50 Am. Jur., p. 248).
Moreover, calling contraband only the things "absolutely prohibited
by law" is a misnomer, for contraband means any article the
importation or exportation of which is prohibited by law (Black, Law
Dictionary).
Section 102, when examined, shows that it prohibits the
importation of two categories of articles, namely those which are
absolutely prohibited, for example, those enumerated in
paragraphs b, c, d, f, h, and j, and those articles which are
qualifiedly prohibited, that is, those that may be imported subject
to certain conditions or limitations, for example, those enumerated
in paragraphs a and i. Accordingly the general provision in
paragraph k, to wit: "all other articles the importation of which is
prohibited by law" cannot be so restricted as to comprise only those
articles the importation of which is absolutely prohibited like
explosives. Articles of prohibited importation cover not only
absolutely prohibited articles but also qualifiedly prohibited articles.
Paragraph (k) is comprehensive in the sense that it prohibits the
importation of all articles not mentioned in the preceding provision
but prohibited by other existing statutes (Tejam, Commentaries on
the Tariff Code of the Philippines, Vol. I, p. 6A). The legal effects of
the importation of qualifiedly prohibited articles are the same as
those of absolutely prohibited articles. (Geotina v. Court of Tax
Appeals, No. L-33500, August 30, 1971, 40 SCRA 362, 379, 383.) .
The laws which prohibit importation mentioned in Section 102 (k)
include the pertinent Central Bank Circulars which have the force
and effect of laws. "Customs law" includes not only the provisions
of the Tariff and Customs Code but also all other laws and any
regulation made pursuant thereto that is subject to enforcement by
the Bureau of Customs or otherwise subject to its jurisdiction (Sec.
3514 of Tariff and Customs Code) and articles imported in violation
of Central Bank Circulars have the status of "merchandise of
prohibited importation" (Chan Kian v. Collector of Customs of
Manila, Jan. 31, 1966, No. L-20803, 16 SCRA 133, 136; Seree
Investment Co. v. Commissioner of Customs, No. L-21217, Nov. 29,
1965, 15 SCRA 431, 434; Bombay Department Store v.
Commissioner of Customs, No. L-20460, Sept. 30, 1965, 15 SCRA
104, 107-108). It cannot be gainsaid that the importation in
question violated Central Bank Circulars, inasmuch as in the words
of petitioner Commissioner of Customs in its decision of January 21,
1971, "it was established thru the admission of claimant (Dichoco)
that the necessary release certificate in connection with his
importation was not secured from the Central Bank. In view thereof,
the collector after instituting the necessary seizure proceedings
forfeited the 438 packages of foodstuffs for alleged violation of
Central Bank Circulars Nos. 247, 289, 294 and 295 in relation to
Section 2530 (f) and Section 102 (k) of the Tariff and Customs
Code." 4 If the importation in question was made contrary to
Central Bank circulars, then said importation is an importation
prohibited by law. That importation, even if it be termed
"importation effected contrary to law", as respondents call it, is
nonetheless a "prohibited importation." .
This Court had held: .
"Thus, it is now settled that the goods imported without release
certificates required in Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 are "merchandise
of prohibited importation" as this expression is used in said section
1363 (f). To this effect have been, among others, Commissioner vs.
Eastern Sea Trading, Commissioner vs. Santos, Commissioner vs.
Nepomuceno, Pascual vs. Commissioner of Customs, Seree
Investment Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs, and Lazaro vs.
Commissioner of Customs." (Sare vs. Commissioner of Customs,
G.R. No. L-22988, June 30, 1969, 28 SCRA 715, 718.) 5
As a matter of law, no release certificate may be issued to such
importation, although it is a no-dollar importation, because Circular
No. 295 provides that: "
"No-dollar" imports not covered by Circular No. 247 shall not be
issued any release certificate ... ." .
and the foodstuffs imported by private respondent Dichoco are not
among the items listed in Circular No. 247 for which no release
certificates are needed. The reason for this is to protect the
country's international reserve, because every import of goods or
merchandise requires an immediate or future demand for foreign
exchange (Pascual v. Commissioner of Customs, 105 Phil. 1039,
1045).
The law also prohibits the release under bond of the imported
foodstuffs in question. This is provided in Section 2301 of the Tariff
and Customs Code which provides: .
