G.R. No.

72005 May 29, 1987

PHILIPPINE BRITISH ASSURANCE CO., INC., petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT; SC!IN COATING
" !IRES, INC., a#$ DOMINADOR CACPAL, CHIE% DEPUT SHERRI%
O% MANILA, respondents.

GANCACO, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on certiorari of the Resolution dated September
12, 1985 of the ntermediate !ppellate "ourt in !"#$.R. %o. "R#&5'&9 1
(rantin( private respondent)s motion for e*ecution pendin( appeal and orderin( the issuance of the correspondin( writ of e*ecution
on the counterbond to lift attachment filed b+ petitioner. The focal issue that emer(es is whether an order of e*ecution pendin(
appeal of a ,ud(ment ma+be enforced on the said bond. n the Resolution of September 25, 1985
2
this "ourt as pra+ed
for, without necessaril+ (ivin( due course to the petition, issued a temporar+ restrainin( order
en,oinin( the respondents from enforcin( the order complaint of.
The records disclose that private respondent S+cwin "oatin( - .ires, nc., filed a complaint
for collection of a sum of mone+ a(ainst /arian ndustrial "orporation before the Re(ional
Trial "ourt of 0ue1on "it+. 2urin( the pendenc+ of the suit, private respondent succeeded in
attachin( some of the properties of /arian ndustrial "orporation upon the postin( of a
supersedeas bond.
&
The latter in turn posted a counterbond in the sum of P1,'&&, &&&.&&
'
thru
petitioner Philippine 3ritish !ssurance "o., nc., so the attached properties were released.
4n 2ecember 28, 198', the trial court rendered a 2ecision, the dispositive portion of which
reads5
.67R784R7, plaintiff)s 9otion for Summar+ :ud(ment is hereb+
$R!%T72, and ,ud(ment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff and a(ainst
the defendant /arian ndustrial "orporation, and the latter is hereb+
ordered5
1. To pa+ plaintiff the amount of P1,'&1,';8.&&, the principal obli(ation
with 12< interest per annum from the date of default until full+ paid=
2. To pa+ plaintiff 5< of the principal obli(ation as li>uidated dama(es=
?. To pa+ plaintiff P?&,&&&.&& as e*emplar+ dama(es=
'. To pa+ plaintiff 15< of P1,'&1,';8.&&, the principal obli(ation, as and
for attorne+)s fees= and
5. To pa+ the costs of suit.
!ccordin(l+, the counterclaim of the defendant is hereb+ 2S9SS72 for
lac@ of merit.
S4 4R27R72.
5

/arian ndustrial "orporation appealed the decision to the respondent "ourt. S+cwin then filed
a petition for e*ecution pendin( appeal a(ainst the properties of /arian in respondent "ourt.
/arian was re>uired to file its comment but none was filed. n the Resolution of :ul+ 5, 1985,
respondent "ourt ordered the e*ecution pendin( appeal as pra+ed for.
(
6owever, the writ of
e*ecution was returned unsatisfied as /arian failed to deliver the previousl+ attached personal
properties upon demand. n a Petition dated !u(ust 1?, 1985 filed with respondent "ourt
S+cwin pra+ed that the suret+ Aherein petitionerB be ordered to pa+ the value of its bond.
7
n
compliance with the Resolution of !u(ust 2?, 1985 of the respondent "ourt herein petitioner
filed its comment.
8
n the Resolution of September 12, 1985,
9
the respondent "ourt (ranted
the petition. 6ence this action.
t is the submission of private respondent S+cwin that without a previous motion for
reconsideration of the >uestioned resolution, certiorari would not lie. .hile as a (eneral rule a
motion for reconsideration has been considered a condition sine qua non for the (rantin( of a
writ of certiorari, this rule does not appl+ when special circumstances warrant immediate or
more direct action. 10 t has been held further that a motion for reconsideration ma+ be dispensed with in cases li@e this
where e*ecution had been ordered and the need for relief was e*tremel+ ur(ent. 11
The counterbond provides5
.67R7!S, in the above#entitled case pendin( in the Re(ional Trial "ourt, %ational "apital :udicial
Re(ion, 3ranch CDDD/, 0ue1on "it+, an order of !ttachment was issued a(ainst abovenamed
2efendant=
.67R7!S, the 2efendant, for the purpose of liftin( andEor dissolvin( the order of attachment issued
a(ainst them in the above#en#titled case, have offered to file a counterbond in the sum of P7S4S 4%7
9CC4% 84FR 6F%2R72 T64FS!%2 4%CGAP1,'&&,&&&.&&B, Philippine "urrenc+, as provided
for in Section 5, Rule 5H of the Revised Rules of "ourt.
%4., T67R784R7, we, /!R!% %2FSTR!C "4RP4R!T4%, as Principal and the
P6CPP%7 3RTS6 !SSFR!%"7 "49P!%G, %"., a corporation dul+ or(ani1ed and e*istin(
under and b+ virtue of the laws of the Philippines, as Suret+, in consideration of the above and of the
liftin( or dissolution of the order of attachment, hereb+ ,ointl+ and severall+, bind ourselves in favor of
the above Plaintiff in the sum of P7S4S 4%7 9CC4% 84FR 6F%2R72 T64FS!%2 4%CG
AP1,'&&,&&&.&&B, Philippine "urrenc+, under the condition that in case the Plaintiff recovers ,ud(ment
in the action, and 2efendant will, on demand, re#deliver the attached propert+ so released to the 4fficer
of the "ourt and the same shall be applied to the pa+ment of the ,ud(ment, or in default thereof, the
defendant and Suret+ will, on demand, pa+ to the Plaintiff the full value of the propert+ released.
7D7"FT72 at 9anila, Philippines, this 28th da+ of :une, 198'. 12
Sections 5, 12, and 1H of Rule 5H of the Revised Rules of "ourt also provide5
S7". 5. 9anner of attachin( propert+. I The officer e*ecutin( the order shall without dela+ attach, to
await ,ud(ment and e*ecution in the action, all the properties of the part+ a(ainst whom the order is
issued in the province, not e*empt from e*ecution, or so much thereof as ma+ be sufficient to satisf+
the applicant)s demand, unless the former ma@es a deposit with the cler@ or ,ud(e of the court from
which the order issued, or (ives a counter#bond e*ecuted to the applicant, in an amount sufficient to
satisf+ such demand besides costs, or in an amount e>ual to the value of the propert+ which is about to
be attached, to secure payment to the applicant of any judgement ment which he may recover in the
action. The officer shall also forthwith serve a cop+ of the applicant)s affidavit and bond, and of the
order of attachment, on the adverse part+, if he be found within the province.
S7". 12. 2ischar(e of attachment upon (ivin( counterbond. I !t an+ time after an order of
attachment has been (ranted, the part+ whose propert+ has been attached, or the person appearin( on
his behalf, ma+, upon reasonable notice to the applicant, appl+ to the ,ud(e who (ranted the order, or to
the ,ud(e of the court in which the action is pendin(, for an order dischar(in( the attachment wholl+ or
in part on the securit+ (iven. The ,ud(e shall, after hearin(, order the dischar(e of the attachment if a
cash deposit is made, or a counter#bond e*ecuted to the attachin( creditor is filed, on behalf of the
adverse part+, with the cler@ or ,ud(e of the court where the application is made, in an amount e>ual to
the value of the propert+ attached as determined b+ the ,ud(e, to secure the payment of any judgment
that the attaching creditor may recover in the action. Fpon the filin( of such counter#bond, cop+
thereof shall forthwith be served on the attachin( creditor or his law+er. Fpon the dischar(e of an
attachment in accordance with the provisions of this section the propert+ attached, or the proceeds of
an+ sale thereof, shall be delivered to the part+ ma@in( the deposit or (ivin( the counterbond aforesaid
standin( in place of the propert+ so released. Should such counterbond for an+ reason be found to be,
or become, insufficient, and the part+ furnishin( the same fail to file an additional counterbond, the
attachin( creditor ma+ appl+ for a new order of attachment.
S7". 1H. .hen e*ecution returned unsatisfied, recover+ had upon bond. I f the e*ecution be returned
unsatisfied in whole or in part, the surety or sureties on any counter-bond given pursuant to the
provisions of this rule to secure the payment of the judgment shall become charged on such counter-
bond, and bound to pay to the judgement creditor upon demand, the amount due under the judgment,
which amount ma+ be recovered from such suret+ or sureties after notice and summar+ hearin( in the
same action. A7mphasis supplied.B
Fnder Sections 5 and 12, Rule 5H above reproduced it is provided that the counterbond is intended to secure the pa+ment of "any
judgment" that the attachin( creditor ma+ recover in the action. Fnder Section 1H of same rule it provides that when Jthe e*ecution
be returned unsatisfied in whole or in partJ it is onl+ then that Jpa+ment of the judgment shall become char(ed on such
counterbond.J
The counterbond was issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 5, Rule 5H of the Rules of "ourt as provided in the
second para(raph aforecited which is deemed reproduced as part of the counterbond. n the third para(raph it is also stipulated that
the counterbond is to be Japplied for the pa+ment of the ,ud(ment.J %either the rules nor the provisions of the counterbond limited
its application to a final and e*ecutor+ ,ud(ment. ndeed, it is specified that it applies to the pa+ment of any judgment that ma+be
recovered b+ plaintiff. Thus, the onl+ lo(ical conclusion is that an e*ecution of an+ ,ud(ment includin( one pendin( appeal if
returned unsatisfied ma+be char(ed a(ainst such a counterbond.
t is well reco(ni1ed rule that where the law does not distin(uish, courts should not distin(uish. Ubi lex non distinguish nec nos
distinguere debemos. 1& JThe rule, founded on lo(ic, is a corollar+ of the principle that (eneral words and phrases in a statute
should ordinaril+ be accorded their natural and (eneral si(nificance. 1' The rule re>uires that a (eneral term or phrase should not
be reduced into parts and one part distin(uished from the other so as to ,ustif+ its e*clusion from the operation of the law. 15 n
other words, there should be no distinction in the application of a statute where none is indicated.1( 8or courts are not authori1ed
to distin(uish where the law ma@es no distinction. The+ should instead administer the law not as the+ thin@ it ou(ht to be but as
the+ find it and without re(ard to conse>uences. 17
! corollar+ of the principle is the rule that where the law does not ma@e an+ e*ception, courts ma+ not e*cept somethin(
therefrom, unless there is compellin( reason apparent in the law to ,ustif+ it.18 Thus where a statute (rants a person a(ainst whom
possession of Jan+ landJ is unlawfull+ withheld the ri(ht to brin( an action for unlawful detainer, this "ourt held that the phrase
Jan+ landJ includes all @inds of land, whether a(ricultural, residential, or mineral.19 Since the law in this case does not ma@e an+
distinction nor intended to ma@e an+ e*ception, when it spea@s of Jan+ ,ud(mentJ which ma+be char(ed a(ainst the counterbond,
it should be interpreted to refer not onl+ to a final and e*ecutor+ ,ud(ment in the case but also a ,ud(ment pendin( appeal.
!ll that is re>uired is that the conditions provided for b+ law are complied with, as outlined in the case of Towers ssurance
!orporation v. "rorama #upermart,
20

Fnder Section 1H, in order that the ,ud(ment creditor mi(ht recover from
the suret+ on the counterbond, it is necessar+ A1B that the e*ecution be first
issued a(ainst the principal debtor and that such e*ecution was returned
unsatisfied in whole or in part= A2B that the creditor ma@e a demand upon
the suret+ for the satisfaction of the ,ud(ment, and A?B that the suret+ be
(iven notice and a summar+ hearin( on the same action as to his liabilit+
for the ,ud(ment under his counterbond.
The rule therefore, is that the counterbond to lift attachment that is issued in accordance with
the provisions of Section 5, Rule 5H, of the Rules of "ourt, shall be char(ed with the pa+ment
of any judgment that is returned unsatisfied. t covers not onl+ a final and e*ecutor+ ,ud(ement
but also the e*ecution of a ,ud(ment pendin( appeal.
.67R784R7, the petition is hereb+ 2S9SS72 for lac@ of merit and the restrainin( order
issued on September 25, 1985 is hereb+ dissolved with costs a(ainst petitioner.
S4 4R27R72.
G.R. No. 1152'5 )*+y 11, 1995
)UANITO C. PILAR, ,-././o#-0,12.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, 0-2,o#$-#..
3UIASON, ).4
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule ;5 of the Revised Rules of "ourt assailin( the
Resolution dated !pril 28, 199' of the "ommission on 7lections A"497C7"B in F%2 %o.
9'#&'&.

4n 9arch 22, 1992, petitioner :uanito ". Pilar filed his certificate of candidac+ for the
position of member of the San((unian( Panlalawi(an of the Province of sabela.
4n 9arch 25, 1992, petitioner withdrew his certificate of candidac+.
n 9.R. %os. 9?#2;5' and 9'#&&;5 dated %ovember ?, 199? and 8ebruar+ 1?, 199'
respectivel+, the "497C7" imposed upon petitioner the fine of Ten Thousand Pesos
AP1&,&&&.&&B for failure to file his statement of contributions and e*penditures.
n 9.R. %o. 9'#&59' dated 8ebruar+ 2', 199', the "497C7" denied the motion for
reconsideration of petitioner and deemed final 9.R. %os. 9?#2;5' and 9'#&&;5 ARollo, p. 1'B.
Petitioner went to the "497C7" 7n 3anc AF%2 %o. 9'#&'&B, which denied the petition in a
Resolution dated !pril 28, 199' ARollo, pp. 1&#1?B.
6ence, this petition for certiorari.
.e dismiss the petition.

Section 1' of R.!. %o. H1;; entitled J!n !ct Providin( for S+nchroni1ed %ational and Cocal
7lections and for 7lectoral Reforms, !uthori1in( !ppropriations Therefor, and for 4ther
PurposesJ provides as follows5
Statement of "ontributions and 7*penditures5 7ffect of 8ailure to 8ile Statement. 7ver+
candidate and treasurer of the political part+ shall, within thirt+ A?&B da+s after the da+ of the
election, file in duplicate with the offices of the "ommission the full, true and itemi1ed
statement of all contributions and e*penditures in connection with the election.
%o person elected to an+ public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has
filed the statement of contributions and e*penditures herein re>uired.
The same prohibition shall appl+ if the political part+ which nominated the winnin( candidate
fails to file the statement re>uired herein within the period prescribed b+ this !ct.
7*cept candidates for elective baran(a+ office, failure to file the statements or reports in
connection with electoral contributions and e*penditures as re>uired herein shall constitute an
administrative offense for which the offenders shall be liable to pa+ an administrative fine
ran(in( from 4ne Thousand Pesos A P1,&&&.&&B to Thirt+ Thousand Pesos AP?&,&&&.&&B, in the
discretion of the "ommission.
The fine shall be paid within thirt+ A?&B da+s from receipt of notice of such failure= otherwise,
it shall be enforceable b+ a writ of e*ecution issued b+ the "ommission a(ainst the properties
of the offender.
t shall be the dut+ of ever+ cit+ or municipal election re(istrar to advise in writin(, b+
personal deliver+ or re(istered mail, within five A5B da+s from the date of election all
candidates residin( in his ,urisdiction to compl+ with their obli(ation to file their statements of
contributions and e*penditures.
8or the commission of a second or subse>uent offense under this Section, the administrative
fine shall be from Two Thousand Pesos AP2,&&&.&&B to Si*t+ Thousand Pesos AP;&,&&&.&&B, in
the discretion of the "ommission. n addition, the offender shall be sub,ect to perpetual
dis>ualification to hold public office A7mphasis suppliedB.
To implement the provisions of law relative to election contributions and e*penditures, the
"497C7" promul(ated on :anuar+ 1?, 1992 Resolution %o. 2?'8 ARe5 Rules and
Re(ulations $overnin( 7lectoral "ontributions and 7*penditures in "onnection with the
%ational and Cocal 7lections on
9a+ 11, 1992B. The pertinent provisions of said Resolution are5
Sec. 1?. Statement of contributions and e*penditures5 Reminders to candidates to file
statements. .ithin five A5B da+s from the da+ of the election, the Caw 2epartment of the
"ommission, the re(ional election director of the %ational "apital Re(ion, the provincial
election supervisors and the election re(istrars shall advise in writin( b+ personal deliver+ or
re(istered mail all candidates who filed their certificates of candidac+ with them to compl+
with their obli(ation to file their statements of contributions and e*penditures in connection
with the elections. 7ver+ election re(istrar shall also advise all candidates residin( in his
,urisdiction to compl+ with said obli(ation A7mphasis suppliedB.
Sec. 1H. 7ffect of failure to file statement. AaB %o person elected to an+ public office shall
enter upon the duties of his office until he has filed the statement of contributions and
e*penditures herein re>uired.
The same prohibition shall appl+ if the political part+ which nominated the winnin( candidates
fails to file the statement re>uired within the period prescribed b+ law.
AbB 7*cept candidates for elective baran(a+ office, failure to file statements or reports in
connection with the electoral contributions and e*penditures as re>uired herein shall constitute
an administrative offense for which the offenders shall be liable to pa+ an administrative fine
ran(in( from 4ne Thousand Pesos AP1,&&&B to Thirt+ Thousand Pesos AP?&,&&&B, in the
discretion of the "ommission.
The fine shall be paid within thirt+ A?&B da+s from receipt of notice of such failure= otherwise,
it shall be enforceable b+ a writ of e*ecution issued b+ the "ommission a(ainst the properties
of the offender.
8or the commission of a second or subse>uent offense under this section, the administrative
fine shall be from Two Thousand Pesos AP2,&&&B to Si*t+ Thousand Pesos AP;&,&&&B, in the
discretion of the "ommission. n addition, the offender shall be sub,ect to perpetual
dis>ualification to hold public office.
Petitioner ar(ues that he cannot be held liable for failure to file a statement of contributions
and e*penditures because he was a Jnon#candidate,J havin( withdrawn his certificates of
candidac+ three da+s after its filin(. Petitioner posits that Jit is . . . clear from the law that
candidate must have entered the political contest, and should have either won or lostJ ARollo,
p. ?9B.
Petitioner)s ar(ument is without merit.
Section 1' of R.!. %o. H1;; states that Jever+ candidateJ has the obli(ation to file his
statement of contributions and e*penditures.
.ell#reco(ni1ed is the rule that where the law does not distin(uish, courts should not
distin(uish, Fbi le* non distin(uit nec nos distin(uere debemos APhilippine 3ritish !ssurance
"o. nc. v. ntermediate !ppellate "ourt, 15& S"R! 52& K198HL= cf 4lfato v. "ommission on
7lections, 1&? S"R! H'1 K1981LB. %o distinction is to be made in the application of a law
where none is indicated ACo "ham v. 4campo, HH Phil. ;?; K19';LB.
n the case at bench, as the law ma@es no distinction or >ualification as to whether the
candidate pursued his candidac+ or withdrew the same, the term Jever+ candidateJ must be
deemed to refer not onl+ to a candidate who pursued his campai(n, but also to one who
withdrew his candidac+.
The "497C7", the bod+ tas@ed with the enforcement and administration of all laws and
re(ulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall
AThe "onstitution of the Republic of the Philippines, !rt. DA"B, Sec. 2K1LB, issued Resolution
%o. 2?'8 in implementation or interpretation of the provisions of Republic !ct %o. H1;; on
election contributions and e*penditures. Section 1? of Resolution %o. 2?'8 cate(oricall+
refers to Jall candidates who filed their certificates of candidac+.J
8urthermore, Section 1' of the law uses the word Jshall.J !s a (eneral rule, the use of the
word JshallJ in a statute implies that the statute is mandator+, and imposes a dut+ which ma+
be enforced , particularl+ if public polic+ is in favor of this meanin( or where public interest is
involved. .e appl+ the (eneral rule A3aranda v. $ustilo, 1;5 S"R! H5H K1988L= 2io@no v.
Rehabilitation 8inance "orporation, 91 Phil. ;&8 K1952LB.
The state has an interest in seein( that the electoral process is clean, and ultimatel+ e*pressive
of the true will of the electorate. 4ne wa+ of attainin( such ob,ective is to pass le(islation
re(ulatin( contributions and e*penditures of candidates, and compellin( the publication of the
same. !dmittedl+, contributions and e*penditures are made for the purpose of influencin( the
results of the elections A3.P. 3l(. 881, Sec. 9'= Resolution %o. 2?'8, Sec. 1B. Thus, laws and
re(ulations prescribe what contributions are prohibited A3.P. 3l(. 881, Sec. 95, Resolution %o.
2?'8, Sec. 'B, or unlawful A3.P. 3l(. 881, Sec. 9;B, and what e*penditures are authori1ed A3.P.
3l(. 881, Sec. 1&2= R.!. %o. H1;;, Sec. 1?= Resolution %o. 2?'8, Sec. HB or lawful
AResolution %o. 2?'8, Sec. 8B.
Such statutes are not peculiar to the Philippines. n Jcorrupt and ille(al practices actsJ of
several states in the Fnited States, as well as in federal statutes, e*penditures of candidates are
re(ulated b+ re>uirin( the filin( of statements of e*penses and b+ limitin( the amount of
mone+ that ma+ be spent b+ a candidate. Some statutes also re(ulate the solicitation of
campai(n contributions A2; !m :ur 2d, 7lections M 28HB. These laws are desi(ned to compel
publicit+ with respect to matters contained in the statements and to prevent, b+ such publicit+,
the improper use of mone+s devoted b+ candidates to the furtherance of their ambitions A2;
!m :ur 2d, 7lections M 289B. These statutes also enable voters to evaluate the influences
e*erted on behalf of candidates b+ the contributors, and to furnish evidence of corrupt
practices for annulment of elections ASpar@man v. Sa+lor K"ourt of !ppeals of Nentuc@+L, 18&
N+. 2;?, 2&2 S... ;'9 K1918LB.
State courts have also ruled that such provisions are mandator+ as to the re>uirement of filin(
AState e* rel. 3utchofs@+ v. "rawford K"ourt of "ivil !ppeals of Te*asL, 2;9 S... 2d 5?;
K195'L= 3est v. Sidebottom, 2H& N+. '2?,1&9 S... 2d 82; K19?HL= Spar@man v. Sa+lor, supra.B
t is not improbable that a candidate who withdrew his candidac+ has accepted contributions
and incurred e*penditures, even in the short span of his campai(n. The evil sou(ht to be
prevented b+ the law is not all too remote.
t is notesworth+ that Resolution %o. 2?'8 even contemplates the situation where a candidate
ma+ not have received an+ contribution or made an+ e*penditure. Such a candidate is not
e*cused from filin( a statement, and is in fact re>uired to file a statement to that effect. Fnder
Section 15 of Resolution %o. 2?'8, it is provided that JKiLf a candidate or treasurer of the part+
has received no contribution, made no e*penditure, or has no pendin( obli(ation, the statement
shall reflect such fact.J
Castl+, we note that under the fourth para(raph of Section H? of the 3.P. 3l(. 881 or the
4mnibus 7lection "ode of the Philippines, it is provided that JKtLhe filin( or withdrawal of
certificate of candidac+ shall not affect whatever civil, criminal or administrative liabilities
which a candidate ma+ have incurred.J Petitioner)s withdrawal of his candidac+ did not
e*tin(uish his liabilit+ for the administrative fine.
.67R784R7, the petition is 2S9SS72.
%arvasa, ".:., 8eliciano, Re(alado, 2avide, :r., Romero, 3ellosillo, Puno, /itu(, 9endo1a and
8rancisco, ::., concur.
Napunan, :., is on leave.
Separate 4pinions
97C4, :., dissentin(5
The ma,orit+ opinion is to the effect that ever+ candidate, includin( one who has withdrawn
his certificate of candidac+, is obli(ed to file his statement of contributions and e*penditures in
line with Section 1' of Republic !ct %o. H1;; vis#a#vis the pertinent portions of "omelec
Resolution %o. 2?'8. must concede that the use of the word JshallJ in the main statute as
well as the implementin( rules (enerall+ su((est mandatoriness as to cover all candidates.
3ut is an anspirant for public office who had a sudden chan(e of heart, so to spea@, still
considered a candidate to be(in withO am of the impression that he is not and is thus not
bound to render an accountin( subse>uent to election for the simple reason that the term
)candidate) is used to desi(nate a person who actuall+ submits himself and is voted for at our
election ASantos vs. 9iranda, ?5 Phil. ;'?, ;'8 A191;B citin( State vs. 6irsch, 125 nd., 2&H= 9
C.R.!. 1&H= 9oreno, Philippine Caw 2ictionar+, 19H2 2nd ed., p. 8'B "ertainl+, one who
withdraws his certificate of candidac+ ? da+s after the filin( thereof, can not be voted for at an
election. !nd considerin( the shortness of the period of ? da+s from the filin( to the
withdrawal of the certificate of candidac+, petitioner cannot be accused, as indeed there is no
such char(e, of utili1in( his aborted candidac+ for purposes to raise funds or to e*tort mone+
from other candidates in e*chan(e for the withdrawal.
, therefore, vote to (rant the petition.
Padilla, :., concurs.
G.R. No. 110898 %-50*a0y 20, 199(
PEOPLE O% THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
HON. )UDGE ANTONIO C. E6ANGELISTA, a2 P0-2/$/#7 )*$7- o8 B0a#9: ;;I, 10.: )*$/9/a+
R-7/o#, RTC o8 M/2a</2 O0/-#.a+, Ca7aya# $- O0o C/.y, a#$ GRILDO S. TUGONON, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
MENDO=A, J.4
Private respondent $rildo S. Tu(onan was char(ed with frustrated homicide in the Re(ional Trial "ourt of
9isamis 4riental A3ranch 21B, the information a(ainst him alle(in(
That on or about the 2;th da+ of 9a+, 1988, at more or less 95&& o)cloc@ in the evenin( at
3aran(a+ PublicanP.?, 9unicipalit+ of /illanueva, Province of 9isamis 4riental, Republic of
the Philippines and within the ,urisdiction of this 6onorable "ourt, the above#named accused
with intent to @ill and with the use of a @nife, which he was then convenientl+ provided of, did
then and there willfull+, unlawfull+ and feloniousl+ assault, attac@ and stab Ro>ue T. 3ade
thereb+ inflictin( upon him the followin( in,uries, to wit5
Stab wound, ri(ht iliac area,
&.5 cm. penetratin( non
perforatin( laceratin( posterior
peritoneum, &,5 cm.
thus performin( all the acts of e*ecution which would produce the crime of 6omicide as a
conse>uence but which, nevertheless, did not produce it b+ reason of causes independent of the
will of the accused, that is b+ timel+ medical attendance which prevented his death.
"4%TR!RG T4 and in violation of !rticle 2'9 in relation to !rticle ; of the Revised Penal
"ode.
!fter trial he was found (uilt+ and sentenced to one +ear of prision correccional in its minimum period
and ordered to pa+ to the offended part+ P5,&&&.&& for medical e*pense, without subsidiar+ imprisonment,
and the costs. The RT" appreciated in his favor the privile(ed miti(atin( circumstances of incomplete
self#defense and the miti(atin( circumstance of voluntar+ surrender.
4n appeal the "ourt of !ppeals affirmed private respondent)s conviction but modified his sentence b+
imposin( on him an indeterminate penalt+ of 2 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 2 +ears and '
months of prision correccional, as ma*imum.
1
4n 2ecember 21, 1992, respondent :ud(e !ntonio ". 7van(elista of the RT" set the case for
repromul(ation on :anuar+ ', 199?.
4n 2ecember 28, 1992, private respondent filed a petition for probation,
2
alle(in( that A1B he possessed all
the >ualifications and none of the dis>ualifications for probation under P.2. %o. 9;8, as amended= A2B the
"ourt of !ppeals has in fact reduced the penalt+ imposed on him b+ the trial court= A?B in its resolution,
the "ourt of !ppeals too@ no action on a petition for probation which he had earlier filed with it so that the
petition could be filed with the trial court= A'B in the trial court)s decision, two miti(atin( circumstances of
incomplete self#defense and voluntaril+ surrender were appreciated in his favor= and A5B in #antos To v.
$a%o,
?
the Supreme "ourt upheld the ri(ht of the accused to probation notwithstandin( the fact that he had
appealed from his conviction b+ the trial court.
4n 8ebruar+ 2, 199?, the RT" ordered private respondent to report for interview to the Provincial
Probation 4fficer. The Provincial Probation 4fficer on the other hand was re>uired to submit his report
with recommendation to the court within ;& da+s.
'
4n 8ebruar+ 18, 199?, "hief Probation and Parole 4fficer sias 3. /aldehue1a recommended denial of
private respondent)s application for probation on the (round that b+ appealin( the sentence of the trial
court, when he could have then applied for probation, private respondent waived the ri(ht to ma@e his
application. The Probation 4fficer thou(ht the present case to be distin(uishable from #antos To v. $a%o
in the sense that in this case the ori(inal sentence imposed on private respondent b+ the trial court A1 +ear
of imprisonmentB was probationable and there was no reason for private respondent not to have filed his
application for probation then, whereas in #antos To v. $a%o the penalt+ onl+ became probationable after
it had been reduced as a result of the appeal.
4n !pril 1;, 199? /aldehue1a reiterated
5
his Jrespectful recommendation that private respondent)s
application for probation be denied and that a warrant of arrest be issued for him to serve his sentence in
,ail.J
The RT" set aside the Probation 4fficer)s recommendation and (ranted private respondent)s application
for probation in its order of !pril 2?, 199?,
;
6ence this petition b+ the prosecution.
The issue in this case is whether the RT" committed a (rave abuse of its discretion b+ (rantin( private
respondent)s application for probation despite the fact that he had appealed from the ,ud(ment of his
conviction of the trial court.
The "ourt holds that it did.
Fntil its amendment b+ P.2. %o. 199& in 198;, it was possible under P.2. %o. 98;, otherwise @nown as
the Probation Caw, for the accused to ta@e his chances on appeal b+ allowin( probation to be (ranted even
after an accused had appealed his sentence and failed to obtain an ac>uittal, ,ust so lon( as he had not +et
started to serve the sentence.
H
!ccordin(l+, in #antos To v. $a%o, it was held that the fact that the accused
had appealed did not bar him from appl+in( for probation especiall+ because it was as a result of the
appeal that his sentence was reduced and made the probationable limit.
The law was, however, amended b+ P.2. %o. 199& which too@ effect on :anuar+ 15, 198;
8
precisel+ to put
a stop to the practice of appealin( from ,ud(ments of conviction even if the sentence is probationable for
the purpose of securin( an ac>uittal and appl+in( for probation onl+ if the accused fails in his bid. Thus, as
amended b+ P.2. %o, 199&, M' of the Probation Caw now reads5
M'. &rant of $robation. Sub,ect to the provisions of this 2ecree, the trial court ma+, after it
shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant, and upon application b+ said defendant within
the period for perfecting an appeal, suspend the e*ecution of the sentence and place the
defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it ma+ deem
best= $rovided, That no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the
defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction.
Probation ma+ be (ranted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine onl+.
!n application for probation shall be filed with the trial court. The filing of the application
shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal.
!n order (rantin( or den+in( probation shall not be appealable. A7mphasis addedB.
Since private respondent filed his application for probation on 2ecember 28, 1992, after P.2. %o. 199&
had ta@en effect,
9
it is covered b+ the prohibition that Jno application for probation shall be entertained or
(ranted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the ,ud(ment of convictionJ and that Jthe filin( of
the application shall be deemed a waiver of the ri(ht to appeal,J 6avin( appealed from the ,ud(ment of
the trial court and havin( applied for probation onl+ after the "ourt of !ppeals had affirmed his
conviction, private respondent was clearl+ precluded from the benefits of probation.
Private respondent ar(ues, however, that a distinction should be drawn between meritorious appeals Ali@e
his appeal notwithstandin( the appellate court)s affirmance of his convictionB and unmeritorious appeals.
3ut the law does not ma@e an+ distinction and so neither should the "ourt. n fact if an appeal is trul+
meritorious the accused would be set free and not onl+ (iven probation. Private respondent)s ori(inal
sentence A1 +ear of prision correccional in its minimum periodB and the modified sentence imposed b+ the
"ourt of !ppeals A2 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 2 +ears and ' months of prision
correccional, as ma*imumB are probationable. Thus the fact that he appealed meant that private
respondent was ta@in( his chances which the law precisel+ frowns upon. This is precisel+ the evil that the
amendment in P.2. %o. 199& sou(ht to correct, since in the words of the preamble to the amendator+ law,
Jprobation was not intended as an escape hatch and should not be used to obstruct and dela+ the
administration of ,ustice, but should be availed of at the first opportunit+ b+ offenders who are willin( to
be reformed and rehabilitated.J
The rulin( of the RT" that JKhLavin( not perfected an appeal a(ainst the "ourt of !ppeals decision,
Kprivate respondentL is, therefore, not covered b+ Kthe amendment inL P.2. 199&J is an obvious misreadin(
of the law. The perfection of the appeal referred in the law refers to the .appeal ta@en from a ,ud(ment of
conviction b+ the trial court and not that of the appellate court, since under the law an application for
probation is filed with the trial court which can onl+ (rant the same Jafter it shall have convicted and
sentenced KtheL defendant, and upon application b+ said defendant within the period for perfectin( an
appeal. J!ccordin(l+, in 'lamado v. !ourt of ppeals,
1&
it was held that the petitioner who had appealed
his sentence could not subse>uentl+ appl+ for probation.
.67R784R7, the petition is $R!%T72 and the order of !pril 2?, 199? of the Re(ional Trial "ourt of
9isamis 4riental A3ranch 21B (rantin( probation to private respondent $rildo S. Tu(onon is S7T !S27.
S4 4R27R72.
(egalado, (omero and $uno, ))., concur.
%oo.#o.-2
*
+ecision dated )anuary ,-, *..,, per ssociate )ustice 'orna #. 'ombods-dela /uente and concurred in by ssociate
)ustices lfredo 0. 0arigomen and )ainal +. (asul, $etition nnex +, (ollo, pp. 11-1..
,
$etition, nnex /, (ollo, pp. 2*-2-.
-
*,3 #!( 4 5*.4-6.
1
$etition, nnex 7, (ollo, p. 28.
2
$etition, nnex 9, (ollo, pp. 88-8:.
8
$etition, nnex , (ollo, pp. ,4---.
:
$.+. 9o. .84, ;1< as amended by $.+. 9o. *,4: provided=
#ec. 1. &rant of $robation. #ubject to the provisions of this +ecree, the court may, after it shall have convicted
and sentenced a defendant but before he begins to serve his sentence and upon his application, suspend the
execution of said sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and
conditions as it may deem best.
The prosecuting officer concerned shall be notified by the court of the filing of the application for probation
and he may submit his comment on such application within ten days from receipt of the notification.
$robation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine with subsidiary
imprisonment in ease of in solvency. n application for probation shall be filed with the trial court, with notice
to the appellate court if an appeal has been ta>en from the sentence of conviction. The filing of the application
shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal, or the automatic withdrawal of a pending appeal. 7n the latter
case, however, if the application is filed on or after the date of the judgment of the appellate court, said
application shall be acted upon by the trial court on the basis of the judgment of the appellate court
n order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable. 5?mphasis added6.
4
$.+. 9o. *..3 was promulgated on "ctober 2, *.42 and was published in the "fficial &a@ette on +ecember -3, *.42. Under
its effectivity clause it shall ta>e effect "after *2 days following its publication in the "fficial &a@ette."
.
$.+. 9o. *..3, ;- provides that the "provisions of #ection 1 of $.+. 9o. .84, as above amended, shall not apply to those who
have already filed their respective applications for probation at the time of the effectivity of this +ecree."
G.R. No. 87'1( A,0/+ 8, 1991
CECILIO S. DE 6ILLA, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT O% APPEALS, PEOPLE O% THE PHILIPPINES, HONORABLE )OB B.
MADAAG, a#$ ROBERTO =. LORAES, respondents.
#an )ose ?nrique@, 'acas #antos A Borje for petitioner.
?duardo (. (obles for private respondent.
PARAS, J.:p
This petition for review on certiorari see@s to reverse and set aside the decision > of the "ourt of !ppeals
promul(ated on 8ebruar+ 1, 1989 in "!#$.R. SP %o. 1;&H1 entitled J"ecilio S. de /illa vs. :ud(e :ob 3.
9ada+a(, etc. and Roberto Q. Cora+es,J dismissin( the petition for certiorari filed therein.
The factual bac@drop of this case, as found b+ the "ourt of !ppeals, is as follows5
4n 4ctober 5, 198H, petitioner "ecilio S. de /illa was char(ed before the Re(ional Trial "ourt of the %ational
"apital :udicial Re(ion A9a@ati, 3ranch 1'5B with violation of 3atas Pambansa 3ilan( 22, alle(edl+ committed
as follows5
That on or about the ?rd da+ of !pril 198H, in the municipalit+ of 9a@ati, 9etro 9anila, Philippines and within
the ,urisdiction of this 6onorable "ourt, the above#named accused, did, then and there willfull+, unlawfull+ and
feloniousl+ ma@e or draw and issue to R437RT4 Q. C4R!G7Q, to appl+ on account or for value a 2epositors
Trust "ompan+ "hec@ %o. ??H1 antedated 9arch ?1, 198H, pa+able to herein complainant in the total amount of
F.S. R2,5&&.&& e>uivalent to P5&,&&&.&&, said accused well @nowin( that at the time of issue he had no sufficient
funds in or credit with drawee ban@ for pa+ment of such chec@ in full upon its presentment which chec@ when
presented to the drawee ban@ within ninet+ A9&B da+s from the date thereof was subse>uentl+ dishonored for the
reason J%SF88"7%T 8F%2SJ and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor said accused failed to pa+ said
R437RT4 Q. C4R!G7Q the amount of P5&,&&&.&& of said chec@ or to ma@e arran(ement for full pa+ment of
the same within five A5B ban@in( da+s after receivin( said notice.
!fter arrai(nment and after private respondent had testified on direct e*amination, petitioner moved to dismiss
the nformation on the followin( (rounds5 AaB Respondent court has no ,urisdiction over the offense char(ed= and
AbB That no offense was committed since the chec@ involved was pa+able in dollars, hence, the obli(ation created
is null and void pursuant to Republic !ct %o. 529 A!n !ct to !ssure Fniform /alue of Philippine "oin and
"urrenc+B.
4n :ul+ 19, 1988, respondent court issued its first >uestioned orders statin(5
!ccused)s motion to dismiss dated :ul+ 5, 1988, is denied for lac@ of merit.
Fnder the 3ouncin( "hec@s Caw A3.P. 3l(. 22B, forei(n chec@s, provided the+ are either drawn and issued in the
Philippines thou(h pa+able outside thereof, or made pa+able and dishonored in the Philippines thou(h drawn and
issued outside thereof, are within the covera(e of said law. The law li@ewise applied to chec@s drawn a(ainst
current accounts in forei(n currenc+.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration but his motion was subse>uentl+ denied b+ respondent court in its order
dated September ;, 1988, and which reads5
!ccused)s motion for reconsideration, dated !u(ust 9, 1988, which was opposed b+ the prosecution, is denied for
lac@ of merit.
The 3ouncin( "hec@s Caw is applicable to chec@s drawn a(ainst current accounts in forei(n currenc+
AProceedin(s of the 3atasan( Pambansa, 8ebruar+ H, 19H9, p. 1?H;, cited in 9a@ati RT" :ud(e Anow 9anila "it+
8iscalB :esus 8. $uerrero)s The Ramifications of the Caw on 3ouncin( "hec@s, p. 5B. A(ollo, !nne* J!J,
2ecision, pp. 2&#22B.
! petition for certiorari see@in( to declare the nullit+ of the afore>uoted orders dated :ul+ 19, 1988 and
September ;, 1988 was filed b+ the petitioner in the "ourt of !ppeals wherein he contended5
AaB That since the >uestioned chec@ was drawn a(ainst the dollar account of petitioner
with a forei(n ban@, respondent court has no ,urisdiction over the same or with accounts
outside the territorial ,urisdiction of the Philippines and that 3atas Pambansa 3ilan( 22
could have not contemplated e*tendin( its covera(e over dollar accounts=
AbB That assumin( that the sub,ect chec@ was issued in connection with a private
transaction between petitioner and private respondent, the pa+ment could not be le(all+
paid in dollars as it would violate Republic !ct %o. 529= and
AcB That the obli(ation arisin( from the issuance of the >uestioned chec@ is null and void
and is not enforceable with the Philippines either in a civil or criminal suit. Fpon such
premises, petitioner concludes that the dishonor of the >uestioned chec@ cannot be said to
have violated the provisions of 3atas Pambansa 3ilan( 22. A(ollo, !nne* J!J, 2ecision,
p. 22B.
4n 8ebruar+ 1, 1989, the "ourt of !ppeals rendered a decision, the decretal portion of which reads5
.67R784R7, the petition is hereb+ dismissed. "osts a(ainst petitioner.
S4 4R27R72. A(ollo, !nne* J!J, 2ecision, p. 5B
! motion for reconsideration of the said decision was filed b+ the petitioner on 8ebruar+ H, 1989 A(ollo, Petition,
p. ;B but the same was denied b+ the "ourt of !ppeals in its resolution dated 9arch ?, 1989 A(ollo, !nne* J3J, p.
2;B.
6ence, this petition.
n its resolution dated %ovember 1?, 1989, the Second 2ivision of this "ourt (ave due course to the petition and
re>uired the parties to submit simultaneousl+ their respective memoranda A(ollo, Resolution, p. 81B.
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the Re(ional Trial "ourt of 9a@ati has ,urisdiction over the case in
>uestion.
The petition is without merit.
:urisdiction is the power with which courts are invested for administerin( ,ustice, that is, for hearin( and decidin(
cases A/elunta vs. Philippine "onstabular+, 15H S"R! 1'H K1988LB.
:urisdiction in (eneral, is either over the nature of the action, over the sub,ect matter, over the person of the
defendant, or over the issues framed in the pleadin(s A3alais vs. 3alais, 159 S"R! ?H K1988LB.
:urisdiction over the sub,ect matter is determined b+ the statute in force at the time of commencement of the
action A2e la "ru1 vs. 9o+a, 1;& S"R! 5?8 K1988LB.
The trial court)s ,urisdiction over the case, sub,ect of this review, can not be >uestioned.
Sections 1& and 15AaB, Rule 11& of the Rules of "ourt specificall+ provide that5
Sec. 1&. $lace of the commission of the offense. The complaint or information is sufficient if it can be
understood therefrom that the offense was committed or some of the essential in(redients thereof
occured at some place within the ,urisdiction of the court, unless the particular place wherein it was
committed constitutes an essential element of the offense or is necessar+ for identif+in( the offense
char(ed.
Sec. 15. $lace where action is to be instituted. AaB Sub,ect to e*istin( laws, in all criminal
prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipalit+ or territor+ where
the offense was committed or an+ of the essential in(redients thereof too@ place.
n the case of $eople vs. Con. 0an@anilla A15; S"R! 2H9 K198HL cited in the case of Cim vs. Rodri(o, 1;H
S"R! '8H K1988LB, the Supreme "ourt ruled Jthat ,urisdiction or venue is determined b+ the alle(ations in the
information.J
The information under consideration specificall+ alle(ed that the offense was committed in 9a@ati, 9etro 9anila
and therefore, the same is controllin( and sufficient to vest ,urisdiction upon the Re(ional Trial "ourt of 9a@ati.
The "ourt ac>uires ,urisdiction over the case and over the person of the accused upon the filin( of a complaint or
information in court which initiates a criminal action ARepublic vs. Sun(a, 1;2 S"R! 191 K1988LB.
9oreover, it has been held in the case of 0ue v. People of the Philippines A15' S"R! 1;& K198HL cited in the case
of People vs. $rospe, 15H S"R! 15' K1988LB that Jthe determinative factor Ain determinin( venueB is the place of
the issuance of the chec@.J
4n the matter of venue for violation of 3atas Pambansa 3ilan( 22, the 9inistr+ of :ustice, citing the case of
People vs. Gabut AH; S"R! ;2' K19HHL, laid down the followin( (uidelines in 9emorandum "ircular %o. ' dated
2ecember 15, 1981, the pertinent portion of which reads5
A1B /enue of the offense lies at the place where the chec@ was e*ecuted and delivered= A2B the place
where the chec@ was written, si(ned or dated does not necessaril+ fi* the place where it was
e*ecuted, as what is of decisive importance is the deliver+ thereof which is the final act essential to
its consummation as an obli(ation= . . . ARes. %o. ?HH, s. 198&, 8ilte* 9f(. "orp. vs. 9anuel "hua,
4ctober 28, 198&B.J A#ee The Caw on 3ouncin( "hec@s !nal+1ed b+ :ud(e :esus 8. $uerrero,
Philippine Caw $a1ette, /ol. H. %os. 11 - 12, 4ctober#2ecember, 198?, p. 1'B.
t is undisputed that the chec@ in >uestion was e*ecuted and delivered b+ the petitioner to herein private
respondent at 9a@ati, 9etro 9anila.
6owever, petitioner ar(ues that the chec@ in >uestion was drawn a(ainst the dollar account of petitioner with a
forei(n ban@, and is therefore, not covered b+ the 3ouncin( "hec@s Caw A3.P. 3l(. 22B.
3ut it will be noted that the law does not distin(uish the currenc+ involved in the case. !s the trial court correctl+
ruled in its order dated :ul+ 5, 19885
Fnder the 3ouncin( "hec@s Caw A3.P. 3l(. 22B, forei(n chec@s, provided the+ are either drawn and
issued in the Philippines thou(h pa+able outside thereof . . . are within the covera(e of said law.
t is a cardinal principle in statutor+ construction that where the law does not distin(uish courts should not
distin(uish. Parentheticall+, the rule is that where the law does not ma@e an+ e*ception, courts ma+ not e*cept
somethin( unless compellin( reasons e*ist to ,ustif+ it APhil. 3ritish !ssurance "o., nc. vs. !", 15& S"R! 52&
K198HLB.
9ore importantl+, it is well established that courts ma+ avail themselves of the actual proceedin(s of the
le(islative bod+ to assist in determinin( the construction of a statute of doubtful meanin( APalanca vs. "it+ of
9anila, '1 Phil. 125 K192&LB. Thus, where there is doubts as to what a provision of a statute means, the meanin(
put to the provision durin( the le(islative deliberation or discussion on the bill ma+ be adopted A!renas vs. "it+
of San "arlos, 82 S"R! ?18 K19H8LB.
The records of the 3atasan, /ol. , unmista@abl+ show that the intention of the lawma@ers is to appl+ the law to
whatever currenc+ ma+ be the sub,ect thereof. The discussion on the floor of the then 3atasan( Pambansa full+
sustains this view, as follows5
*** *** ***
T67 SP7!N7R. The $entleman from 3asilan is reco(ni1ed.
9R. TFP!G. Parliamentar+ in>uir+, 9r. Spea@er.
T67 SP7!N7R. The $entleman ma+ proceed.
9R. TFP!G. 9r. Spea@er, it has been mentioned b+ one of the $entlemen who interpellated that an+ chec@ ma+ be
involved, li@e F.S. dollar chec@s, etc. .e are tal@in( about chec@s in our countr+. There are F.S. dollar chec@s, chec@s, in
our currenc+, and man+ others.
T67 SP7!N7R. The Sponsor ma+ answer that in>uir+.
9R. 97%24Q!. The bill refers to any chec>, 0r. #pea>er, and this chec> may be a chec> in whatever currency. This
would not even be limited to U.#. dollar chec>s. The chec> may be in /rench francs or )apanese yen or deutschunorhs.
5sic.6 7f drawn, then this bill will apply.
9R TFP!G. #o it include U.#. dollar chec>s.
9R. 97%24Q!. Des, 0r. #pea>er.
*** *** ***
Ap. 1?H;, Records of the 3atasan, /olume = 7mphasis suppliedB.
PR79S7S "4%S27R72, the petition is 2S9SS72 for lac@ of merit.