Sec. 2301. Warrant for Detention of Property-Bond. Upon
making any seizure, the Collector shall issue a warrant for the
detention of the property; and if the owner or importer desires to
secure the release of the property for legitimate use, the Collector
may surrender it upon the filing of a sufficient bond, in an amount
to be fixed by him, conditioned for the payment of the appraised
value of the article and/or any fine, expenses and costs which may
be adjudged in the case: Provided, That articles the importation of
which is prohibited by law shall not be released under bond.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Customs Administrative Order No. 19-70, dated October 20, 1970,
also provides that "all importations seized and forfeited for violation
of Central Bank circulars shall not be allowed to be released under
bond, either surety or cash, nor allowed to be redeemed ... ." This
order cannot be said to contravene section 2301 or the Tariff and
Customs Code, as contended by private respondent. Anent this
matter, this Court has held that:
Respondent importer's petition before the tax court was filed to
seek judgment "sustaining [the importer's] right to the discharge of
its importation from the carrying vessel and its release under bond
to it and declaring Customs Administrative Order No. 19-70 null and
void" as an alleged unauthorized and arbitrary modification or
amendment of the provisions of section 2301 of the tariff and
customs code. As already shown above, the said administrative
reiteration of the express prohibition of the cited section against
the release under bond of prohibited articles seized and held for
forfeiture by the customs authorities. The tax court of course made
no pronouncement of the alleged nullity of the said administrative
order, the validity of which cannot be gainsaid ..." (Geotina v. Court
of Tax Appeals, L-33500, August 30, 1971, 40 SCRA 362, 384-385).
It may be pertinent to note that Sec. 3 of Republic Act No. 1410 "An
Act to prohibit the so-called "No-dollar Imports" except under
certain conditions" also provides that "any violation of this law or
any provision hereof shall subject the articles imported to seizure
and confiscation without any right of redemption or release under
bond, existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding." .
Private respondent also contends that there were some
importations of non-essential consumer goods that were released
by the Bureau of Customs and the Central Bank. This is true. In the
record We find, for example, that an importation of fresh oranges,
lemons and grapefruits by Savoy Philippines Hotel was issued
Release Certificate No. 20134, dated March 31, 1971 by the Central
Bank of the Philippines; that an importation of cheese by Savoy
Philippines Hotel was also issued Release Certificate No. 19980
dated January 20, 1971; and that an importation of Danish cheese
by Hotel Intercontinental, Manila, was also issued Release
Certificate No. 39704, dated March 4, 1971. 6 These importations,
however, cannot be said to have been made "contrary to law" and
were prohibited importations, because the importations were
authorized and were covered by "release certificates," approved
pursuant to M. B. Resolution No. 383 dated March 4, 1970. 7 The
authority granted may be justified because it was given to hotels
that cater to tourists visiting the country and are, therefore, dollar
earners. In order that the Central Bank might not be accused of
arbitrarily favoring certain importers, this Court, speaking through
Mr. Justice Teehankee, has suggested: .
But it might perhaps be desirable that the Central Bank spell out
such exceptions and the cases where it will grant "prior specific
approvals" as against the standing prohibition for the guidance of
all concerned, so that it may not be charged with acting arbitrarily
and without any definite set of rules and guidelines that assures
equal treatment and equal application of its circulars to all.
(Geotina v. Court of Tax Appeals, No. L-33500, August 31, 1970, 40
SCRA 362, 380-381.) .
The reason advanced by private respondent for the release of the
importation in question is that foodstuffs are intended to be eaten,
and eating is always legitimate. This argument is beside the point.
The issue in the present case is whether or not the foodstuffs were
imported contrary to law, and not whether the purpose for which
the articles were imported is licit or illicit. Even if the purpose of
importing the foodstuffs be legitimate, that purpose alone will not
justify the prohibited importation, because this is a case where the
end does not justify the means.
The final reason advanced by private respondent, that the release
under bond of the deteriorating foodstuffs would be beneficial to all
parties concerned, does not cleanse the importation of its illegality
and will not justify their release under bond. The Tariff and Customs
Code expressly prohibits the release under bond of articles of
prohibited importation. Because "articles of prohibited importation"
are not allowed to be imported, the government expects no
revenue from such banned articles. Regarding this point, this Court
has held: .
It is utterly fallacious, therefore, when such banned goods are
nevertheless sought to be imported in violation of law, to assume
that it is to the interest of the Government, where the goods are
perishable to release them to the importer under bond to secure
payment of the appraised value thereof in case they are finally
declared forfeited in favor of the Government.