G.R. No. L?1'787 )a#*a0y 28, 19(1
COLGATE?PALMOLI6E PHILIPPINE, INC., petitioner,
vs.
HON. PEDRO M. GIMENE= a2 A*$/.o0 G-#-0a+ a#$ ISMAEL MATHA a2 AUDITOR O% THE
CENTRAL BAN@ O% THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
(oss, #elph and !arrascoso for petitioner.
"ffice of the #olicitor &eneral for respondents.
GUTIERRE= DA6ID, J.4
The petitioner "ol(ate#Palmolive Philippines, nc. is a corporation dul+ or(ani1ed and e*istin( under
Philippine laws en(a(ed in the manufacture of toilet preparations and household remedies. 4n several
occasions, it imported from abroad various materials such as irish moss e*tract, sodium ben1oate, sodium
saccharinate precipitated calcium carbonate and dicalcium phosphate, for use as stabili1ers and flavorin(
of the dental cream it manufactures. 8or ever+ importation made of these materials, the petitioner paid to
the "entral 3an@ of the Philippines the 1H< special e*cise ta* on the forei(n e*chan(e used for the
pa+ment of the cost, transportation and other char(es incident thereto, pursuant to Republic !ct %o. ;&1,
as amended, commonl+ @nown as the 7*chan(e Ta* Caw.
4n 9arch 1', 195;, the petitioner filed with the "entral 3an@ three applications for refund of the 1H<
special e*cise ta* it had paid in the a((re(ate sum of P11?,?'?.99. The claim for refund was based on
section 2 of Republic !ct ;&1, which provides that Jforei(n e*chan(e used for the pa+ment of the cost,
transportation andEor other char(es incident to the importation into the Philippines of . . . stabili1er and
flavors . . . shall be refunded to an+ importer ma@in( application therefor, upon satisfactor+ proof of actual
importation under the rules and re(ulations to be promul(ated pursuant to section seven thereof.J !fter the
applications were processed b+ the officer#in#char(e of the 7*chan(e Ta* !dministration of the "entral
3an@, that official advised, the petitioner that of the total sum of P11?,?'?.99 claimed b+ it for refund, the
amount of P2?,958.1? representin( the 1H< special e*cise ta* on the forei(n e*chan(e used to import
irish moss e*tract, sodium ben1oate and precipitated calcium carbonate had been approved. The auditor of
the "entral 3an@, however, refused to pass in audit its claims for refund even for the reduced amount fi*ed
b+ the 4fficer#in#"har(e of the 7*chan(e Ta* !dministration, on the theor+ that toothpaste stabili1ers and
flavors are not e*empt under section 2 of the 7*chan(e Ta* Caw.
Petitioner appealed to the !uditor $eneral, but the latter or, 2ecember ', 1958 affirmed the rulin( of the
auditor of the "entral 3an@, maintainin( that the term Jstabili1er and flavorsJ mentioned in section 2 of
the 7*chan(e Ta* Caw refers onl+ to those used in the preparation or manufacture of food or food
products. %ot satisfied, the petitioner brou(ht the case to this "ourt thru the present petition for review.
The decisive issue to be resolved is whether or not the forei(n e*chan(e used b+ petitioner for the
importation of dental cream stabili1ers and flavors is e*empt from the 1H< special e*cise ta* imposed b+
the 7*chan(e Ta* Caw, ARepublic !ct %o. ;&1B so as to entitle it to refund under section 2 thereof, which
reads as follows5
S7", 2. The ta* collected under the precedin( section on forei(n e*chan(e used for the
pa+ment of the cost, transportation andEor other char(es incident to importation into the
Philippines of rice, flour, canned mil@, cattle and beef, canned fish, so+a beans, butterfat,
chocolate, malt s+rup, tapioca, stabili1er and flavors, vitamin concentrate, fertili1er, poultr+
feed= te*tboo@s, reference boo@s, and supplementar+ readers approved b+ the 3oard of
Te*tboo@s andEor established public or private educational institutions= newsprint imported b+
or for publishers for use in the publication of boo@s, pamphlets, ma(a1ines and newspapers=
boo@ paper, boo@ cloth, chip board imported for the printin( of supplementar+ readers
Aapproved b+ the 3oard of Te*tboo@sB to be supplied to the $overnment under contracts
perfected before the approval of this !ct, the >uantit+ thereof to be certified b+ the 2irector of
Printin(= anesthetics, anti#biotics, vitamins, hormones, *#ra+ films, laborator+ rea(ents,
biolo(icals, dental supplies, and pharmaceutical dru(s necessar+ for compoundin( medicines=
medical and hospital supplies listed in the appendi* to this !ct, in >uantities to be certified b+
the 2irector of 6ospitals as actuall+ needed b+ the hospitals appl+in( therefor= dru(s and
medicines listed in the said appendi*= and such other dru(s and medicines as ma+ be certified
b+ the Secretar+ of 6ealth from time to time to promote and protect the health of the people of
the Philippines shall be refunded to an+ importer ma@in( application therefor, upon satisfactor+
proof of actual importation under the rules and re(ulations to be promul(ated pursuant to
section seven thereof.J A7mphasis supplied.B
The rulin( of the !uditor $eneral that the term Jstabili1er and flavorsJ as used in the law refers onl+ to
those materials actuall+ used in the preparation or manufacture of food and food products is based,
apparentl+, on the principle of statutor+ construction that J(eneral terms ma+ be restricted b+ specific
words, with the result that the (eneral lan(ua(e will be limited b+ the specific lan(ua(e which indicates
the statute)s ob,ect and purpose.J AStatutor+ "onstruction b+ "rawford, 19'& ed. p. ?2'#?25.B The rule,
however, is, in our opinion, applicable onl+ to cases where, e*cept for one (eneral term, all the items in an
enumeration belon( to or fall under one specific class. n the case at bar, it is true that the term Jstabili1er
and flavorsJ is preceded b+ a number of articles that ma+ be classified as food or food products, but it is
li@ewise true that the other items immediatel+ followin( it do not belon( to the same classification. Thus
Jfertili1erJ and Jpoultr+ feedJ do not fall under the cate(or+ of food or food products because the+ are
used in the farmin( and poultr+ industries, respectivel+. J/itamin concentrateJ appears to be more of a
medicine than food or food product, for, as matter of fact, vitamins are amon( those enumerated in the list
of medicines and dru(s appearin( in the appendi* to the law. t should also here be stated that JcattleJ,
which is amon( those listed precedin( the term in >uestion, includes not onl+ those intended for slau(hter
but also those for breedin( purposes. !(ain, it is noteworth+ that under, Republic !ct %o. 81' amendin(
the above#>uoted section of Republic !ct %o. ;&1, Jindustrial starchJ, which does not alwa+s refer to food
for human consumption, was added amon( the items (rouped with Jstabili1er and flavorsJ. Thus, on the
basis of the (roupin( of the articles alone, it cannot validl+ be maintained that the term Jstabili1er and
flavorsJ as used in the above#>uoted provision of the 7*chan(e Ta* Caw refers onl+ to those used in the
manufacture of food and food products. This view is supported b+ the principle JFbi le* non distin(uish
nec nos distin(uire debemosJ, or Jwhere the law does not distin(uish, neither do we distin(uishJ. ACi((et
- 9+ers Tobacco "ompan+ vs. "ollector of nternal Revenue, 5? 4ff. $a1. %o. 15, pa(e '8?1B. Since the
law does not distin(uish between Jstabili1er and flavorsJ used in the preparation of food and those used in
the manufacture of toothpaste or dental cream, we are not authori1ed to ma@e an+ distinction and must
construe the words in their (eneral sense. The rule of construction that (eneral and unlimited terms are
restrained and limited b+ particular recitals when used in connection with them, does not re>uire the
re,ection of (eneral terms entirel+. t is intended merel+ as an aid in ascertainin( the intention of the
le(islature and is to be ta@en in connection with other rules of construction. ASee 6andboo@ of the
"onstruction and nterpretation of Caws b+ 3lac@, p. 215.21;, 2nd ed.B
6avin( arrived at the above conclusion, we deem it now idle to pass upon the other >uestions raised b+ the
parties.
.67R784R7, the decision under review is reversed and the respondents are hereb+ ordered to audit
petitioners applications for refund which were approved b+ the 4fficer#in#"har(e of the 7*chan(e Ta*
!dministration in the total amount of P2?,958.1?.
AG.R. No. 89'8&. A*7*2. &0, 1990.B
REPUBLIC O% THE PHILIPPINES THRU4 THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD
GO6ERNMENT CPCGGD, A%P ANTI?GRA%T BOARD, COL. ERNESTO A. PUNSALANG a#$
PETER T. TABANG, Petitioners, 1. HON. EUTROPIO MIGRINO, a2 P0-2/$/#7 )*$7-, R-7/o#a+
T0/a+ Co*0., NC)R, B0a#9: 151, Pa2/7, M-.0o Ma#/+a a#$ TROADIO TECSON, Respondents.
T:- So+/9/.o0 G-#-0a+, 8o0 Petitioners.
Pa9/8/9o B. A$1/#9*+a 8o0 Private Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CORTES, J.4
This case puts in issue the authorit+ of the Presidential "ommission on $ood $overnment AP"$$B,
throu(h the %ew !rmed 8orces of the Philippines !nti#$raft 3oard Ahereinafter referred to as the
J3oardJB, to investi(ate and cause the prosecution of petitioner, a retired militar+ officer, for violation of
Republic !cts %os. ?&19 and 1?H9.
!ssailed b+ the Republic in this petition for certiorari, prohibition andEor mandamus with pra+er for the
issuance of a writ of preliminar+ in,unction andEor temporar+ restrainin( order are the orders of
respondent ,ud(e in "ivil "ase %o. 5H&92 3ranch 151 of the Re(ional Trial "ourt of Pasi(, 9etro 9anila5
A1B dated :une 2?, 1989, den+in( petitionersS 9otion to 2ismiss and 4pposition, and A2B dated :une 2;,
1989, (rantin( private respondentSs application for the issuance of a writ of preliminar+ in,unction. Thus,
the petition see@s the annulment of the two orders, the issuance of an in,unction to en,oin respondent
,ud(e from proceedin( with "ivil "ase %o. 5H&92 and, finall+, the dismissal of the case before the trial
court.
The controvers+ traces its roots to the order of then P"$$ "hairman :ovito R. Salon(a, dated 9a+ 1?,
198;, which created the %ew !rmed 8orces of the Philippines !nti#$raft 3oard. The 3oard was created to
Jinvesti(ate the une*plained wealth and corrupt practices of !8P personnel, both retired and in active
service.J The order further stated thatJ KtLhe 3oard shall be primaril+ char(ed with the tas@ of investi(atin(
cases of alle(ed violations of the !nti#$raft and "orrupt Practices !ct ARepublic !ct %o. ?&19, as
amendedB and shall ma@e the necessar+ recommendations to appropriate (overnment a(encies and
instrumentalities with respect to the action to be ta@en thereon based on its findin(s.Jcralaw virtua1aw librar+
!ctin( on information received b+ the 3oard, which indicated the ac>uisition of wealth be+ond his lawful
income, private respondent Ct. "ol. Troadio Tecson Aret.B was re>uired b+ the 3oard to submit his
e*planationEcomment to(ether with his supportin( evidence b+ 4ctober ?1, 198H K!nne* J3J, PetitionL.
Private respondent re>uested, and was (ranted, several postponements, but was unable to produce his
supportin( evidence because the+ were alle(edl+ in the custod+ of his boo@@eeper who had (one abroad.
:ust the same, the 3oard proceeded with its investi(ation and submitted its resolution, dated :une ?&,
1988, recommendin( that private respondent be prosecuted and tried for violation of Rep. !ct %o. ?&19,
as amended, and Rep. !ct %o. 1?H9, as amended.chanrobles lawlibrar+ 5 rednad
The case was set for preliminar+ investi(ation b+ the P"$$. Private respondent moved to dismiss the
case on the followin( (rounds5 A1B that the P"$$ has no ,urisdiction over his person= A2B that the action
a(ainst him under Rep. !ct %o. 1?H9 has alread+ prescribed= A?B that 7.4. %o. 1', insofar as it suspended
the provisions of Rep. !ct %o. 1?H9 on prescription of actions, was inapplicable to his case= and A'B that
havin( retired from the !8P on 9a+ 9, 198', he was now be+ond the reach of Rep. !ct %o. ?&19. The
3oard opposed the motion to dismiss.
n a resolution dated 8ebruar+ 8, 1989, the P"$$ denied the motion to dismiss for lac@ of merit. Private
respondent moved for reconsideration but this was denied b+ the P"$$ in a resolution dated 9arch 8,
1989. Private respondent was directed to submit his counter#affidavit and other controvertin( evidence on
9arch 2&, 1989 at 25&& p.m.
4n 9arch 1?, 1989, private respondent filed a petition for prohibition with preliminar+ in,unction with the
Re(ional Trial "ourt in Pasi(, 9etro 9anila. The case was doc@eted as "ase %o. 5H&92 and raffled to
3ranch 151, respondent ,ud(eSs court. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss and opposed the application for
the issuance of a writ of preliminar+ in,unction on the principal (round that the Re(ional Trial "ourt had
no ,urisdiction over the 3oard, citin( the case of P"$$ v. PeTa, $.R. %o. HH;;?, !pril 12, 1988, 159
S"R! 55;. Private respondent opposed the motion to dismiss. Petitioner replied to the opposition.
4n :une 2?, 1989, respondent ,ud(e denied petitionerSs motion to dismiss. 4n :une 2;, 1989, respondent
,ud(e (ranted the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminar+ in,unction, en,oinin( petitioners
from investi(atin( or prosecutin( private respondent under Rep. !cts %os. ?&19 and 1?H9 upon the filin(
of a bond in the amount of Twent+ Thousand Pesos AP2&,&&&.&&B.
6ence, the instant petition.
4n !u(ust 29, 1989, the "ourt issued a restrainin( order en,oinin( respondent ,ud(e from enforcin( his
orders dated :une 2?, 1989 and :une 2;, 1989 and from proceedin( with "ivil "ase %o. 5H&92.
Private respondent filed his comment, to which petitioners filed a repl+. ! re,oinder to the repl+ was filed
b+ private (espondent. The "ourt (ave due course to the petition and the parties filed their memoranda.
Thereafter, the case was deemed submitted.
The issues raised in the petition are as follows5chanrob1es virtual 1aw librar+
.
.67T67R 4R %4T R7SP4%27%T :F2$7 $R!/7CG !3FS72 6S 2S"R7T4% 4R !"T72 .T64FT 4R % 7D"7SS 48
:FRS2"T4% % !SSF9%$ :FRS2"T4% 4/7R !%2 %T7R87R%$ .T6 T67 4R27RS !%2 8F%"T4%S 48 T67
PR7S27%T!C "499SS4% 4% $442 $4/7R%97%T.
.
.67T67R, 4R %4T R7SP4%27%T :F2$7 $R!/7CG !3FS72 6S 2S"R7T4% 4R !"T72 .T64FT 4R % 7D"7SS 48
:FRS2"T4% % SSF%$ T67 !SS!C72 4R27R 2!T72 :F%7 2;, 1989 7%:4%%$ P7TT4%7RS 8R49 %/7ST$!T%$
!%2 PR4S7"FT%$ PR/!T7 R7SP4%27%T 84R /4C!T4% 48 R7PF3C" !"T %4. ?&19, 4T67R.S7 N%4.% !S !%T#
$R!8T !%2 "4RRFPT PR!"T"7S !"T !%2 R7PF3C" !"T %4. 1?H9, 4T67R.S7 N%4.% !S !% !"T 84R T67
84R87TFR7 48 F%C!.8FCCG !"0FR72 PR4P7RTG KRollo, p. 19L.
!s to the first issue, petitioner contends that followin( the rulin( of the "ourt in P"$$ v. PeTa the 3oard,
bein( a creation andEor e*tension of the P"$$, is be+ond the ,urisdiction of the Re(ional Trial "ourt. 4n
the second issue, petitioner stron(l+ ar(ues that the private respondentSs case falls within the ,urisdiction
of the P"$$.
The pivotal issue is the second one. 4n this point, private respondentSs position is as follows5chanrob1es virtual 1aw librar+
1. . . . he is not one of the subordinates contemplated in 7*ecutive 4rders 1 , 2 , 1' and 1'#! as the alle(ed
ille(al acts bein( imputed to him, that of alle(ed amassin( wealth be+ond his le(al means while 8inance
4fficer of the Philippine "onstabular+, are acts of his own alone, not connected with his bein( a cron+,
business associate, etc. or subordinate as the petition does not alle(e so. 6ence the P"$$ has no
,urisdiction to investi(ate him.
f indeed private respondent amassed wealth be+ond his le(al means, the procedure laid down b+ Rep. !ct
1?H9 as alread+ pointed out before be applied. !nd since, he has been separated from the (overnment
more than four +ears a(o, the action a(ainst him under Republic !ct 1?H9 has alread+ prescribed.
2. . . . no action can be filed an+more a(ainst him now under Republic !ct 1?H9 for recover+ of
une*plained wealth for the reason that he has retired more than four +ears a(o.
?. . . . The order creatin( the !8P !nti#$raft 3oard A!nne* J!J, PetitionB is null and void. %owhere in
7*ecutive 4rders 1, 2, 1' and 1'#! is there an+ authorit+ (iven to the commission, its chairman and
members, to create 3oards or bodies to be invested with powers similar to the powers invested with the
commission .. K"omment, pp. ;#H= Rollo, pp. 11H#118L.
1. The most important >uestion to be resolved in this case is whether or not private respondent ma+ be
investi(ated and caused to be prosecuted b+ the 3oard, an a(enc+ of the P"$$, for violation of Rep. !cts
%os. ?&19 and 1?H9. !ccordin( to petitioners, the P"$$ has the power to investi(ate and cause the
prosecution of private respondent because he is a JsubordinateJ of former President 9arcos. The+ cite the
P"$$Ss ,urisdiction over I
AaB The recover+ of all ill#(otten wealth accumulated b+ former President 8erdinand 7. 9arcos, his
immediate famil+, relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether located in the Philippines or
abroad, includin( the ta@eover or se>uestration of all business enterprises and entities owned or controlled
b+ them, durin( his administration, directl+ or throu(h nominees, b+ ta@in( undue advanta(e of their
public office andEor usin( their powers, authorit+, influence, connections or relationship. K7.4. %o. 1, sec.
2.L.
Fndoubtedl+, the alle(ed unlawful accumulation of wealth was done durin( the administration of Pres.
9arcos. 6owever, what has to be in>uired into is whether or not private respondent acted as a
JsubordinateJ of Pres. 9arcos within the contemplation of 7.4. %o. 1, the law creatin( the P"$$, when
he alle(edl+ unlawfull+ ac>uired the properties.
! close readin( of 7. 4. %o. 1 and related e*ecutive orders will readil+ show what is contemplated within
the term Jsubordinate.Jcralaw virtua1aw librar+
The .hereas "lauses of 7. 4. %o. 1 e*press the ur(ent need to recover the ill#(otten wealth amassed b+
former President 8erdinand 7. 9arcos, his immediate famil+, relatives, and close associates both here and
abroad.
7.4. %o. 2 free1es Jall assets and properties in the Philippines in which former President 9arcos andEor
his wife, 9rs. melda Romualde1 9arcos, their close relatives, subordinates, business associates,
dummies, a(ents, or nominees have an+ interest or participation.Jcralaw virtua1aw librar+
!ppl+in( the rule in statutor+ construction @nown as e,usdem (eneris, that is I
K.Lhere (eneral words follow an enumeration of persons or thin(s, b+ words of a particular and specific
meanin(, such (eneral words are not to be construed in their widest e*tent, but are to be held as appl+in(
onl+ to persons or thin(s of the same @ind or class as those specificall+ mentioned KSmith, 3ell - "o.,
Ctd. v. Re(ister of 2eeds of 2avao, 9; Phil. 5?, 58 A195'B, citin( 3lac@ on nterpretation of Caws, 2nd
7d., 2&?L.
the term JsubordinateJ as used in 7.4. %os. 1 and 2 would refer to one who en,o+s a close association or
relation with former Pres. 9arcos andEor his wife, similar to the immediate famil+ member, relative, and
close associate in 7.4. %o. 1 and the close relative, business associate, dumm+, a(ent, or nominee in 7.4.
%o. 2.
Thus, as stated b+ the "ourt in 3ataan Ship+ard - 7n(ineerin( "o., nc. v. P"$$, $.R. %o. H5885, 9a+
2H, 198H, 15& S"R! 181, 2&5#2&;.
The situations envisa(ed and sou(ht to be (overned Kb+ Proclamation %o. ? and 7.4. %os. 1, 2 and 1'L are
self#evident, these bein(5chanrob1es virtual 1aw librar+
1B thatJ AiBll (otten properties AwereB amassed b+ the leaders and supporters of the previous re(imeJ =
aB more particularl+, thatJ AiBll#(otten wealth AwasB accumulated b+ former President 8erdinand 7. 9arcos,
his immediate famil+, relatives, subordinates, and close associates, . . . located in the Philippines or
abroad, ** AandB business enterprises and entities Acame to beB owned or controlled b+ them, durin( . . .
Athe 9arcosB administration, directl+ or throu(h nominees, b+ ta@in( undue advanta(e of their public
office andEor usin( their powers, authorit+, influence, connections or relationship=J
bB otherwise stated, that Jthere are assets and properties pertainin( to former President 8erdinand 7.
9arcos, andEor his wife 9rs. melda Romualde1 9arcos, their close relatives, subordinates, business
associates, dummies, a(ents or nominees which had been or were ac>uired b+ them directl+ or indirectl+,
throu(h or as a result of the improper or ille(al use of funds or properties owned b+ the $overnment of the
Philippines or an+ of its branches, instrumentalities, enterprises, ban@s or financial institutions, or b+
ta@in( undue advanta(e of their office, authorit+, influence, connections or relationship, resultin( in their
un,ust enrichment and causin( (rave dama(e and pre,udice to the 8ilipino people and the Republic of the
PhilippinesJ =
cB that Jsaid assets and properties are in the form of ban@ accounts, deposits, trust accounts, shares of
stoc@s, buildin(s, shoppin( centers, condominiums, mansions, residences, estates, and other @inds of real
and personal properties in the Philippines and in various countries of the world=J and.
2B that certain Jbusiness enterprises and properties AwereB ta@en over b+ the (overnment of the 9arcos
!dministration or b+ entities or persons close to former President 9arcos.J K8ootnotes deletedL.
t does not suffice, as in this case, that the respondent is or was a (overnment official or emplo+ee durin(
the administration of former Pres. 9arcos. There must be a prima facie showin( that the respondent
unlawfull+ accumulated wealth b+ virtue of his close association or relation with former Pres. 9arcos
andEor his wife. This is so because otherwise the respondentSs case will fall under e*istin( (eneral laws
and procedures on the matter. Rep. !ct %o. ?&19, the !nti#$raft and "orrupt Practices !ct, penali1es the
corrupt practices of an+ public officer. Fnder Rep. !ct %o. 1?H9 A!n !ct 2eclarin( 8orfeited in 8avor of
the State !n+ Propert+ 8ound to 6ave 3een Fnlawfull+ !c>uired 3+ !n+ Public 4fficer or 7mplo+ee and
Providin( for the Procedure ThereforB, whenever an+ public officer or emplo+ee has ac>uired durin( his
incumbenc+ an amount of propert+ which is manifestl+ out of proportion to his salar+ as such public
officer or emplo+ee and to his other lawful income and the income from le(itimatel+ ac>uired propert+,
said propert+ shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfull+ ac>uired KSec. 2L. The Solicitor
$eneral shall file the petition and prosecute the case in behalf of the Republic, after preliminar+
investi(ation b+ the provincial or cit+ prosecutor KbidL.
9oreover, the record shows that private respondent was bein( investi(ated for unlawfull+ ac>uired wealth
under Rep. !cts %os. ?&19 and 1?H9, and not under 7.4. %os. 1, 2, 1' and 1'#!.
Since private respondent was bein( investi(ated b+ the P"$$ throu(h the !8P !nti#$raft 3oard it would
have been presumed that this was under Rep. !cts %os. ?&19 and 1?H9 in relation to 7.4. %os. 1, 2, 1'
and 1'#!. 3ut the record itself belies this presumption5chanrob1es virtual 1aw librar+
AaB The letter of the chairman of the !8P !nti#$raft 3oard to private respondent, dated 4ctober 1;, 198H,
states5 JThis letter is in connection with the alle(ed information received b+ the !8P !nti#$raft 3oard
indicatin( +our ac>uisition of wealth be+ond le(al means of income in violation of Rep. !ct %o. ?&19
@nown as the !nti#$raft and "orrupt Practices !ct.J KRollo, p. ?9L.
AbB The Resolution dated :une ?&, 1988 of the 3oard cate(oricall+ states5chanrob1es virtual 1aw librar+
. PR7C9%!RG ST!T797%T5chanrob1es virtual 1aw librar+
This refers to the case a(ainst "ol Troadio 3. Tecson P" ARetB for alle(ed une*plained wealth pursuant to
R.!. ?&19, as amended, otherwise @nown as !nti#$raft and "orrupt Practices !ct and R.!. 1?H9, as
amended, otherwise @nown as the J!ct for 8orfeiture of Fnlawfull+ !c>uired Propert+.J KRollo, p. '?L.
The resolution alle(es that private respondent unlawfull+ accumulated wealth b+ ta@in( advanta(e of his
office as 8inance 4fficer of the Philippine "onstabular+. %o attempt is made in the 3oardSs resolution to
lin@ him or his accumulation of wealth to former Pres. 9arcos andEor his wife.
AcB The letter of the 3oard chairman to the chairman of the P"$$, dated :ul+ 28, 1988, is clear5chanrob1es virtual 1aw librar+
Respectfull+ transmitted herewith for the prosecution before the Sandi(anba+an is the case folder of
"4C4%7C TR4!24 T7"S4% ARetB who after preliminar+ investi(ation of the case b+ the 3oard,
found a prima facie evidence a(ainst sub,ect officer for violatin( Section 8, R.!. ?&19, as amended b+ 3P
195, otherwise @nown as the !nti#$raft and "orrupt Practices !ct and R.!. 1?H9, otherwise @nown as an
!ct for the 8orfeiture of Fnlawfull+ !c>uired Propert+.J KRollo, p. ';L.
9oreover, from the alle(ations of petitioner in its memorandum, it would appear that private respondent
accumulated his wealth for his own account. Petitioner >uoted the letter of (nacio 2atahan, a retired P"
ser(eant, to $eneral 8idel Ramos, the material portion of which reads5chanrob1es virtual 1aw librar+
. . . !fter an official in the militar+ unit received an !llotment !dvice the same si(ned a cash advance
voucher, let us sa+ in the amount of P5,&&&.&&. .ithout much ado, outri(ht, "ol. Tecson paid the amount.
The official concerned was also made to si(n the receipt portion on the voucher the amount of which was
left blan@. 3efore the voucher is passed for routine processin( b+ 9rs. Ceonor "a(as, cler@ of "ol. Tecson
and its facilitator, the maneuver be(an. The amount on the face of the cash advance voucher is altered or
superimposed. The ori(inal amount of P5,&&&.&& was now made sa+, P95,&&&.&&. So it was actuall+ the
amount of P95,&&&.&& that appeared on the records. The difference of P9&,&&&.&& went to the s+ndicate.
. . . 3o+ Tan+a(, boo@@eeper in "ol. TecsonSs office too@ care of the wor@.
. . . n the li>uidation of the altered cash advance amount, names of persons found in the 9etropolitan
9anila Telephone 2irector+ with fictitious addresses appeared as recipients or pa+ees. Ceonor and 3o+
(ot their shares on commission basis of the looted amount while the (reater part went to "ol. Tecson.
KRollo, pp. 18'#185.L.
"learl+, this alle(ed unlawful accumulation of wealth is not that contemplated in 7.4. %os. 1, 2, 1' and
1'#!.
2. t will not do to cite the order of the P"$$ "hairman, dated 9a+ 1?, 198;, creatin( the 3oard and
authori1in( it to investi(ate the une*plained wealth and corrupt practices of !8P personnel, both retired
and in active service, to support the contention that P"$$ has ,urisdiction over the case of private
(espondent. The P"$$ cannot do more than what it was empowered to do. ts powers are limited. ts tas@
is limited to the recover+ of the ill#(otten wealth of the 9arcoses, their relatives and cronies. The P"$$
cannot, throu(h an order of its chairman, (rant itself additional powers I powers not contemplated in its
enablin( law.
?. Petitioner assails the trial courtSs co(ni1ance of the petition filed b+ private (espondent. Particularl+,
petitioner ar(ues that the trial court cannot ac>uire ,urisdiction over the P"$$. This matter has alread+
been settled in PeTa, supra, where the "ourt ruled that those who wish to >uestion or challen(e the
P"$$Ss acts or orders must see@ recourse in the Sandi(anba+an, which is vested with e*clusive and
ori(inal ,urisdiction. The Sandi(anba+anSs decisions and final orders are in turn sub,ect to review on
certiorari e*clusivel+ b+ this "ourt. Kbid, at pp. 5;'#5;5L.
The rulin( in PeTa was applied in P"$$ v. !>uino, $.R. %o. HH81;, :une ?&, 1988, 1;? S"R! ?;?,
Soriano v. Guson, $.R. %o. H'91& Aand five other casesB, !u(ust 1&, 1988, 1;' S"R! 22; and 4la(uer
v. RT", %":R, 3r. '8, $.R. %o. 81?85, 8ebruar+ 21, 1989, 1H& S"R! 'H8, amon( others, to en,oin the
re(ional trial courts from interferin( with the actions of the P"$$.
Respondent ,ud(e clearl+ acted without or in e*cess of his ,urisdiction when he too@ co(ni1ance of "ivil
"ase %o. 5H&92 and issued the writ of preliminar+ in,unction a(ainst the P"$$.
'. Thus, we are confronted with a situation wherein the P"$$ acted in e*cess of its ,urisdiction and,
hence, ma+ be en,oined from doin( so, but the court that issued the in,unction a(ainst the P"$$ has not
been vested b+ law with ,urisdiction over it and, thus, the in,unction issued was null and void.
The nullification of the assailed order of respondent ,ud(e issuin( the writ of preliminar+ in,unction is
therefore in order. Ci@ewise, respondent ,ud(e must be en,oined from proceedin( with "ivil "ase %o.
5H&92.
3ut in view of the patent lac@ of authorit+ of the P"$$ to investi(ate and cause the prosecution of private
respondent for violation of Rep. !cts %os. ?&19 and 1?H9, the P"$$ must also be en,oined from
proceedin( with the case, without pre,udice to an+ action that ma+ be ta@en b+ the proper prosecutor+
a(enc+. The rule of law mandates that an a(enc+ of (overnment be allowed to e*ercise onl+ the powers
(ranted it.
5. The pronouncements made above should not be ta@en to mean that the P"$$Ss creation of the !8P
!nti#$raft 3oard is a nullit+ and that the P"$$ has no authorit+ to investi(ate and cause the prosecution
of members and former members of the !rmed 8orces of the Philippines for violations of Rep. !cts %os.
?&19 and 1?H9. The P"$$ ma+ investi(ate and cause the prosecution of active and retired members of
the !8P for violations of Rep. !cts %os. ?&19 and 1?H9 onl+ in relation to 7.4. %os. 1, 2, 1' and 1'#!,
i.e., insofar as the+ involve the recover+ of the ill#(otten wealth of former Pres. 9arcos and his famil+ and
Jcronies.J 3ut the P"$$ would not have ,urisdiction over an ordinar+ case fallin( under Rep. !cts %os.
?&19 and 1?H9, as in the case at bar. 7.4. %os. 1, 2, 1' and 1'#! did not envision the P"$$ as the
investi(ator and prosecutor of all unlawful accumulations of wealth. The P"$$ was created for a specific
and limited purpose, as we have e*plained earlier, and necessaril+ its powers must be construed with this
in mind.
;. n his pleadin(s, private respondent contends that he ma+ no lon(er be prosecuted because of
prescription. 6e relies on section 2 of Rep. !ct %o. 1?H9 which provides thatJ KtLhe ri(ht to file such
petition Kfor forfeiture of unlawfull+ ac>uired wealthL shall prescribe within four +ears from the date of
resi(nation, dismissal or separation or e*piration of the term of the officer or emplo+ee concerned.J 6e
retired on 9a+ 9, 198', or more than si* A;B +ears a(o. 6owever, it must be pointed out that section 2 of
Rep. !ct %o. 1?H9 should be deemed amended or repealed b+ !rticle D, section 15 of the 198H
"onstitution which provides thatJ KtLhe ri(ht of the State to recover properties unlawfull+ ac>uired b+
public officials or emplo+ees, from them or from their nominees or transferees, shall not be barred b+
prescription, laches, or estoppel.J "onsiderin( that sec. 2 of Rep. !ct %o. 1?H9 was deemed amended or
repealed before the prescriptive period provided therein had lapsed insofar as private respondent is
concerned, we cannot sa+ that he had alread+ ac>uired a vested ri(ht that ma+ not be pre,udiced b+ a
subse>uent enactment.
9oreover, to bar the $overnment from recoverin( ill#(otten wealth would result in the validation or
le(itimi1ation of the unlawful ac>uisition, a conse>uence at variance with the clear intent of Rep. !ct %o.
1?H9, which provides5chanrobles virtual lawlibrar+
S7". 11. Caws on prescription. I The laws concernin( ac>uisitive prescription and limitation of actions
cannot be invo@ed b+, nor shall the+ benefit the respondent, in respect to an+ propert+ unlawfull+ ac>uired
b+ him.
Thus, we hold that the appropriate prosecutor+ a(encies, i.e., the cit+ or provincial prosecutor and the
Solicitor $eneral under sec. 2 of Rep. !ct %o. 1?H9, ma+ still investi(ate the case and file the petition for
the forfeiture of unlawfull+ ac>uired wealth a(ainst private respondent, now a private citi1en. A4n the
other hand, as re(ards respondents for violations of Rep. !cts %os. ?&19 and 1?H9 who are still in the
(overnment service, the a(enc+ (ranted the power to investi(ate and prosecute them is the 4ffice of the
4mbudsman KRep. !ct %o. ;HH&LB. Fnder Presidential 2ecree %o. 1;&;, as amended, and 3atas
Pambansa 3l(. 195 violations of Rep. !cts %os. ?&19 and 1?H9 shall be tried b+ the Sandi(anba+an.
H. The "ourt hastens to add that this decision is without pre,udice to the prosecution of private respondent
under the pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal "ode and other related penal laws.
.67R784R7, the order of respondent ,ud(e dated :une 2;, 1989 in "ivil "ase %o. 5H&92 is
%FCC872 and S7T !S27. Respondent ,ud(e is 4R27R72 to dismiss "ivil "ase %o. 5H&92. The
temporar+ restrainin( order issued b+ the "ourt on !u(ust 29, 1989 is 9!27 P7R9!%7%T. The P"$$
is 7%:4%72 from proceedin( with the investi(ation and prosecution of private respondent in .S. %o.
?H, without pre,udice to his investi(ation and prosecution b+ the appropriate prosecutor+ a(enc+.
S4 4R27R72.
G.R. No. L?'7757?(1 )a#*a0y 28, 1980
THE PEOPLE O% THE PHILIPPINES, ABUNDIO R. ELLO, A2 '.: A22/2.a#. o8 P0o1/#9/a+ Bo:o+ 6ICENTE DE LA SERNA. )R.,
a2 9o<,+a/#a#. a++ ,0/1a.- ,0o2-9*.o0, petitioners,
vs.
HON. 6ICENTE B. ECHA6ES, )R., a2 )*$7- o8 .:- Co*0. o8 %/02. I#2.a#9- o8 Bo:o+ B0a#9: II, ANO DACULLO, GERONIMO
OROAN, MARIO APARICI, RUPERTO CA)ES a#$ MODESTO S SUELLO, respondents.
A3UINO, J.:p
The le(al issue in this case is whether Presidential 2ecree %o. HH2, which penali1es s>uattin( and similar acts,
applies to a(ricultural lands. The decree Awhich too@ effect on !u(ust 2&, 19H5B provides5
S7"T4% 1. !n+ person who, with the use of force, intimidation or threat, or ta@in(
advanta(e of the absence or tolerance of the landowner, succeeds in occup+in( or
possessin( the propert+ of the latter a(ainst his will for residential, commercial or an+
other purposes, shall be punished b+ an imprisonment ran(in( from si* months to one
+ear or a fine of not less than one thousand nor more than five thousand pesos at the
discretion of the court, with subsidiar+ imprisonment in case of insolvenc+. A2nd
para(raph is omitted.B
The record shows that on 4ctober 25, 19HH 8iscal !bundio R. 7llo filed with the lower court separate
informations a(ainst si*teen persons char(in( them with s>uattin( as penali1ed b+ Presidential 2ecree %o. HH2.
The information a(ainst 9ario !parici which is similar to the other fifteen informations, reads5
That sometime in the +ear 19H' continuousl+ up to the present at baran(a+ 9a(sa+sa+,
municipalit+ of Talibon, province of 3ohol, Philippines and within the ,urisdiction of this
6onorable "ourt, the above#named accused, with stealth and strate(+, enter into, occup+
and cultivate a portion of a (ra1in( land ph+sicall+ occupied, possessed and claimed b+
!tt+. /icente de la Serna, :r. as successor to the pasture applicant "elestino de la Serna of
Pasture Cease !pplication %o. 8919, accused)s entrance into the area has been and is still
a(ainst the win of the offended part+= did then and there willfull+, unlawfull+, and
feloniousl+ s>uat and cultivate a portion of the said (ra1in( land= said cultivatin( has
rendered a nuisance to and has deprived the pasture applicant from the full use thereof for
which the land applied for has been intended, that is preventin( applicant)s cattle from
(ra1in( the whole area, thereb+ causin( dama(e and pre,udice to the said applicant#
possessor#occupant, !tt+. /icente de la Serna, :r. AsicB
8ive of the informations, wherein !no 2acullo, $eronimo 4ro+an, 9ario !parici, Ruperto "a,es and 9odesto
Suello were the accused, were raffled to :ud(e /icente 3. 7chaves, :r. of 3ranch A"riminal "ases %os. 182',
1828, 18?2, 18?? and 18?9, respectivel+B.
3efore the accused could be arrai(ned, :ud(e 7chaves motu proprio issued an omnibus order dated 2ecember 9,
19HH dismissin( the five informations on the (rounds A1B that it was alle(ed that the accused entered the land
throu(h Jstealth and strate(+J, whereas under the decree the entr+ should be effected Jwith the use of force,
intimidation or threat, or ta@in( advanta(e of the absence or tolerance of the landownerJ, and A2B that under the
rule of ejusdem generis the decree does not appl+ to the cultivation of a (ra1in( land.
3ecause of that order, the fiscal amended the informations b+ usin( in lieu of Jstealth and strate(+J the
e*pression Jwith threat, and ta@in( advanta(e of the absence of the ranchowner andEor tolerance of the said
ranchownerJ. The fiscal as@ed that the dismissal order be reconsidered and that the amended informations be
admitted.
The lower court denied the motion. t insisted that the phrase Jand for other purposesJ in the decree does not
include a(ricultural purposes because its preamble does not mention the Secretar+ of !(riculture and ma@es
reference to the affluent class.
8rom the order of dismissal, the fiscal appealed to this "ourt under Republic !ct %o. 5''&. The appeal is devoid
of merit.
.e hold that the lower court correctl+ ruled that the decree does not appl+ to pasture lands because its preamble
shows that it was intended to appl+ to s>uattin( in urban communities or more particularl+ to ille(al constructions
in s>uatter areas made b+ well#to#do individuals. The s>uatin( complained of involves pasture lands in rural
areas.
The preamble of the decree is >uoted below5
.67R7!S, it came to m+ @nowled(e that despite the issuance of Cetter of nstruction
%o. 19 dated 4ctober 2, 19H2, directin( the Secretaries of %ational 2efense, Public
.or@. 9 and communications, Social .elfare and the 2irector of Public .or@s, the
P66" $eneral 9ana(er, the Presidential !ssistant on 6ousin( and Rehabilitation
!(enc+, $overnors, "it+ and 9unicipal 9a+ors, and "it+ and 2istrict 7n(ineers, Jto
remove an ille(al constructions includin( buildin(s on and alon( esteros and river ban@s,
those alon( railroad trac@s and those built without permits on public and private
propert+.J s>uattin( is still a ma,or problem in urban communities all over the countr+=
.67R7!S, man+ persons or entities found to have been unlawfull+ occup+in( public
and private lands belon( to the affluent class=
.67R7!S, there is a need to further intensif+ the (overnment)s drive a(ainst this ille(al
and nefarious practice.