For the code expressly prohibits the release under bond of such
articles of prohibited importation. The Government expects no
revenue from such banned articles, since they are not allowed to be
imported. Otherwise, the law's prohibition would be rendered totally
nugatory, since such banned articles, which are mostly luxury
items, are in great demand and command sky-high prices assuring
great profit to the smuggler. The smuggler would have the greatest
profit motive to wreak havoc upon the currency by purchasing
dollars at the highest black market rates to purchase and bring in
these high-profit luxury items. Should he succeed in smuggling
them in, his venture is a complete success. If he is caught, then all
he has to do is put up a bond for the release of the goods "to
secure payment of the appraised value thereof" to the Government,
and he can still realize a substantial profit from the sale of the
banned goods thus released to him. All the measures designed by
the Central Bank to strengthen and stabilize our peso and to check
the unregulated flow of foreign exchange from the country with the
ultimate end of setting aright the country's economy and financial
position would thereby be set at naught. (Geotina vs. Court of Tax
Appeals, No. L-33500, August 30, 1971, 40 SCRA 362, 383-384.) .
Another issue raised by private respondent is that the instant
petition for certiorari is procedurally defective upon the grounds
that the disputed resolution of March 24, 1971 was already final
and unappealable because of the failure of petitioner to file a timely
motion for reconsideration. Regarding this point, it may be said that
if private respondent meant that the order of March 24, 1971 had
become unassailable and the lapse of fifteen days had given it
conclusiveness, said contention can not be sustained because the
order complained of is interlocutory, and an interlocutory order is
such that it is always subject to correction and amendment before
final judgment is rendered in the case.
Private respondent also argues that petitioner has not shown that
respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion or error of
jurisdiction in issuing the order complained of. Under Section 1 of
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, certiorari may issue not only when
the inferior court has acted with grave abuse of discretion, but also
when it has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Although a
court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties it has
been held that if a court has no power to give certain kinds of relief,
and it acts otherwise, it is acting without jurisdiction (14 Am. Jur.
2d, p. 786). It has been shown that the trial court could not, under
the law and decisions of this Court, order the release of the
forfeited imported foodstuffs, under bond, and in ordering its
release it had acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction.
Private respondent furthermore contends that petitioner had an
adequate remedy, that is appeal. Suffice it to state that a petition
for certiorari is the proper procedure for obtaining a relief from, or
review of, an interlocutory order. (14 Am. Jur. 2d., p. 789.) .
Private respondent finally urges that the instant petition is
defective in that the copies of the orders subject thereof were not
certified. This contention has no merit. The Rules of Court should be
liberally construed, for they are intended to secure a method by
which the issues may be properly laid before the court. When those
issues are already clear before the court, the deficiency in the
observance of the rules should not be given undue importance.
What is important is that the case is decided upon the merits and
that it should not be allowed to go off on procedural points. (Co
Tiamco v. Diaz, 75 Phil. 672.)
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the questioned resolutions of
respondent Court of Tax Appeals, dated March 24, 1971 and April
19, 1971 in its CTA Case No. 2206 entitled "Eusebio Dichoco,
petitioner, versus Commissioner of Customs, respondent" are
annulled and set aside, and the restraining order issued by this
Court on May 5, 1971 is made permanent. No pronouncement as to
costs. It is so ordered.
NO. Civil Case decision dismissed and nullified. TRO was made
permanent.
Applying the rule in statutory construction known as ejusdem
generis, that is where general words follow an enumeration of
persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning,
such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent,
but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same
kind or class as those specifically mentioned. The term
subordinate as used in E.O. Nos. 1 and 2 would refer to one who
enjoys a close association or relation with former Pres. Marcos
and/or his wife, similar to the immediate family member, relative,
and close associate in E.O. No. 1 and the close relative, business
associate, dummy, agent, or nominee in E.O. No. 2.

The PCGG is ENJOINED from proceeding with the investigation and

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. HON. MIGRINIO AND prosecution of private respondent, without prejudice to his
TROADIO TECSON G.R. No. 89483. August 30, 1990 investigation and prosecution by the appropriate prosecution
agency.
The New Armed Forces Anti-Graft Board (Board) under the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG)
recommended that private respondent Lt. Col. Troadio Tecson (ret.)
be prosecuted and tried for violation of Rep. Act No. 3019, as
amended, and Rep. Act No. 1379, as amended. Private respondent
Phils.
Gimenez
January
FACTS:
sodium
filed
Central
had
auditor
refused
audit
refund Inc.
precipitated
saccharinate
carbonate
as
phosphate,
manufactures.
importation
these
on
and the
exchangeThe
with
applications
specialpaid.
its
stabilizers
section
Exchange
to
General,
latter
ruling
the
maintaining
term
flavors
in section
refers
preparation
Supreme
the
flavors
imposed
No.