t should be stressed that Cetter of nstruction %o. 19 refers to ille(al constructions on public and private propert+.
t is complemented b+ Cetter of nstruction %o. 19#! which provides for the relocation of s>uatters in the interest
of public health, safet+ and peace and order.
4n the other hand, it should be noted that s>uattin( on public a(ricultural lands, li@e the (ra1in( lands involved in
this case, is punished b+ Republic !ct %o. 9'H which ma@es it unlawful for an+ person, corporation or
association to forcibl+ enter or occup+ public a(ricultural lands. That law provides5
S7"T4% 1. t shall be unlawful for an+ person corporation or association to enter or
occup+, throu(h force, intimidation, threat, strate(+ or stealth, an+ public a(riculture land
includin( such public lands as are (ranted to private individuals under the provision of
the Public Cand !ct or an+ other laws providin( for the of public a(riculture lands in the
Philippines and are dul+ covered b+ the correspondin( applications for the
notwithstandin( standin( the fact that title thereto still remains in the $overnment or for
an+ person, natural or ,udicial to investi(ate induce or force another to commit such acts.
/iolations of the law are punished b+ a fine of not e*ceedin( one thousand or imprisonment for not more than
one +ear, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court, with subsidiar+ imprisonment in case
of insolvenc+. ASee People vs. Capasaran 1&& Phil. '&.B
The rule of ejusdem generis Aof the same @ind or speciesB invo@ed b+ the trial court does not appl+ to this case.
6ere, the intent of the decree is unmista@able. t is intended to appl+ onl+ to urban communities, particularl+ to
ille(al constructions. The rule of ejusdem generis is merel+ a tool of statutor+ construction which is resorted to
when the le(islative intent is uncertain A$enato "ommercial "orp. vs. "ourt of Ta* !ppeals, 1&' Phil. ;15,;18=
28 ".:.S. 1&'9#5&B.
.67R784R7, the trial court)s order of dismissal is affirmed. %o costs.
S4 4R27R72.
G.R. No. L?&&(9&?9' May &1, 1979
MISAEL P. 6ERA, a2 Co<</22/o#-0 o8 I#.-0#a+ R-1-#*-, a#$ THE %AIR TRADE BOARD, ,-././o#-0,
12.
HON. SERA%IN R. CUE6AS, a2 )*$7- o8 .:- Co*0. o8 %/02. I#2.a#9- o8 Ma#/+a, B0a#9: I6, INSTITUTE O%
E6APORATED %ILLED MIL@ MANU%ACTURERS O% THE PHILIPPINES, INC., CONSOLIDATED MIL@
COMPAN CPHIL.D INC., a#$ MIL@ INDUSTRIES, INC., 0-2,o#$-#.2.
Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio and Solicitor Bernardo P. Pardo for petitioners.
Sycip, Salazar, Lna, !analo " Feliciano for private respondents.
DE CASTRO, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari with preliminar+ in,unction to review the decision rendered b+
respondent ,ud(e, in "ivil "ase %o. 522H; and in Special "ivil !ction %o. 52?8? both of the
"ourt of 8irst nstance of 9anila.
Plaintiffs, in "ivil "ase %o. 522H; private respondents herein, are en(a(ed in the manufacture,
sale and distribution of filled mil@ products throu(hout the Philippines. The products of
private respondent, "onsolidated Philippines nc. are mar@eted and sold under the brand
2ari(old whereas those of private respondent, $eneral 9il@ "ompan+ APhil.B, nc., under the
brand JCibert+=J and those of private respondent, 9il@ ndustries nc., under the brand J2utch
3ab+.J Private respondent, nstitute of 7vaporated 8illed 9il@ 9anufacturers of the
Philippines, is a corporation or(ani1ed for the principal purpose of upholdin( and maintainin(
at its hi(hest the standards of local filled mil@ industr+, of which all the other private
respondents are members.
"ivil "ase %o. 522H; is an action for declarator+ relief with e*#parte petition for preliminar+
in,unction wherein plaintiffs pra+ for an ad,udication of their respective ri(hts and obli(ations
in relation to the enforcement of Section 1;9 of the Ta* "ode a(ainst their filled mil@
products.
The controvers+ arose from the order of defendant, "ommissioner of nternal Revenue now
petitioner herein, re>uirin( plaintiffs# private respondents to withdraw from the mar@et all of
their filled mil@ products which do not bear the inscription re>uired b+ Section 1;9 of the Ta*
"ode within fifteen A15B da+s from receipt of the order with the e*plicit warnin( that failure of
plaintiffs) private respondents to compl+ with said order will result in the institution of the
necessar+ action a(ainst an+ violation of the aforesaid order. Section 1;9 of the Ta* "ode
reads as follows5
Section 1;9. 7nscription to be placed on s>immed mil>. E !ll condensed s@immed mil@ and
all mil@ in whatever form, from which the fatt+ part has been removed totall+ or in part, sold
or put on sale in the Philippines shall be clearl+ and le(ibl+ mar@ed on its immediate
containers, and in all the lan(ua(e in which such containers are mar@ed, with the words, JThis
mil@ is not suitable for nourishment for infants less than one +ear of a(e,J or with other
e>uivalent words.
The "ourt issued a writ of preliminar+ in,unction dated 8ebruar+ 1;, 19;? restrainin( the
"ommissioner of nternal Revenue from re>uirin( plaintiffs) private respondents to print on
the labels of their rifled mil@ products the words, JThis mil@ is not suitable for nourishment for
infants less than one +ear of a(e or words of similar import, J as directed b+ the above >uoted
provision of Caw, and from ta@in( an+ action to enforce the above le(al provision a(ainst the
plaintiffs) private respondents in connection with their rifled mil@ products, pendin( the final
determination of the case, "ivil "ase %o. 522H;, on the merits.
4n :ul+ 25, 19;9, however, the 4ffice of the Solicitor $eneral brou(ht an appeal from the said
order b+ wa+ of certiorari to the Supreme "ourt.
1
n view thereof, the respondent court in the meantime
suspended disposition of these cases but in view of the absence of an+ in,unction or restrainin( order from the Supreme
"ourt, it resumed action on them until their final disposition therein.
Special "ivil !ction %o. 52?8?, on the other hand, is an action for prohibition and in,unction with a petition for
preliminar+ in,unction. Petitioners therein pra+ that the respondent 8air Trade 3oard desist from further proceedin( with
8T3 .S. %o. . entitled J!ntonio R. de :o+a vs. nstitute of 7vaporated 9il@ 9anufacturers of the Philippines, etc.J
pendin( final determination of "ivil "ase %o. 522H;. The facts of this special civil action show that on 2ecember H,
19;2, !ntonio R. de :o+a and Sufronio "arrasco, both in their individual capacities and in their capacities as Public
Relations "ounsel and President of the Philippine !ssociation of %utrition, respectivel+, filed 8T3 .S. %o. 1 with 8air
Trade 3oard for misleadin( advertisement, mislabelin( andEor misbrandin(. !mon( other thin(s, the complaint filed
include the char(e of omittin( to state in their labels an+ statement sufficient to dentif+ their filled mil@ products as
Jimitation mil@J or as an imitation of (enuine cows mil@. and omittin( to mar@ the immediate containers of their filled
mil@ products with the words5 JThis mil@ is not suitable for nourishment for infants less than one +ear of a(e or with
other e>uivalent words as re>uired under Section 1;9 of the Ta* "ode. The 3oard proceeded to hear the complaint until it
received the writ of preliminar+ in,unction issued b+ the "ourt of 8irst nstance on 9arch 19, 19;?.
Fpon a(reement of the parties, "ivil "ase %o. 522H; and Special "ivil !ction %o. 52?8? were heard ,ointl+ bein(
intimatel+ related with each other, with common facts and issues bein( also involved therein. 4n !pril 1;, 19H1, the
respondent court issued its decision, the dispositive part of which reads as follows5
.herefore, ,ud(ment is hereb+ rendered5
7n !ivil !ase 9o. 2,,:8=
AaB Perpetuall+ restrainin( the defendant, "ommissioner of nternal Revenue, his a(ents, or
emplo+ees from re>uirin( plaintiffs to print on the labels of their filled mil@ products the words5
JThis mil@ is not suitable for nourishment for infants less than one +ear of a(eJ or words with
e>uivalent import and declarin( as nun and void and without authorit+ in law, the order of said
defendant dated September 28, 19;1, !nne* ! of the complaint, and the Rulin( of the Secretar+
of 8inance, dated %ovember 12, 19;2, !nne* $ of the complaint= and
7n #pecial !ivil ction 9o. 2,-4-=
AbB Restrainin( perpetuall+ the respondent 8air Trade 3oard, its a(ents or emplo+ees from
continuin( in the investi(ation of the complaints a(ainst petitioners doc@eted as 8T3 .S. %o. 2,
or an+ char(es related to the manufacture or sale b+ the petitioners of their filled mil@ products
and declarin( as null the proceedin(s so far underta@en b+ the respondent 3oard on said
complaints. App. 2&# 21, RolloB.
8rom the above decision of the respondent court, the "ommissioner of nternal Revenue and the 8air Trade 3oard ,oined
to(ether to file the present petition for certiorari with preliminar+ in,unction, assi(nin( the followin( errors5
. T67 C4.7R "4FRT 7RR72 % RFC%$ T6!T S7". T4% 1;9 48 T67 T!D "427 6!S 377% R7P7!C72
3G 9PC"!T4%.
. T67 C4.7R "4FRT 7RR72 % RFC%$ T6!T S7"T4% 1;9 48 T67 T!D "427 6!S C4ST TS T!D
PFRP4S7, !%2 T6!T "499SS4%7R %7"7SS!RCG C4ST 6S !FT64RTG T4 7%84R"7 T67 S!97
!%2 T6!T T67 PR4P7R !FT64RTG T4 PR494T7 T67 67!CT6 48 %8!%TS S T67 8442 !%2 2RF$
!29%STR!T4%, T67 S7"R7T!RG 48 67!CT6 !%2 T67 S7"R7T!RG 48 :FST"7, !S PR4/272 84R
% R! ?H2&, %4T T67 "499SS4%7R 48 %T7R%!C R7/7%F7.
. T67 C4.7R "4FRT 7RR72 % RFC%$ T6!T T67 P4.7R T4 %/7ST$!T7 !%2 T4 PR4S7"FT7
/4C!T4%S 48 8442 C!.S S 7%TRFST72 T4 T67 8442 !%2 2RF$ %SP7"T4%, T67 8442 !%2
2RF$ !29%STR!T4%, T67 S7"R7T!RG 48 67!CT6 !%2 T67 S7"R7T!RG 48 :FST"7, !%2 T6!T
T67 8!R TR!27 34!R2 S .T64FT :FRS2"T4% T4 %/7ST$!T7 !%2 PR4S7"FT7 !CC7$72
9S3R!%2%$, 9SC!37CC%$ !%2E4R 9SC7!2%$ !2/7RTS797%T 48 8CC72 9CN PR42F"TS.
App, '#5, RolloB.
The lower court did not err in rulin( that Section 1;9 of the Ta* "ode has been repealed b+ implication. Section 1;9 was
enacted in 19?9, to(ether with Section 1'1 Awhich imposed a Specific ta* on s@immed mil@B and Section 1HH Awhich
penali1ed the sale of s@immed mil@ without pa+ment of the specific ta* and without the le(end re>uired b+ Section 1;9B.
6owever, Section 1'1 was e*pressl+ repealed b+ Section 1 of Republic !ct %o. ?'', and Section 1HH, b+ Section 1 of
Republic !ct %o. ';?. 3+ the e*press repeal of Sections 1'1 and 1HH, Section 1;9 became a merel+ declarator+
provision, without a ta* purpose, or a penal sanction.
9oreover, it seems apparent that Section 1;9 of the Ta* "ode does not appl+ to filled mil@. The use of the specific and
>ualif+in( terms Js@immed mil@J in the headnote and Jcondensed s@immed mil@J in the te*t of the cited section, would
restrict the scope of the (eneral clause Jall mil@, in whatever form, from which the fatt+ pat has been removed totall+ or
in part.J n other words, the (eneral clause is restricted b+ the specific term Js@immed mil@J under the familiar rule of
ejusdem generis that (eneral and unlimited terms are restrained and limited b+ the particular terms the+ follow in the
statute.
S@immed mil@ is different from filled mil@. !ccordin( to the J2efinitions, Standards of Purit+, Rules and Re(ulations of
the 3oard of 8ood nspection,J s@immed mil@ is mil@ in whatever form from which the fatt+ part has been removed.
8illed mil@, on the other hand, is an+ mil@, whether or not condensed, evaporated concentrated, powdered, dried,
dessicated, to which has been added or which has been blended or compounded with an+ fat or oil other than mil@ fat so
that the resultin( product is an imitation or semblance of mil@ cream or s@im mil@.J The difference, therefore, between
s@immed mil@ and filled mil@ is that in the former, the fatt+ part has been removed while in the latter, the fatt+ part is
li@ewise removed but is substituted with refined coconut oil or corn oil or both. t cannot then be readil+ or safel+
assumed that Section 1;9 applies both to s@immed mil@ and filled mil@.
The 3oard of 8ood nspection wa+ bac@ in 19;1 rendered an opinion that filled mil@ does not come within the purview of
Section 1;9, it bein( a product distinct from those specified in the said Section since the removed fat portion of the mil@
has been replaced with coconut oil and /itamins ! and 2 as fortif+in( substances Ap. 58, RolloB. This opinion bolsters the
"ourt)s stand as to its interpretation of the scope of Section 1;9. 4pinions and rulin(s of officials of the (overnment
called upon to e*ecute or implement administrative laws command much respect and wei(ht. A!sturias Su(ar "entral nc.
vs. "ommissioner of "ustoms, $. R. %o. C#19??H, September ?&, 19;9, 29 S"R! ;1H= Tan, et. al. vs. The 9unicipalit+
of Pa(bilao et. al., C#1'2;', !pril ?&, 19;?, H S"R! 88H= $rapilon vs. 9unicipal "ouncil of "ari(ara C#12?'H, 9a+ ?&,
19;1, 2 S"R! 1&?B.
This "ourt is, li@ewise, induced to the belief that filled mil@ is suitable for nourishment for infants of all a(es. The
Petitioners themselves admitted that5 Jthe filled mil@ products of the petitioners Anow private respondentsB are safe,
nutritious, wholesome and suitable for feedin( infants of all a(esJ Ap. '', RolloB and that Jup to the present, 8ilipino
infants fed since birth with filled mil@ have not suffered an+ defects, illness or disease attributable to their havin( been
fed with filled mil@.J Ap. '5, RolloB.
There would seem, therefore, to be no dispute that filled mil@ is suitable for feedin( infants of all a(es. 3ein( so, the
declaration re>uired b+ Section 1;9 of the Ta* "ode that filled mil@ is not suitable for nourishment for infants less than
one +ear of a(e would, in effect, constitute a deprivation of propert+ without due. process of law.
Section 1;9 is bein( enforced onl+ a(ainst respondent manufacturers of filled mil@ product and not as a(ainst
manufacturers, distributors or sellers of condensed s@immed mil@ such as S9C!", S9!, 3R79C, 7%8!9C,
4C!", in which, as admitted b+ the petitioner, the fatt+ part has been removed and substituted with ve(etable or corn oil.
The enforcement of Section 1;9 a(ainst the private respondents onl+ but not a(ainst other persons similarl+ situated as
the private respondents amounts to an unconstitutional denial of the e>ual pro petition of the laws, for the law, e>uall+
enforced, would similarl+ offend a(ainst the "onstitution. Gic@ .o vs. 6op@ins, 118 F.S. ?5;,?& C. ed. 22&B.
!s stated in the earl+ part of this decision, with the repeal of Sections 1'1 and 1HH of the Ta* "ode, Section 1;9 has lost
its ta* purpose. Since Section 1;9 is devoid of an+ ta* purpose, petitioner "ommissioner necessaril+ lost his authorit+ to
enforce the same. This was so held b+ his predecessor immediatel+ after Sections 1'1 and 1HH were repealed in $eneral
"ircular %o. /#85 as stated in para(raph D of the Partial Stipulation of facts entered into b+ the parties, to wit5
... !s the act of sewin( s@immed mil@ without first pa+in( the specific ta* thereon is no lon(er
unlawful and the enforcement of the re>uirement in re(ard to the placin( of the proper le(end
on its immediate containers is a sub,ect which does not come within the ,urisdiction of the
3ureau of nternal Revenue, the penal provisions of Section 1HH of the said "ode havin( been
repealed b+ Republic !ct %o. ';?. Ap. 1&2, RolloB.
Petitioner)s contention that he still has ,urisdiction to enforce Section 1;9 b+ virtue of Section ? of the Ta* "ode which
provides that the 3ureau of nternal Revenue shall also J(ive effect to and administer the supervisor+ and police power
conferred to it b+ this "ode or other lawsJ is untenable. The 3ureau of nternal Revenue ma+ claim police power onl+
when necessar+ in the enforcement of its principal powers and duties consistin( of the Jcollection of all national internal
revenue ta*es, fees and char(es, and the enforcement of all forfeitures, penalties and fines connected therewith.J The
enforcement of Section 1;9 entails the promotion of the health of the nation and is thus unconnected with an+ ta*
purpose. This is the e*clusive function of the 8ood and 2ru( !dministration of the 2epartment of 6ealth as provided for
in Republic !ct %o. ?H2&. n particular, Republic !ct %o. ?H2& provides5
#ection .. ... 7t shall be the duty of the Board 5/ood and +rug 7nspection6, conformably with the rules and regulations, to
hold hearings and conduct investigations relative to matters touching the dministration of this ct, to investigate
processes of food, drug and cosmetic manufacture and to subject reports to the /ood and +rug dministrator,
recommending food and drug standards for adoption. #aid Board shall also perform such additional functions, properly
within the scope of the administration thereof, as maybe assigned to it by the /ood and +rug dministrator. The
decisions of the Board shall be advisory to the /ood and +rug dministrator.
Section 2;. ...
*** *** ***
Ac6 Cearing authori@ed or required by this ct shall be conducted by the Board of /ood and +rug 7nspection which shall
submit recommendation to the /ood and +rug dministrator.
5d6 Fhen it appears to the /ood and +rug dministrator from the reports of the /ood and +rug 'aboratory that any
article of food or any drug or cosmetic secured pursuant to #ection ,4 of this ct is adulterated or branded he shall
cause notice thereof to be given to the person or persons concerned and such person or persons shall be given an
opportunity to subject evidence impeaching the correctness of the finding or charge in question.
5e6 Fhen a violation of any provisions of this ct comes to the >nowledge of the /ood and +rug dministrator of such
character that a criminal prosecution ought to be instituted against the offender, he shall certify the facts to the #ecretary
of )ustice through the #ecretary of Cealth, together with the chemistsG report, the findings of the Board of /ood and +rug
7nspection, or other documentary evidence on which the charge is based.
5f6 9othing in this ct shall be construed as requiring the /ood and +rug dministrator to certify for prosecution
pursuant to subparagraph 5e6 hereof, minor violations of this ct whenever he believes that public interest will be
adequately served by a suitable written notice or warning.
The afore>uoted provisions of law clearl+ show that petitioners, "ommissioner of nternal Revenue and the 8air Trade
3oard, are without ,urisdiction to investi(ate and to prosecute alle(ed misbrandin(, mislabelin( andEor misleadin(
advertisements of filled mil@. The ,urisdiction on the matters cited is vested upon the 3oard of 8ood and 2ru( inspection
and the 8ood and 2ru( !dministrator, with the Secretar+ of 6ealth and the Secretar+ of :ustice, also intervenin( in case
criminal prosecution has to be instituted. To hold that the petitioners have also ,urisdiction as would be the result were
their instant petition (ranted, would onl+ cause overlappin( of powers and functions li@el+ to produce confusion and
conflict of official action which is neither practical nor desirable.
.67R784R7, the decision appealed from is hereb+ affirmed en toto. %o costs.
S4 4R27R72.
Sa# Pa5+o Ma#*8a9.*0/#7 Co0,o0a./o# 1. Co<</22/o#-0 o8 I#.-0#a+
R-1-#*- CG.R. No. 1'77'9, )*#- 22, 200(D
D E C I S I O N