HELD:
under
only
based,
be
will in
manufacture
or food
satisfied,
petitioner
case
present
petition
ISSUE:
foreign
used
for
of the by
dental
the
601).
reversed.
The ruling
term
construction
general
unlimited
restrained
limited
them,
an of
is
restricted
result
be
language
applicable
cases
one
all general
enumeration
or
(ejusdem
In
stabilizer
true
number
that
food
is may
classified
connection
require
general
intended
ascertaining
these
on
and
601,
filedaid
intention
legislature
with
Phils.
Gimenez
January
FACTS:
the
exchange
Central
special
had
auditor
refused
audit
refund
stabilizers
flavors
section
Exchange
to
General,
latter
ruling
of
termthe
maintaining
refers
or food
satisfied,
petitioner
case
Supreme
foreign
for the
imposed
No.
HELD:
under
reversed.
The
in
only
used
based, by
dental
term
in
preparation
manufacture
food
principle in
other
Inc.
precipitated
saccharinate
carbonate
phosphate,
as
flavoring
dental 28
Colgate-Palmolive
Philippines
from
materialsabroadto
fixed
Officer-in-Charge
Administration,
toothpaste
theory are
2
Auditor
onlythe
for
review
special
flavors
to
food
principle
statutory
general law
items
fall
case
thatof
products,
immediately
other
following
belong to
classification.and
by
does28
Colgate-Palmolive
Philippines
from
materials
sodium abroad
are
2
Auditor
affirmed
of
only
present
petition
ISSUE: the
601).review
special
ruling
flavors
to law
construction
statutory
general
be those
restricted
result
general
will be
language
statutes
purpose.
however,
applicable
cases
one
all general
enumeration
or the
items
fall vs.
materials,
Central
other
incident
pursuant
Republic
601,
commonly
Law. as foreign
payment
Exchange the
to 1961
benzoate,
stabilizers
flavoring
dental cream of and
paid
to
Court
exchange
cream
17%
those
terms
limited
specific
statutes
purpose.
however, that
language
object
is
The or
brought
the
exempt
byGeneral
of
only
under
terms
materials,
Central
other
incident
pursuant
Republic
commonly
Law. as
with
applications
paid.foreign
payment
Exchange
The
itsofto
fixed
Officer-in-Charge
Administration,
the
toothpaste
theory of
the
stabilizer
section to
for and
terms
vs.
exchange1961
benzoate,
stabilizers
cream
manufactures.
importation ofpaid
used
that
not
Tax
but to Hon.
imported
such various
made
Bank
used
charges
thereto,
to
Act No.
known
petitioner
excise
of The
the
of
but
affirmed
of the
stabilizer pass
claims
not
Tax for
by
that
the
mentioned
2 thatas
calcium
for
the and
it use
to
Tax
17%
tax
particular
not
made
Bank
charges
thereto,
to
Act the
brought
Court
importation
is petitioner
cream
17%
exempt
byGeneral
of
refers
terms
limited
specific that
language
object
is
The or
products
only
under in
those
of
review.
importation
petitioner was
terms.
stabilizer
as
refers
productsbyby
term,
in
generis).
be
as at
articles
items
it
thedofood
with
rejection
merely
and
rules of
No.
known
petitioner
excise
of the
The
the
pass
claims for
by is
Hon.
imported
such various
as
calcium
for
the and
it to
Tax
17%
tax
Law.
the
auditor
that
mentioned
2 of the
the
those
review.
was
terms.
stabilizer
as
that
byby
term,
in the
for
the
the
on
Law.
the
auditor
that
of the
the of
and
food
thru
used
may
rule,
to
belong
an
one
bar,
term
but
same
not are
use
inas
of
and of
as
it
the
or
to
the
for
the
the
on of is
it
of
as
it
the
thru
used
food
may
rule,
to
belong
an
one is
moved to dismiss. The Board opposed. Private respondent filed a
(ejusdem
In
is
stabilizer
true
flavors
number
that
Gimenez
January
FACTS:
from
filed
Central
refund
special
had
auditor
refused
audit
section
to
general
will
one
all
on
and
had or may
classified
food
immediately
belongother
following
materials
sodium
on
and
General,
latter
ruling
Supreme
for
of
The
in
only
used be
language
statutes
purpose.
however,
applicable
cases
stabilizer
is true
flavors
number
that may
classified
food
immediately
belongother
following
restrained
limited
them,
from the
exchange
auditor
refused
audit
refund
ruling
in the case
with
applications
paid.
other
incident
pursuant
Republic
601,
commonly
Law.
filed as
paid.
maintaining
term
refers
preparation
or food
Supreme
used
for
of in
manufacture
satisfied,
petitioner
case that
its
maintaining
term
or section
refers
food
satisfied,
petitioner
case
present
petition
ISSUE:
foreign
the
flavors
imposed
Exchange
No.
HELD:
under
the by
dental
the
601).
reversed.
ruling
term to
classification.
unlimited
restrained
limited
them,
connection
require
general
intended
an
ascertaining
aid
intention
legislature
with
Phils. in
other
Inc.
abroad
precipitated
saccharinate
carbonate
phosphate,
as Central
the
exchange
other
incident
pursuant
Republic
601,
commonly
the
Law. as of of
products,
and
by
does28
Colgate-Palmolive
Philippines
stabilizers
flavoring
dental cream
manufactures.
importation
these of
foreign
payment
Exchange
The excise
of
2
is
flavors
to
in
preparation
manufacture
based, food
principle law
construction
statutory
general
be to
fixed
Officer-in-Charge
Administration,
toothpaste
theory
stabilizers are
Auditor
affirmed
of
only for
review
specialthose
restricted
result the
limited
specific
general
enumeration
(ejusdem
In items
fall
case
that
to
classification.
unlimited
connection
require
general
intended
an
ascertaining
aid
intention
legislature
with
Phils.
Gimenez
January
FACTS:
materials
sodium in
other
Inc.by
does
abroad
precipitated
saccharinate
carbonate
phosphate,
as of
products,
and
28
Colgate-Palmolive
Philippines
stabilizers
flavoring
dental cream
manufactures.
importation
these
the of
foreign
payment
Exchange
Central The
with
applications
itsof
of
to
fixed
Officer-in-Charge
Administration,
toothpaste
theory
stabilizers
section
to
General,
latter are
2
Auditor
affirmed
of
only
present
petition
ISSUE:
foreign
the
flavors
special
imposed
Exchange
No.
HELD:
under by
dental
the
601). is the
stabilizer
section the
for
review generis).
be
as
vs.
materials,
the
The
the
of
but
the
stabilizer
to at
and
the
terms
1961
paid
used
pass
claims
to
Court
exchange
17%of
terms
that
language
object
is
The
beonly
under
as at
and for
by
that
not
the
items
it
thedo
terms
materials,
Central paid
Act
The
the
of
but
the
to Bank
used
charges
thereto,
topass
claims
to
Court
exchange
17% No.
known
petitioner
for
by
that
not bar,
articles
items
it
thedofood
17%
that
mentioned
2 of
brought by
term,
in term
but
same
not
particular
not
terms with
rejection
merely
and
rules is
Hon.
imported
such
benzoate, various
made
Bank
charges
thereto,
to
Act of
No.
known
petitioner as
calcium
for
the and
it
tax
review.
importation
petitioner
cream
exempt
byTax the
Generalwas
terms.
stabilizer
as
refers
or
productsthat
by are
use
to
Taxinas
of
the
on
Law.
the
auditor
the
the
thoseand
thru
used
food
may
rule,
particular
not
terms
and
rules
vs.
1961 17% to
belong
generis). an
one
bar,
articles
food term
but
same
not
with
rejection
merely
imported
such
benzoate, is
Hon.
various
for
the and
it
made as
calcium
to
Tax are
useas
of
for
the
in
the
on
Law.
the
auditor
that
mentioned
2 of
or
brought the
the
those
of
review.
importation
petitioner
cream
exempt
excise
byTax the tax
was or
to
the
for
theof
or
to
the
of
and it
of
as
it
theis
it
of
as
it
the
food
thru
reversed.
The
only
based,
will special
ruling
term
flavors
language
all to
food
principle
statutory
general law
restricted
result
be
specific
statutes
purpose.
however,
applicable
cases
one general
enumeration
or
(ejusdem
In items
fall
case General
ofterms.
stabilizer
those
object
is
The
only
under as
refers
products
terms
limited that
language by
inby
term, used
may
rule,
to
belong
generis).
at an
one
bar, is
it
petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction with the Regional
Trial Court in Pasig, Metro Manila. According to petitioners, the
stabilizer
is
the
hadtrue
flavors
number
that
Gimenez
January
FACTS:
auditor
refused
audit
refund
will
one
all
In
on
to or may
classified
food
immediately
other
following
belong
unlimited
restrained
limited
them,
an
materials
sodium
on
and
Exchange
to
General,
latter
ruling
of
term
in the
be
languagewith
applications
paid.