"4R4%!, :.5

n this petition for review under Rule '5 of the Rules of "ourt, San Pablo 9anufacturin(
"orporation ASP9"B assails the :ul+ 19, 2&&& K1L and !pril ?, 2&&1 resolutions of the "ourt of
!ppeals in "!#$.R. SP %o. 591?9.
SP9" is a domestic corporation en(a(ed in the business of millin(, manufacturin( and
e*portin( of coconut oil and other allied products. t was assessed and ordered to pa+ b+ the
"ommissioner of nternal Revenue the total amount of P8,182,182.85 K2L representin(
deficienc+ millerSs ta* and manufacturerSs sales ta*, K?L amon( other deficienc+ ta*es, K'L for
ta*able +ear 198H. The deficienc+ millerSs ta* was imposed on SP9"Ss sales of crude oil to
Fnited "oconut "hemicals, nc. AF%"679B while the deficienc+ sales ta* was applied on its
sales of corn and edible oil as manufactured products.
SP9" opposed the assessments but the "ommissioner denied its protest. SP9" appealed the
denial of its protest to the "ourt of Ta* !ppeals A"T!B b+ wa+ of a petition for review
doc@eted as "T! "ase %o. 5'2?.
n its 9arch 1&, 2&&& decision, the "T! cancelled SP9"Ss liabilit+ for deficienc+
manufacturerSs ta* on the sales of corn and edible oils but upheld the "ommissionerSs
assessment for the deficienc+ millerSs ta*. SP9" moved for the partial reconsideration of the
"T! affirmation of the millerSs ta* assessment but it was denied.
SP9" elevated the case to the "ourt of !ppeals via a petition for review of the "T! decision
insofar as it upheld the deficienc+ millerSs ta* assessment. n its :ul+ 19, 2&&& resolution, the
appellate court dismissed the petition on the principal (round K5L that the verification attached
to it was si(ned merel+ b+ SP9"Ss chief financial officer U without the corporate secretar+Ss
certificate, board resolution or power of attorne+ authori1in( him to si(n the verification and
certification a(ainst forum shoppin(. SP9" sou(ht a reconsideration of the resolution but the
same was denied. 6ence, this petition.
2id the "ourt of !ppeals err when it dismissed SP9"Ss appealO
SP9" contends that its appeal should have been (iven due course since it substantiall+
complied with the re>uirements on verification and certification a(ainst forum shoppin(. t
insists on the liberal application of the rules because, on the merits of the petition, SP9" was
not liable for the ?< millerSs ta*. t maintains that the crude oil which it sold to F%"679
was actuall+ e*ported b+ F%"679 as an in(redient of fatt+ acid and (l+cerine, hence, not
sub,ect to millerSs ta* pursuant to Section 1;8 of the 198H Ta* "ode.

8or SP9", Section 1;8 of the 198H Ta* "ode contemplates two e*emptions from the millerSs
ta*5 AaB the milled products in their ori(inal state were actuall+ e*ported b+ the miller himself
or b+ another person, and AbB the milled products sold b+ the miller were actuall+ e*ported as
an in(redient or part of an+ manufactured article b+ the bu+er or manufacturer of the milled
products. The e*portation ma+ be effected b+ the miller himself or b+ the bu+er or
manufacturer of the milled products. Since F%"679, the bu+er of SP9"Ss milled products,
subse>uentl+ e*ported said products, SP9" should be e*empted from the millerSs ta*.
The petition must fail.
Fnder Rule '?, Section 5 of the Rules of "ourt, appeals from the "T! and >uasi#
,udicial a(encies to the "ourt of !ppeals should be verified. ! pleadin( re>uired to be verified
which lac@s proper verification shall be treated as an unsi(ned pleadin(. K;L

9oreover, a petition for review under Rule '? re>uires a sworn certification a(ainst forum
shoppin(. KHL 8ailure of the petitioner to compl+ with an+ of the re>uirements of a petition for
review is sufficient (round for the dismissal of the petition. K8L

! corporation ma+ e*ercise the powers e*pressl+ conferred upon it b+ the "orporation "ode
and those that are implied b+ or are incidental to its e*istence throu(h its board of directors
andEor dul+ authori1ed officers and a(ents. K9L 6ence, ph+sical acts, li@e the si(nin( of
documents, can be performed onl+ b+ natural persons dul+ authori1ed for the purpose b+
corporate b+#laws or b+ specific act of the board of directors. K1&L n the absence of authorit+
from the board of directors, no person, not even the officers of the corporation, can bind the
corporation. K11L

SP9"Ss petition in the "ourt of !ppeals did not indicate that the person who si(ned the
verificationEcertification on non#forum shoppin( was authori1ed to do so. SP9" merel+ relied
on the alle(ed inherent power of its chief financial officer to represent SP9" in all matters
re(ardin( the finances of the corporation includin(, amon( others, the filin( of suits to defend
or protect it from assessments and to recover erroneousl+ paid ta*es. SP9" even admitted that
no power of attorne+, secretar+Ss certificate or board resolution to prove the affiantSs authorit+
was attached to the petition. Thus, the petition was not properl+ verified. Since the petition
lac@ed proper verification, it was to be treated as an unsi(ned pleadin( sub,ect to dismissal.
K12L

n P7T Plans, nc. v. "ourt of !ppeals, K1?L the "ourt upheld the dismissal b+ the "ourt of
!ppeals of the petition on the (round that the verification and certification a(ainst forum
shoppin( was si(ned b+ P7T Plans, nc.Ss first vice#president for le(al affairsEcorporate
secretar+ without an+ certification that he was authori1ed to si(n in behalf of the corporation.

n 3P Ceasin( "orporation v. "ourt of !ppeals, K1'L the "ourt ruled that the petition should
be dismissed outri(ht on the (round that the verificationEcertification a(ainst forum shoppin(
was si(ned b+ 3P Ceasin( "orporationSs counsel with no specific authorit+ to do so. Since
the counsel was purportedl+ actin( for the corporation, he needed a resolution issued b+ the
board of directors that specificall+ authori1ed him to institute the petition and e*ecute the
certification. 4nl+ then would his actions be le(all+ bindin( on the corporation. K15L

n this case, therefore, the appellate court did not commit an error when it dismissed the
petition on the (round that it was si(ned b+ a person who had not been issued an+ authorit+ b+
the board of directors to represent the corporation.

%either can the "ourt subscribe to SP9"Ss claim of substantial compliance or to its plea for a
liberal application of the rules. Save for the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance with
procedural rules is en,oined to facilitate the orderl+ administration of ,ustice. K1;L Substantial
compliance will not suffice in a matter involvin( strict observance such as the re>uirement on
non#forum shoppin(, K1HL as well as verification. Ftter disre(ard of the rules cannot ,ustl+ be
rationali1ed b+ harpin( on the polic+ of liberal construction. K18L

3ut even if the fatal procedural infirmit+ were to be disre(arded, the petition must still fail for
lac@ of merit.

!s the "T! correctl+ ruled, SP9"Ss sale of crude coconut oil to F%"679 was sub,ect to
the ?< millerSs ta*. Section 1;8 of the 198H Ta* "ode provided5

Sec. 1;8. Percenta(e ta* upon proprietors or operators of rope factories, su(ar central mills,
coconut oil mills, palm oil mills, cassava mills and desiccated coconut factories. Proprietors
or operators of rope factories, su(ar central and mills, coconut oil mills, palm oil mills,
cassava mills and desiccated coconut factories, shall pa+ a ta* e>uivalent to three percent A?<B
of the (ross value in mone+ of all the rope, su(ar, coconut oil, palm oil, cassava flour or
starch, dessicated coconut, manufactured, processed or milled b+ them, includin( the b+#
product of the raw materials from which said articles are produced, processed or
manufactured, such ta* to be based on the actual sellin( price or mar@et value of these articles
at the time the+ leave the factor+ or mill warehouse5 Provided, however, That this ta* shall not
appl+ to rope, coconut oil, palm oil and the b+#product of copra from which it is produced or
manufactured and dessicated coconut, if such rope, coconut oil, palm oil, copra b+#products
and dessicated coconuts, shall be removed for e*portation b+ the proprietor or operator of the
factor+ or the miller himself, and are actuall+ e*ported without returnin( to the Philippines,
whether in their ori(inal state or as an in(redient or part of an+ manufactured article or
products5 Provided further, That where the planter or the owner of the raw materials is the
e*porter of the aforementioned milled or manufactured products, he shall be entitled to a ta*
credit of the miller)s ta*es withheld b+ the proprietor or operator of the factor+ or mill,
correspondin( to the >uantit+ e*ported, which ma+ be used a(ainst an+ internal revenue ta*
directl+ due from him5 and Provided, finall+, That credit for an+ sales, miller)s or e*cise ta*es
paid on raw materials or supplies used in the millin( process shall not be allowed a(ainst the
miller)s ta* due, e*cept in the case of a proprietor or operator of a refined su(ar factor+ as
provided hereunder. Aemphasis suppliedB

The lan(ua(e of the e*emptin( clause of Section 1;8 of the 198H Ta* "ode was clear. The ta*
e*emption applied onl+ to the e*portation of rope, coconut oil, palm oil, copra b+#products
and dessicated coconuts, whether in their ori(inal state or as an in(redient or part of an+
manufactured article or products, b+ the proprietor or operator of the factor+ or b+ the miller
himself.

The lan(ua(e of the e*emption proviso did not warrant the interpretation advanced b+ SP9".
%owhere did it provide that the e*portation made b+ the purchaser of the materials enumerated
in the e*emptin( clause or the manufacturer of products utili1in( the said materials was
covered b+ the e*emption. Since SP9"Ss situation was not within the ambit of the e*emption,
it was sub,ect to the ?< millerSs ta* imposed under Section 1;8 of the 198H Ta* "ode.