toothpaste
purpose.
however,
applicable
cases
stabilizer
is
thetrue
flavors
number
that may
classified
food
immediately
belongother
following
restrained
limited
them,
an that
its
theory
stabilizers
flavors
section
maintaining
refers
used
manufacture
or
No. food
satisfied,
petitioner
HELD:
under
The
only
based,case
Supreme
present
petition
ISSUE:
foreign
for the
special
imposed by
dental
the
601).
reversed.
to
food
principle
statutory
general to
classification.
general
connection
require
general
intended
ascertaining
be
with aid
intention
legislature
construction
Phils. in
other
Inc.by
does
abroad
precipitated
saccharinate
carbonate
phosphate,
as Central
the
exchange
other
incident
pursuant
Republic
601,
commonly
Law.
filed as of
ofof
products,
and
28
Colgate-Palmolive
Philippines
from stabilizers
flavoring
dental cream
manufactures.
importation
these to
fixed
Officer-in-Charge
Administration,
are
2
Auditor
affirmed
of
review
special
ruling
term
flavors
law
limited
specific
statutes
general
enumeration
(ejusdem
connection
require
general
intended
ascertaining
be
with aid
intention
legislature
construction
Phils.
Gimenez
January
FACTS:
materials
sodium
precipitated
saccharinate
carbonate
phosphate,
as in
other
Inc.
Central
the
exchange
and
Central
had
auditor
refused
audit
refund other
incident
pursuant
Republic
601,
commonly
Law.
filed
General,
latter
ruling as
with
applications
paid.
toothpaste
maintaining
term
or section
refers
food
satisfied,
petitioner
case
Supreme
petition
ISSUE:
foreign
for
of the
flavors
special
imposed
Exchange
No.
HELD:
under by
dental be
of
materials,
foreign
payment
Exchange
Central The and
as
the
the
stabilizer
section
preparation
inonlytheto
for The
the
language
items
fall
case
that
to
classification.
unlimited by
does of
products,
and
28
Colgate-Palmolive
Philippines
from abroad
stabilizers
flavoring
dental cream
manufactures.
importation
these the
articles
items
it
thedo
terms
pass
claims
of
Tax
but
exchange
is to
cream
17%
those
restricted
result
general object
foreign
payment
Exchange
The
its
theory
stabilizers
section of
of
to
fixed
Officer-in-Charge
Administration,
are
2
Auditor
only
present
the
601).
reversed. is
ofThe
beonly
under
and
as food
1961
paid
used for
by
that
not
the
or
brought
Court
General
of
refers
products
terms
that
the
terms
materials,
paid
the
The
the
but
affirmed
of the
stabilizer Bank
used
charges
thereto,
to
Actpass
claims
of
mentioned
to
for 2
exchange
review
special toof 17%
that
mentioned
2 of of
review.
importation
petitioner
exempt
excise
by by
term,
in
of
No.
known
petitioner
for
by
that
not term
but
same
not
that
particular
not
terms
and
rules
vs. with
rejection
merely is
Hon.
imported
such
benzoate, various
made
Bank
charges
thereto,
to
Act No.
known
petitioner as
calcium
for
the and
it
tax
was
terms.
stabilizer
as
that
by are
use
to
Taxinas
of
the
on
Law.
the
auditor
the
the
thoseand
food
thru
used
may
rule,
articles
items
it
thedofood
particular
not
terms
and
rules
vs.
1961 17%
the to
belong
generis).
at an
one
bar,
term
but
same
not
with
rejection
merely
imported
such
benzoate, is
Hon.
various
as
calcium
for
the and
it
made to
Tax are
use
in
auditor
that
brought
Court the
the
those
review.
importation
is petitioner
cream
17%
exempt
excise
byTax the
General tax
was
terms. as
of or
to
the
for
theofof
as
it
the
or
to
the
for
the
the
on
Law. of
and is
it
of
as
it
the
thru
PCGG has the power to investigate and cause the prosecution of
private respondent because he is a subordinate of former
President Marcos. Respondent alleged that he is not one of the
The
in
only
used
the the
based,
sodium ruling
term
flavors
language
flavors
number
that
food
is
require to
in
preparation
manufacture
food
principle
statutory
general
may
classified
following
belong
unlimited
restrained
limited
them,
general
intended
an law
specific
statutes
purpose.
however,
applicable
cases
one
all general
enumeration
In or
(ejusdem
stabilizer
true
ascertaining
be
with aid
intention
legislature
construction
Phils.