SP9"Ss proposed interpretation undul+ enlar(ed the scope of the e*emption clause. The rule
is that the e*emption must not be so enlar(ed b+ construction since the reasonable
presumption is that the State has (ranted in e*press terms all it intended to (rant and that,
unless the privile(e is limited to the ver+ terms of the statute, the favor would be intended
be+ond what was meant. K19L

.here the law enumerates the sub,ect or condition upon which it applies, it is to be construed
as e*cludin( from its effects all those not e*pressl+ mentioned. 7*pressio unius est e*clusio
alterius. !n+thin( that is not included in the enumeration is e*cluded therefrom and a meanin(
that does not appear nor is intended or reflected in the ver+ lan(ua(e of the statute cannot be
placed therein. K2&L The rule proceeds from the premise that the le(islature would not have
made specific enumerations in a statute if it had the intention not to restrict its meanin( and
confine its terms to those e*pressl+ mentioned. K21L

The rule of e*pressio unius est e*clusio alterius is a canon of restrictive interpretation. K22L ts
application in this case is consistent with the construction of ta* e*emptions in strictissimi
,uris a(ainst the ta*pa+er. To allow SP9"Ss claim for ta* e*emption will violate these
established principles and undul+ dero(ate soverei(n authorit+.

.67R784R7, the petition is hereb+ 27%72.

"osts a(ainst petitioner.


S4 4R27R72.
G.R. No. 1'8'08, )*+y 1', 200(
CONCEPCION PARANO 12. )OSE )O6ELLANOS
a#$ .:-
MUNICIPALIT O% CALASIAO, PANGASINAN
CORONA, ).4
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule '5 of the 199H Rules of "ourt
>uestionin( the resolution of the "ourt of !ppeals A"!B which dismissed the petition for
certiorari, mandamus and prohibition, with pra+er for issuance of a preliminar+ and mandator+
in,unction, filed b+ petitioner "oncepcion Para+no a(ainst respondents :ose :ovellanos and the
9unicipalit+ of "alasiao, Pan(asinan.
Petitioner was the owner of a (asoline fillin( station in "alasiao, Pan(asinan. n
1989, some residents of "alasiao petitioned the San((unian( 3a+an AS3B of said municipalit+
for the closure or transfer of the station to another location. The matter was referred to the
9unicipal 7n(ineer, "hief of Police, 9unicipal 6ealth 4fficer and the 3ureau of 8ire
Protection for investi(ation. Fpon their advise, the San((unian( 3a+an recommended to the
9a+or the closure or transfer of location of petitionerSs (asoline station. n Resolution %o. 5&,
it declared5

aB *** the e*istin( (asoline station is a blatant violation and disre(ard of e*istin( law to
wit5

The 4fficial Qonin( "ode of "alasiao, !rt. ;, Section '', K1L the nearest school buildin(
which is San 9i(uel 7lementar+ School and church, the distances are less than 1&& meters.
%o nei(hbors were called as witnesses when actual measurements were done b+ 6CFR3
Staff, 3a(uio "it+ dated 22 :une 1989.

bB The (asoline station remains in thic@l+ populated area with commercialEresidential
buildin(s, houses closed AsicB to each other which still endan(ers the lives and safet+ of the
people in case of fire. 9oreover, additional sellin( and storin( of several CP$ tan@s in the
station AsicB.
cB The residents of our baran(a+ alwa+s complain of the irritatin( smell of (asoline most of
the time especiall+ durin( (as fillin( which tend to e*pose residents especiall+ children to
fre>uent colds, asthma, cou(h and the li@e nowada+s.

dB *** the (asoline station violated 3uildin( and 8ire Safet+ "odes because the station has
2nd floor store+ buildin( used for business rental offices, with iron (rilled windows, no
firewalls. t also endan(ers the lives of people upstairs.

eB t hampers the flow of traffic, the (asoline station is too small and narrow, the entrance
and e*it are closed to the street propert+ lines. t couldnSt cope situation AsicB on traffic
because the place is a con(ested area. K2L


Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the S3 resolution but it was denied. 6ence, she
filed a special civil action for prohibition and mandamus with the Re(ional Trial "ourt ART"B
of 2a(upan "it+, 3ranch '' a(ainst respondents. The case, doc@eted as SP "ivil "ase %o. 99#
&?&1&#2, was raffled to the sala of :ud(e "rispin Caron.

Petitioner claimed that her (asoline station was not covered b+ Section '' of the 4fficial
Qonin( "ode since it was not a V(asoline service stationW but a V(asoline fillin( stationW
(overned b+ Section 21 thereof. She added that the decision of the 6ousin( and Cand Fse
Re(ulator+ 3oard A6CFR3B, K?L in a previous case filed b+ the same respondent :ovellanos
a(ainst her predecessor A2ennis Para+noB, barred the (rounds invo@ed b+ respondent
municipalit+ in Resolution %o. 5&. n the 6CFR3 case, respondent :ovellanos opposed the
establishment of the (as station on the (rounds that5 A1B it was within the 1&&#meter prohibited
radius under Section '' and A2B it posed a pernicious effect on the health and safet+ of the
people in "alasiao.

!fter the hearin( on the propriet+ of issuin( a writ of preliminar+ prohibitor+ and mandator+
in,unction, the trial court ruled5

There is no basis for the court to issue a writ of preliminar+ prohibitor+ and
mandator+ in,unction. !lbeit, Section '' of the 4fficial Qonin( "ode of respondent
municipalit+ does not mention a (asoline fillin( station, KbutL followin( the principle of
e,usdem (eneris, a (asoline fillin( station falls within the ambit of Section ''.

The (asoline fillin( station of the petitioner is located under the establishment belon(in( to the
petitioner and is ver+ near several buildin(s occupied b+ several persons. :ustice dictates that
the same should not be allowed to continue operatin( its business on that particular place.
8urther, the (asoline fillin( station endan(ers the lives and safet+ of people because once there
is fire, the establishment and houses nearb+ will be ra1ed to the (round. K'L Aemphasis
suppliedB

Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the decision but it was denied b+ the trial court.

Petitioner elevated the case to the "! via a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus,
K5L with a pra+er for in,unctive relief. She ascribed (rave abuse of discretion, amountin( to
lac@ or e*cess of ,urisdiction, on the part of :ud(e Caron who dismissed her case.

!fter the "! dismissed the petition, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same
was denied. 6ence, this appeal.

3efore us, petitioner insists that A1B the le(al ma*im of e,usdem (eneris did not appl+ to her
case= A2B the closureEtransfer of her (asoline fillin( station b+ respondent municipalit+ was an
invalid e*ercise of the latterSs police powers and A?B it was the principle of res ,udicata that
applied in this case. K;L

.e find merit in the petition.

T67 PR%"PC7 48 7:FS279 $7%7RS

.e hold that the 1onin( ordinance of respondent municipalit+ made a clear distinction
between V(asoline service stationW and V(asoline fillin( station.W The pertinent provisions
read5
*** *** ***

Section 21. 8illin( Station. ! retail station servicin( automobiles and other motor vehicles
with (asoline and oil onl+. KHL

*** *** ***

Section '2. Service Station. ! buildin( and its premises where (asoline oil, (rease, batteries,
tires and car accessories ma+ be supplied and dispensed at retail and where, in addition, the
followin( services ma+ be rendered and sales and no other.

a. Sale and servicin( of spar@ plu(s, batteries, and distributor parts=
b. Tire servicin( and repair, but not recappin( or re(roovin(=
c. Replacement of mufflers and tail pipes, water hose, fan belts, bra@e fluids, li(ht bulbs,
fuses, floor mats, seat covers, windshield wipers and wiper blades, (rease retainers, wheel,
bearin(, mirrors and the li@e=
d. Radiator cleanin( and flushin(=
e. .ashin( and polishin(, and sale of automobile washin( and polishin( materials=
f. $rease and lubricatin(=
(. 7mer(enc+ wirin( repairs=
h. 9inor servicin( of carburators=
i. !d,ustin( and repairin( bra@es=
,. 9inor motor ad,ustments not involvin( removal of the head or cran@case, or raisin( the
motor. K8L

*** *** ***

t is evident from the fore(oin( that the ordinance intended these two terms to be separate and
distinct from each other. 7ven respondent municipalit+Ss counsel admitted this dissimilarit+
durin( the hearin( on the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminar+ prohibitor+ and
mandator+ in,unction. "ounsel in fact admitted5

1. That there e*istKedL an official 1onin( code of "alasiao, Pan(asinan which KwasL not +et
amended=
2. That under !rticle of said official 1onin( code there KwereL certain distinctions made b+
said municipalit+ about the desi(nation of the (asoline fillin( station and that of the (asoline
service station as appearin( in !rticle , %os. 21 and '2, Krespectivel+L=
?. That the business of the petitioner KwasL one of a (asoline fillin( station as defined in
!rticle , Section 21 of the 1onin( code and not as a service station as differentl+ defined
under !rticle '2 of the said official 1onin( code=
'. That under Section '' of the official 1onin( code of "alasiao, the term fillin( station as
clearl+ defined under !rticle , Section 21, KdidL not appear in the wordin(s thereof= K9L
Aemphasis suppliedB

The fore(oin( were ,udicial admissions which were conclusive on the municipalit+, the part+
ma@in( them. K1&L Respondent municipalit+ thus could not find solace in the le(al ma*im of
e,usdem (eneris K11L which means Vof the same @ind, class or nature.W Fnder this ma*im,
where (eneral words follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or thin(s, the
(eneral words will appl+ onl+ to persons or thin(s of the same (eneral nature or class as those
enumerated. K12L nstead, what applied in this case was the le(al ma*im e*pressio unius est
e*clusio alterius which means that the e*press mention of one thin( implies the e*clusion of
others. K1?L 6ence, because of the distinct and definite meanin(s alluded to the two terms b+
the 1onin( ordinance, respondents could not insist that V(asoline service stationW under
Section '' necessaril+ included V(asoline fillin( stationW under Section 21. ndeed, the
activities underta@en in a V(as service stationW did not automaticall+ embrace those in a V(as
fillin( station.W

T67 7D7R"S7 48 P4C"7 P4.7RS

Respondent municipalit+ invalidl+ used its police powers in orderin( the closureEtransfer of
petitionerSs (asoline station. .hile it had, under R! H1;&, K1'L the power to ta@e actions and
enact measures to promote the health and (eneral welfare of its constituents, it should have
(iven due deference to the law and the ri(hts of petitioner.

! local (overnment is considered to have properl+ e*ercised its police powers onl+ when the
followin( re>uisites are met5 A1B the interests of the public (enerall+, as distin(uished from
those of a particular class, re>uire the interference of the State and A2B the means emplo+ed are
reasonabl+ necessar+ for the attainment of the ob,ect sou(ht to be accomplished and not
undul+ oppressive. K15L The first re>uirement refers to the e>ual protection clause and the
second, to the due process clause of the "onstitution. K1;L

Respondent municipalit+ failed to compl+ with the due process clause when it passed
Resolution %o. 5&. .hile it maintained that the (asoline fillin( station of petitioner was less
than 1&& meters from the nearest public school and church, the records do not show that it
even attempted to measure the distance, notwithstandin( that such distance was crucial in
determinin( whether there was an actual violation of Section ''. The different local offices
that respondent municipalit+ tapped to conduct an investi(ation never conducted such
measurement either.

9oreover, petitionerSs business could not be considered a nuisance which respondent
municipalit+ could summaril+ abate in the (uise of e*ercisin( its police powers. The
abatement of a nuisance without ,udicial proceedin(s is possible onl+ if it is a nuisance per se.
! (as station is not a nuisance per se or one affectin( the immediate safet+ of persons and
propert+, K1HL hence, it cannot be closed down or transferred summaril+ to another location.

!s a rule, this "ourt does not pass upon evidence submitted b+ the parties in the lower courts.
K18L .e deem it necessar+, however, to recall the findin(s of the 6CFR3 which petitioner
submitted as evidence durin( the proceedin(s before the trial court, if onl+ to underscore
petitionerSs compliance with the re>uirements of law before she put up her (asoline station.

!nother factor that should not be left unnoticed is the dili(ence e*ercised b+ KpetitionerL in
compl+in( with the re>uirements of the several laws prior to the actual implementation of the
pro,ect as can be attested b+ the fact that KpetitionerL has secured the necessar+ buildin( permit
and approval of KherL application for authorit+ to relocate as per the letter of the 7ner(+
Re(ulator+ 3oard ***. K19L
4n the alle(ed ha1ardous effects of the (asoline station to the lives and properties of the
people of "alasiao, we a(ain note5
Relative to the alle(ations that the pro,ect A(asoline stationB is ha1ardous to life and propert+,
the 3oard ta@es co(ni1ance of the respondentSs contention that the pro,ect Vis not a fire ha1ard
since petroleum products shall be safel+ stored in under(round tan@s and that the installation
and construction of the under(round tan@s shall be in accordance with the "alte* 7n(ineerin(
Procedures which is true to all (asoline stations in the countr+. ***

6ence, the 3oard is inclined to believe that the pro,ect bein( ha1ardous to life and propert+ is
more perceived than factual. 8or, after all, even the 8ire Station "ommander, after stud+in(
the plans and specifications of the sub,ect proposed construction, recommended on 2& :anuar+
1989, Vto build such buildin(s after conform AsicB all the re>uirements of PP 1185.W t is
further alle(ed b+ the complainants that the proposed location is Vin the heart of the thic@l+
populated residential area of "alasiao.W !(ain, findin(s of the K6CFR3L staff ne(ate the
alle(ations as the same is within a desi(nated 3usinessE"ommercial Qone per the Qonin(
4rdinance. *** K2&L Aemphasis suppliedB


The findin(s of fact of the 6CFR3 are bindin( as the+ are alread+ final and conclusive vis#X#
vis the evidence submitted b+ respondents.


T67 PR%"PC7 48 R7S :F2"!T!

Petitioner points out that the 6CFR3 decision in the previous case filed a(ainst her
predecessor A2ennis Para+noB b+ respondent :ovellanos had effectivel+ barred the issues in
Resolution %o. 5& based on the principle of res ,udicata. .e a(ree.

Res ,udicata refers to the rule that a final ,ud(ment or decree on the merits b+ a court of
competent ,urisdiction is conclusive of the ri(hts of the parties or their privies in all later suits
on all points and matters determined in the former suit. K21L 8or res ,udicata to appl+, the
followin( elements must be present5 A1B the ,ud(ment or order must be final= A2B the ,ud(ment
must be on the merits= A?B it must have been rendered b+ a court havin( ,urisdiction over the
sub,ect matter and the parties and A'B there must be, between the first and second actions,
identit+ of parties, of sub,ect matter and of cause of action. K22L

Respondent municipalit+ does not contest the first, second and third re>uisites. 6owever, it
claims that it was not a part+ to the 6CFR3 case but onl+ its co#respondent :ovellanos, hence,
the fourth re>uisite was not met. The ar(ument is untenable.

The absolute identit+ of parties is not re>uired for the principle of res ,udicata to appl+. K2?L !
shared identit+ of interests is sufficient to invo@e the application of this principle. K2'L The
proscription ma+ not be evaded b+ the mere e*pedient of includin( an additional part+. K25L
Res ,udicata ma+ lie as lon( as there is a communit+ of interests between a part+ in the first
case and a part+ in the second case althou(h the latter ma+ not have been impleaded in the
first. K2;L

n the assailed resolution of respondent municipalit+, it raised the same (rounds invo@ed b+ its
co#respondent in the 6CFR35 A1B that the resolution aimed to close down or transfer the
(asoline station to another location due to the alle(ed violation of Section '' of the 1onin(
ordinance and A2B that the ha1ards of said (asoline station threatened the health and safet+ of
the public. The 6CFR3 had alread+ settled these concerns and its ad,udication had lon(
attained finalit+. t is to the interest of the public that there should be an end to liti(ation b+ the
parties over a sub,ect matter alread+ full+ and fairl+ ad,ud(ed. 8urthermore, an individual
should not be ve*ed twice for the same cause. K2HL

.67R784R7, the petition is hereb+ $R!%T72. The assailed resolution of the "ourt of the
!ppeals is R7/7RS72 and S7T !S27. Respondent 9unicipalit+ of "alasiao is hereb+
directed to cease and desist from enforcin( Resolution %o. 5& a(ainst petitioner insofar as it
see@s to close down or transfer her (asoline station to another location.

%o costs.

S4 4R27R72.