Gimenez
January
FACTS:
from
precipitated
saccharinate
carbonate
phosphate,
as
flavoring
dental
importation
these
on
and
filedthe
exchange
Central
special
had
auditor
refused
audit
refund other
incident
pursuant
Republic
601,
commonly
Law.
Exchange
to
General,
latter
ruling
of
in the
refers
used
or
the foodas
Exchange
The
with
applications
paid.
its
theory
stabilizers
flavors
section
maintaining
term those
restricted
result
general
will be to
classification.
connection
in
other
materials Inc.
abroad
ofthe
of
products,
immediately
other and
by
does28
Colgate-Palmolive
Philippines beof
stabilizer
terms
limited that
language
items
fall
case
that object
is
The
only
under
as
it
the
benzoate,
stabilizers
cream
manufactures.fixed
Officer-in-Charge
Administration,
toothpaste are
2 of
materials,
Central
foreign
payment excise
of
toclaims
Auditor
affirmed
of of
the
stabilizer
section
preparation
in
manufacture
satisfied,
petitioner
case
Supreme only
present
petition the
for Tax
but
the
to as
refers
or
products
the
for
the
paid
used that
by
in
charges
thereto,
to
Act
The
the
pass
to by
that
not
the by
term,
articles
items
do
termsfood
not
terms
and
rules
vs.
1961 and
it
made
Bankof
No.
known
petitioner
for
that
mentioned
2 of
or
brought
Court used
food
may
rule,
to
belong
generis).
at
and an
one
bar,
term
but
same
not
particular
with
rejection
merely is
Hon.
imported
such various
as
calciumare
use
to
Tax
17%
tax
theinas
of or
to
the
for
the
the
on
Law.
the
auditor
the
those
review of
and is
itit
of
as
the
food
thru
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE PHILS. INC. VS. HON. Gimenez G.R. No.
L-14787 January 28 1961
subordinates contemplated in Executive Orders 1, 2, 14 and 14-A
as the alleged illegal acts being imputed to him, that of alleged The petitioner Colgate-Palmolive Philippines imported from abroad
amassing wealth beyond his legal means while Finance Officer of various materials such as irish moss extract, sodium benzoate,
the Philippine Constabulary, are acts of his own alone, not sodium saccharinate precipitated calcium carbonate and dicalcium
connected with his being a crony, business associate, etc. or phosphate, for use as stabilizers and flavoring of the dental cream
subordinate as the petition does not allege so. Hence the PCGG it manufactures. For every importation made of these materials, the
has no jurisdiction to investigate him. petitioner paid to the Central Bank of the Philippines the 17%
special excise tax on the foreign exchange used for the payment of
ISSUE: the cost, transportation and other charges incident thereto,
pursuant to Republic Act No. 601, as amended, commonly known as
Whether or not private respondent acted as a subordinate under the Exchange Tax Law. The petitioner filed with the Central Bank
E.O. No.1 and related executive orders. three applications for refund of the 17% special excise tax it had
paid. The auditor of the Central Bank, refused to pass in audit its
HELD: claims for refund fixed by the Officer-in-Charge of the Exchange Tax
Administration, on the theory that toothpaste stabilizers and flavors
are not exempt under section 2 of the Exchange Tax Law.Petitioner
appealed to the Auditor General, but the latter affirmed the ruling on the grounds (1) that it was alleged that the accused entered the
of the auditor of the Central Bank, maintaining that the term
stabilizer and flavors mentioned in section 2 of the Exchange Tax land through stealth and strategy, whereas under the decree the
Law refers only to those used in the preparation or manufacture of entry should be effected with the use of force, intimidation or
food or food products. Not satisfied, the petitioner brought the case threat, or taking advantage of the absence or tolerance of the
to the Supreme Court thru the present petition for review.
landowner, and (2) that under the rule of ejusdem generis the
ISSUE:
importation
imposed
Law
HELD:
terms.
law
and
terms (Republic
limited
however,
belong
thefood
or termThe
refers
food
may
by
toby of
the
the
is
or dental
Act
ruling
only
products
be to of
restricted
specific
applicable
fall under
stabilizer
products,
classification.
Whether the
or same
not but
the cream
Exchange
No.
the
those
isand601).
based,
it byTax
language
only
one to exchange
cases
isflavors
foreign used by petitioner for the decree does not apply to the cultivation of a grazing land. From the
importation of dental cream stabilizers and flavors is exempt from order of dismissal, the fiscal appealed to this Court under Republic
the 17% special excise tax imposed by the Exchange Tax Law Act No. 5440.
(Republic Act No. 601). ISSUE:
YES. The decision under review was reversed. General and special Whether or not P.D. No. 772 which penalizes squatting and similar
terms. The ruling of the Auditor General that the term stabilizer acts, (also) apply to agricultural lands.
and flavors as used in the law refers only to those materials
actually used in the preparation or manufacture of food and food HELD:
products is based, apparently, on the principle of statutory
construction that general terms may be restricted by specific NO. Appeal was devoid of merit. Trial courts dismissal was
words, with the result that the general language will be limited by affirmed.
the specific language which indicates the statutes object and The lower court correctly ruled that the decree does not apply to
purpose. The rule, however, is applicable only to cases where, pasture lands because its preamble shows that it was intended to
except for one general term, all the items in an enumeration belong
to or fall under one specific class (ejusdem generis). In the case at apply to squatting in urban communities or more particularly to
bar, it is true that the term stabilizer and flavorsis preceded by a illegal constructions in squatter areas made by well-to-do
number of articles that may be classified as food or food products, individuals. The squating complained of involves pasture lands in
but it is likewise true that the other items immediately following it rural areas.
do not belong to the same classification.
The rule of ejusdem generis (of the same kind or species) invoked
The rule of construction that general and unlimited terms are by the trial court does not apply to this case. Here, the intent of the
restrained and limited by particularrecitals when used in connection decree is unmistakable. It is intended to apply only to urban
with them, does not require the rejection of general terms entirely.
communities, particularly to illegal constructions. The rule
It is intended merely as an aid in ascertaining the intention of the
legislature and is to be taken in connection with other rules of of ejusdem generis is merely a tool of statutory construction which
construction. is resorted to when the legislative intent is uncertain.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ECHAVEZ G.R. No. 47757-
61 January 28, 1980

FACTS:
Petitioner Ello filed with the lower court separate informations
against sixteen persons charging them with squatting as penalized
by Presidential Decree No. 772. Before the accused could be
arraigned, respondent Judge Echaves motu proprio issued an
omnibus order dismissing the five informations (out of 16 raffled)
VERA VS. CUEVAS G.R. Nos. L-33693-94 May 31, 1979 The Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction which restrained
the CIR from requiring private respondents to print on the labels of
Private respondents (the companies) are engaged in the their rifled milk products the words.
manufacture, sale and distribution of filled milk products
throughout the Philippines. Private respondent, Institute of Special Civil Action No. 52383, on the other hand, is an action for
Evaporated Filled Milk Manufacturers of the Philippines, is a prohibition and injunction with a petition for preliminary injunction.
corporation organized for the principal purpose of upholding and Respondent-companied therein pray that the respondent Fair Trade
maintaining at its highest the standards of local filled milk industry, Board desist from further proceeding from the action filed by the
of which all the other private respondents are members. Philippine Association of Nutrition for misleading advertisement,
mislabeling and/or misbranding. That petitoners' milk was not
Civil Case No. 52276 is an action for declaratory relief with ex-parte labeled as an imitation of cow's milk.
petition for preliminary injunction wherein plaintiffs pray for an
adjudication of their respective rights and obligations in relation to Both cases was heard jointly.
the enforcement of Section 169 of the Tax Code against their filled
milk products. Respondent court held to perpetually restrain the CIR and the Fair
Trade Board from requiring respondent-companies to print on the
The controversy arose when the Commissioner of Internal Revenue labels on the filled milk products.
required the companies to withdraw from the market all of their
filled milk products which do not bear the inscription required by ISSUE: Whether respondent court was correct.
Section 169 of the Tax Code within fifteen (15) days from receipt of
the order with a warning of action if they failed. RULING:

Section of the Tax Code is as follows: Yes.

Section 169. Inscription to be placed on skimmed milk. All Section 169 of the Tax code has been repealed by implication. It
condensed skimmed milk and all milk in whatever form, from which was enacted together with Sections 141 and 177, which were
the fatty part has been removed totally or in part, sold or put on already repealed. Through it, Section 169 became a merely
sale in the Philippines shall be clearly and legibly marked on its declaratory provision, without a tax purpose, or a penal sanction.
immediate containers, and in all the language in which such
containers are marked, with the words, "This milk is not suitable for It was also apparent that Section 169 does not apply to filled milk.
nourishment for infants less than one year of age," or with other Following ejusdem generis, the provision specifically stated
equivalent words. skimmed milk which implies a restriction in scope of the classes of
milk.