G.R. No. 10(719 S-,.-<5-0 21, 199&
DRA. BRIGIDA S. BUENASEDA, L.. Co+. ISABELO BANE=, )R., ENGR. CONRADO
RE MATIAS, M2. CORA S. SOLIS a#$ M2. ENA N. LOPE=, petitioners,
vs.
SECRETAR )UAN %LA6IER, O<5*$2<a# CONRADO M. 6AS3UE=, a#$ NCMH
NURSES ASSOCIATION, 0-,0-2-#.-$ 5y RAOULITO GAUTIN, respondents.
3UIASON, J.:
This is a Petition for !ertiorari, Prohibition and 0andamus, with Pra+er for Preliminar+
n,unction or Temporar+ Restrainin( 4rder, under Rule ;5 of the Revised Rules of "ourt.
Principall+, the petition see@s to nullif+ the 4rder of the 4mbudsman dated :anuar+ H, 1992,
directin( the preventive suspension of petitioners,
2r. 3ri(ida S. 3uenaseda, "hief of 6ospital = sabelo ". 3ane1, :r., !dministrative 4fficer
= "onrado Re+ 9atias, Technical !ssistant to the "hief of 6ospital= "ora ". Solis,
!ccountant = and 7n+a %. Cope1, Suppl+ 4fficer , all of the %ational "enter for 9ental
6ealth. The petition also as@s for an order directin( the 4mbudsman to dis>ualif+ 2irector
Raul !rnaw and nvesti(ator !m+ de /illa#Rosero, of the 4ffice of the 4mbudsman, from
participation in the preliminar+ investi(ation of the char(es a(ainst petitioner A(ollo, pp. 2#1H=
!nne*es to Petition, (ollo, pp. 19#21B.
The >uestioned order was issued in connection with the administrative complaint filed with
the 4mbudsman A439#!29#&#91#&151B b+ the private respondents a(ainst the petitioners
for violation of the !nti#$raft and "orrupt Practices !ct.
!ccordin( to the petition, the said order was issued upon the recommendation of 2irector
Raul !rnaw and nvesti(ator !m+ de /illa#Rosero, without affordin( petitioners the
opportunit+ to controvert the char(es filed a(ainst them. Petitioners had sou(ht to dis>ualif+
2irector !rnaw and nvesti(ator /illa#Rosero for manifest partialit+ and bias A(ollo, pp. '#15B.
4n September 1&, 1992, this "ourt re>uired respondents) "omment on the petition.
4n September 1' and September 22, 1992, petitioners filed a JSupplemental Petition A(ollo,
pp. 12'#1?&B= !nne*es to Supplemental Petition= (ollo pp. 1'&#1;?B and an JFr(ent
Supplemental 9anifestationJ A(ollo,
pp. 1;'#1H2= !nne*es to Fr(ent Supplemental 9anifestation= (ollo, pp. 1H?#1H;B,
respectivel+, averrin( developments that transpired after the filin( of the petition and stressin(
the ur(enc+ for the issuance of the writ of preliminar+ in,unction or temporar+ restrainin(
order.
4n September 22, 1992, this "ourt J. . . Resolved to R70FR7 the respondents to
9!%T!% in the meantime, the #TTU# HU" pendin( filin( of comments b+ said
respondents on the ori(inal supplemental manifestationJ A(ollo, p. 1HHB.
4n September 29, 1992, petitioners filed a motion to direct respondent Secretar+ of 6ealth to
compl+ with the Resolution dated September 22, 1992 A(ollo, pp. 182#192, !nne*es, pp. 192#
2&?B. n a Resolution dated 4ctober 1, 1992, this "ourt re>uired respondent Secretar+ of
6ealth to comment on the said motion.
4n September 29, 1992, in a pleadin( entitled J4mnibus Submission,J respondent %"96
%urses !ssociation submitted its "omment to the Petition, Supplemental Petition and Fr(ent
Supplemental 9anifestation. ncluded in said pleadin(s were the motions to hold the law+ers
of petitioners in contempt and to disbar them A(ollo, pp. 21&#2;HB. !ttached to the J4mnibus
SubmissionJ as anne*es were the orders and pleadin(s filed in !dministrative "ase %o. 439#
!29#&#91#1&51 a(ainst petitioners A(ollo, pp. 2;8#'8&B.
The 9otion for 2isbarment char(es the law+ers of petitioners with5
A1B unlawfull+ advisin( or otherwise causin( or inducin( their clients I petitioners
3uenaseda, et al., to openl+ def+, i(nore, disre(ard, disobe+ or otherwise violate, maliciousl+
evade their preventive suspension b+ 4rder of :ul+ H, 1992 of the 4mbudsman . . .J= A2B
Junlawfull+ interferin( with and obstructin( the implementation of the said order A4mnibus
Submission, pp. 5&#52= (ollo, pp. 259#2;&B= and A?B violation of the "anons of the "ode of
Professional Responsibilit+ and of unprofessional and unethical conduct Jb+ foistin( blatant
lies, malicious falsehood and outra(eous deceptionJ and b+ committin( subornation of per,ur+,
falsification and fabrication in their pleadin(s A4mnibus Submission, pp. 52#5'= (ollo, pp.
2;1#2;?B.
4n %ovember 11, 1992, petitioners filed a J9anifestation and Supplement to )9otion to
2irect Respondent Secretar+ of 6ealth to "ompl+ with 22 September 1992 Resolution)J
A9anifestation attached to (ollo without pa(ination between pp. ;1? and ;1' thereofB.
4n %ovember 1?, 1992, the Solicitor $eneral submitted its "omment dated %ovember 1&,
1992, alle(in( that5 AaB Jdespite the issuance of the September 22, 1992 Resolution directin(
respondents to maintain the status quo, respondent Secretar+ refuses to hold in abe+ance the
implementation of petitioners) preventive suspension= AbB the clear intent and spirit of the
Resolution dated September 22, 1992 is to hold in abe+ance the implementation of petitioners)
preventive suspension, the status quo obtainin( the time of the filin( of the instant petition= AcB
respondent Secretar+)s acts in refusin( to hold in abe+ance implementation of petitioners)
preventive suspension and in toleratin( and approvin( the acts of 2r. !bueva, the 4"
appointed to replace petitioner 3uenaseda, are in violation of the Resolution dated September
22, 1992= and
AdB therefore, respondent Secretar+ should be directed to compl+ with the Resolution dated
September 22, 1992 immediatel+, b+ restorin( the status quo ante contemplated b+ the
aforesaid resolutionJ A"omment attached to (ollo without pa(inations between pp. ;1?#;1'
thereofB.
n the Resolution dated %ovember 25, 1992, this "ourt re>uired respondent Secretar+ to
compl+ with the aforestated status quo order, statin( inter alia, that5
t appearin( that the status quo ante litem motam, or the last peaceable
uncontested status which preceded the present controvers+ was the
situation obtainin( at the time of the filin( of the petition at bar on
September H, 1992 wherein petitioners were then actuall+ occup+in( their
respective positions, the "ourt hereb+ 4R27RS that petitioners be
allowed to perform the duties of their respective positions and to receive
such salaries and benefits as the+ ma+ be lawfull+ entitled to, and that
respondents andEor an+ and all persons actin( under their authorit+ desist
and refrain from performin( an+ act in violation of the aforementioned
Resolution of September 22, 1992 until further orders from the "ourt
A!ttached to (ollo after p. ;15 thereofB.
4n 2ecember 9, 1992, the Solicitor $eneral, commentin( on the Petition, Supplemental
Petition and Supplemental 9anifestation, stated that AaB JThe authorit+ of the 4mbudsman is
onl+ to recommend suspension and he has no direct power to suspend=J and AbB J!ssumin( the
4mbudsman has the power to directl+ suspend a (overnment official or emplo+ee, there are
conditions re>uired b+ law for the e*ercise of such powers= KandL said conditions have not
been met in the instant caseJ A!ttached to (ollo without pa(inationB.
n the pleadin( filed on :anuar+ 25, 199?, petitioners adopted the position of the Solicitor
$eneral that the 4mbudsman can onl+ suspend (overnment officials or emplo+ees connected
with his office. Petitioners also refuted private respondents) motion to disbar petitioners)
counsel and to cite them for contempt A!ttached to (ollo without pa(inationB.
The crucial issue to resolve is whether the 4mbudsman has the power to suspend (overnment
officials and emplo+ees wor@in( in offices other than the 4ffice of the 4mbudsman, pendin(
the investi(ation of the administrative complaints filed a(ainst said officials and emplo+ees.
n upholdin( the power of the 4mbudsman to preventivel+ suspend petitioners, respondents
AFr(ent 9otion to Cift #tatus Huo, etc, dated :anuar+ 11, 199?, pp. 1&#11B, invo@e Section 2'
of R.!. %o. ;HH&, which provides5
Sec. 2'. $reventive #uspension. I The 4mbudsman or his 2eput+ ma+
preventivel+ suspend an+ officer or emplo+ee under his authorit+ pendin(
an investi(ation, if in his ,ud(ment the evidence of (uilt is stron(, and AaB
the char(e a(ainst such officer or emplo+ee involves dishonest+,
oppression or (rave misconduct or ne(lect in the performance of dut+= AbB
the char(e would warrant removal from the service= or AcB the respondent)s
continued sta+ in office ma+ pre,udice the case filed a(ainst him.
The preventive suspension shall continue until the case is terminated b+
the 4ffice of 4mbudsman but not more than si* months, without pa+,
e*cept when the dela+ in the disposition of the case b+ the 4ffice of the
4mbudsman is due to the fault, ne(li(ence or petition of the respondent, in
which case the period of such dela+ shall not be counted in computin( the
period of suspension herein provided.
Respondents ar(ue that the power of preventive suspension (iven the 4mbudsman under
Section 2' of R.!. %o. ;HH& was contemplated b+ Section 1? A8B of !rticle D of the 198H
"onstitution, which provides that the 4mbudsman shall e*ercise such other power or perform
such functions or duties as ma+ be provided b+ law.J
4n the other hand, the Solicitor $eneral and the petitioners claim that under the 198H
"onstitution, the 4mbudsman can onl+ recommend to the heads of the departments and other
a(encies the preventive suspension of officials and emplo+ees facin( administrative
investi(ation conducted b+ his office. 6ence, he cannot order the preventive suspension
himself.
The+ invo@e Section 1?A?B of the 198H "onstitution which provides that the 4ffice of the
4mbudsman shall have inter alia the power, function, and dut+ to5
2irect the officer concerned to ta@e appropriate action a(ainst a public
official or emplo+ee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension,
demotion, fine, censure or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.
The Solicitor $eneral ar(ues that under said provision of the "onstitutions, the 4mbudsman
has three distinct powers, namel+5 A1B direct the officer concerned to ta@e appropriate action
a(ainst public officials or emplo+ees at fault= A2B recommend their removal, suspension,
demotion fine, censure, or prosecution= and A?B compel compliance with the recommendation
A"omment dated 2ecember ?, 1992, pp. 9#1&B.
The line of ar(ument of the Solicitor $eneral is a siren call that can easil+ mislead, unless one
bears in mind that what the 4mbudsman imposed on petitioners was not a punitive but onl+ a
preventive suspension.
.hen the constitution vested on the 4mbudsman the power Jto recommend the suspensionJ of
a public official or emplo+ees ASec. 1? K?LB, it referred to Jsuspension,J as a punitive measure.
!ll the words associated with the word JsuspensionJ in said provision referred to penalties in
administrative cases, e.g. removal, demotion, fine, censure. Fnder the rule of 9oscitor a
sociis, the word JsuspensionJ should be (iven the same sense as the other words with which it
is associated. .here a particular word is e>uall+ susceptible of various meanin(s, its correct
construction ma+ be made specific b+ considerin( the compan+ of terms in which it is found
or with which it is associated A"o Nim "han v. /alde1 Tan Neh, H5 Phil. ?H1 K19'5L= "alte*
APhils.B nc. v. Palomar, 18 S"R! 2'H K19;;LB.
Section 2' of R.!. %o. ;HH&, which (rants the 4mbudsman the power to preventivel+ suspend
public officials and emplo+ees facin( administrative char(es before him, is a procedural, not a
penal statute. The preventive suspension is imposed after compliance with the re>uisites
therein set forth, as an aid in the investi(ation of the administrative char(es.
Fnder the "onstitution, the 4mbudsman is e*pressl+ authori1ed to recommend to the
appropriate official the discipline or prosecution of errin( public officials or emplo+ees. n
order to ma@e an intelli(ent determination whether to recommend such actions, the
4mbudsman has to conduct an investi(ation. n turn, in order for him to conduct such
investi(ation in an e*peditious and efficient manner, he ma+ need to suspend the respondent.
The need for the preventive suspension ma+ arise from several causes, amon( them, the
dan(er of tamperin( or destruction of evidence in the possession of respondent= the
intimidation of witnesses, etc. The 4mbudsman should be (iven the discretion to decide when
the persons facin( administrative char(es should be preventivel+ suspended.
Penal statutes are strictl+ construed while procedural statutes are liberall+ construed
A"rawford, Statutor+ "onstruction, nterpretation of Caws, pp. ';&#';1= Cacson v. Romero, 92
Phil. '5; K195?LB. The test in determinin( if a statute is penal is whether a penalt+ is imposed
for the punishment of a wron( to the public or for the redress of an in,ur+ to an individual A59
"orpu1 :uris, Sec. ;58= "rawford, Statutor+ "onstruction, pp. '9;#'9HB. ! "ode prescribin(
the procedure in criminal cases is not a penal statute and is to be interpreted liberall+ APeople
v. !dler, 1'& %.G. ??1= ?5 %.7. ;''B.
The purpose of R.!. %o. ;HH& is to (ive the 4mbudsman such powers as he ma+ need to
perform efficientl+ the tas@ committed to him b+ the "onstitution. Such bein( the case, said
statute, particularl+ its provisions dealin( with procedure, should be (iven such interpretation
that will effectuate the purposes and ob,ectives of the "onstitution. !n+ interpretation that will
hamper the wor@ of the 4mbudsman should be avoided.
! statute (rantin( powers to an a(enc+ created b+ the "onstitution should be liberall+
construed for the advancement of the purposes and ob,ectives for which it was created A"f.
2epartment of Public Ftilities v. !r@ansas Couisiana $as. "o., 2&& !r@. 98?, 1'2 S... A2dB
21? K19'&L= .allace v. 8eehan, 2&; nd. 522, 19& %.7., '?8 K19?'LB.
n 9era v. &arcia, 1&; Phil. 1&?1 K19;&L, this "ourt, holdin( that a preventive suspension is
not a penalt+, said5
Suspension is a preliminar+ step in an administrative investi(ation. f after
such investi(ation, the char(es are established and the person investi(ated
is found (uilt+ of acts warrantin( his removal, then he is removed or
dismissed. This is the penalt+.
To support his theor+ that the 4mbudsman can onl+ preventivel+ suspend respondents in
administrative cases who are emplo+ed in his office, the Solicitor $eneral leans heavil+ on the
phrase Jsuspend an+ officer or emplo+ee under his authorit+J in Section 2' of R.!. %o. ;HH&.
The ori(in of the phrase can be traced to Section ;9' of the Revised !dministrative "ode,
which dealt with preventive suspension and which authori1ed the chief of a bureau or office to
Jsuspend an+ subordinate or emplo+ee in his bureau or under his authorit+ pendin( an
investi(ation . . . .J
Section ?' of the "ivil Service !ct of 1959 AR.!. %o. 22;;B, which superseded Section ;9' of
the Revised !dministrative "ode also authori1ed the chief of a bureau or office to Jsuspend
an+ subordinate officer or emplo+ees, in his bureau or under his authorit+.J
6owever, when the power to discipline (overnment officials and emplo+ees was e*tended to
the "ivil Service "ommission b+ the "ivil Service Caw of 19H5 AP.2. %o. 8&5B, concurrentl+
with the President, the 2epartment Secretaries and the heads of bureaus and offices, the phrase
Jsubordinate officer and emplo+ee in his bureauJ was deleted, appropriatel+ leavin( the phrase
Junder his authorit+.J Therefore, Section '1 of said law onl+ mentions that the proper
disciplinin( authorit+ ma+ preventivel+ suspend Jan+ subordinate officer or emplo+ee under
his authorit+ pendin( an investi(ation . . .J ASec. '1B.
The !dministrative "ode of 198H also empowered the proper disciplinin( authorit+ to
Jpreventivel+ suspend an+ subordinate officer or emplo+ee under his authorit+ pendin( an
investi(ationJ ASec. 51B.
The 4mbudsman Caw advisedl+ deleted the words JsubordinateJ and Jin his bureau,J leavin(
the phrase to read Jsuspend an+ officer or emplo+ee under his authorit+ pendin( an
investi(ation . . . .J The conclusion that can be deduced from the deletion of the word
JsubordinateJ before and the words Jin his bureauJ after Jofficer or emplo+eeJ is that the
"on(ress intended to empower the 4mbudsman to preventivel+ suspend all officials and
emplo+ees under investi(ation b+ his office, irrespective of whether the+ are emplo+ed Jin his
officeJ or in other offices of the (overnment. The moment a criminal or administrative
complaint is filed with the 4mbudsman, the respondent therein is deemed to be Jin his
authorit+J and he can proceed to determine whether said respondent should be placed under
preventive suspension.
n their petition, petitioners also claim that the 4mbudsman committed (rave abuse of
discretion amountin( to lac@ of ,urisdiction when he issued the suspension order without
affordin( petitioners the opportunit+ to confront the char(es a(ainst them durin( the
preliminar+ conference and even after petitioners had as@ed for the dis>ualification of 2irector
!rnaw and !tt+. /illa#Rosero A(ollo, pp. ;#1?B. :oinin( petitioners, the Solicitor $eneral
contends that assumin( arguendo that the 4mbudsman has the power to preventivel+ suspend
errin( public officials and emplo+ees who are wor@in( in other departments and offices, the
>uestioned order remains null and void for his failure to compl+ with the re>uisites in Section
2' of the 4mbudsman Caw A"omment dated 2ecember ?, 1992, pp. 11#19B.
3ein( a mere order for preventive suspension, the >uestioned order of the 4mbudsman was
validl+ issued even without a full#blown hearin( and the formal presentation of evidence b+
the parties. n 9era, supra, petitioner therein also claimed that the Secretar+ of 6ealth could
not preventivel+ suspend him before he could file his answer to the administrative complaint.
The contention of petitioners herein can be dismissed perfunctoril+ b+ holdin( that the
suspension meted out was merel+ preventive and therefore, as held in 9era, there was
Jnothin( improper in suspendin( an officer pendin( his investi(ation and before tho char(es
a(ainst him are heard . . . A%era v. $arcia., supraB.
There is no >uestion that under Section 2' of R.!. %o. ;HH&, the 4mbudsman cannot order the
preventive suspension of a respondent unless the evidence of (uilt is stron( and A1B the charts
a(ainst such officer or emplo+ee involves dishonest+, oppression or (rave misconduct or
ne(lect in the performance of dut+= A2B the char(e would warrant removal from the service= or
A?B the respondent)s continued sta+ in office ma+ pre,udice the case filed a(ainst him.
The same conditions for the e*ercise of the power to preventivel+ suspend officials or
emplo+ees under investi(ation were found in Section ?' of R.!. %o. 22;&.
The import of the 9era decision is that the disciplinin( authorit+ is (iven the discretion to
decide when the evidence of (uilt is stron(. This fact is bolstered b+ Section 2' of R.!. %o.
;HH&, which e*pressl+ left such determination of (uilt to the J,ud(mentJ of the 4mbudsman
on the basis of the administrative complaint. n the case at bench, the 4mbudsman issued the
order of preventive suspension onl+ after5 AaB petitioners had filed their answer to the
administrative complaint and the J9otion for the Preventive SuspensionJ of petitioners, which
incorporated the char(es in the criminal complaint a(ainst them A!nne* ?, 4mnibus
Submission, (ollo, pp. 288#289= !nne* ', (ollo,
pp. 29&#29;B= AbB private respondent had filed a repl+ to the answer of petitioners, specif+in(
2? cases of harassment b+ petitioners of the members of the private respondent A!nne* ;,
4mnibus Submission, (ollo, pp. ?&9#???B= and AcB a preliminar+ conference wherein the
complainant and the respondents in the administrative case a(reed to submit their list of
witnesses and documentar+ evidence.
Petitioners herein submitted on %ovember H, 1991 their list of e*hibits A!nne* 8 of 4mnibus
Submission, (ollo, pp. ??;#??HB while private respondents submitted their list of e*hibits
A!nne* 9 of 4mnibus Submission, (ollo, pp. ??8#?'8B.
Fnder these circumstances, it can not be said that 2irector Raul !rnaw and nvesti(ator !m+
de /illa#Rosero acted with manifest partialit+ and bias in recommendin( the suspension of
petitioners. %either can it be said that the 4mbudsman had acted with (rave abuse of
discretion in actin( favorabl+ on their recommendation.
The 9otion for "ontempt, which char(es the law+ers of petitioners with unlawfull+ causin( or
otherwise inducin( their clients to openl+ def+ and disobe+ the preventive suspension as
ordered b+ the 4mbudsman and the Secretar+ of 6ealth can not prosper A(ollo, pp. 259#2;1B.
The 9otion should be filed, as in fact such a motion was filed, with the 4mbudsman. !t an+
rate, we find that the acts alle(ed to constitute indirect contempt were le(itimate measures
ta@en b+ said law+ers to >uestion the validit+ and propriet+ of the preventive suspension of
their clients.
4n the other hand, we ta@e co(ni1ance of the intemperate lan(ua(e used b+ counsel for private
respondents hurled a(ainst petitioners and their counsel A"onsolidated5 A1B "omment on
Private RespondentJ JFr(ent 9otions, etc.=
A2B !doption of 4S$)s "omment= and A?B Repl+ to Private Respondent)s "omment and
Supplemental "omment, pp. '#5B.
! law+er should not be carried awa+ in espousin( his client)s cause. The lan(ua(e of a law+er,
both oral or written, must be respectful and restrained in @eepin( with the di(nit+ of the le(al
profession and with his behavioral attitude toward his brethren in the profession ACubiano v.
$ordolla, 115 S"R! '59 K1982LB. The use of abusive lan(ua(e b+ counsel a(ainst the
opposin( counsel constitutes at the same time a disrespect to the di(nit+ of the court of ,ustice.
3esides, the use of impassioned lan(ua(e in pleadin(s, more often than not, creates more heat
than li(ht.
The 9otion for 2isbarment A(ollo, p. 2;1B has no place in the instant special civil action,
which is confined to >uestions of ,urisdiction or abuse of discretion for the purpose of
relievin( persons from the arbitrar+ acts of ,ud(es and >uasi#,udicial officers. There is a set of
procedure for the discipline of members of the bar separate and apart from the present special
civil action.
.67R784R7, the petition is 2S9SS72 and the #tatus quo ordered to be maintained in the
Resolution dated September 22, 1992 is C8T72 and S7T !S27.
S4 4R27R72.
S-,a0a.- O,/#/o#2
BELLOSILLO, J., concurrin(5
7 agree that the "mbudsman has the authority, under #ec. ,1 of (..
9o. 8::3, to preventively suspend any government official or employee administratively charged before him pending the
investigation of the complaint, the reason being that respondentGs continued stay in office may prejudice the prosecution
of the case.
Cowever, in the case before us, 7 am afraid that the facts thus far presented may not provide adequate basis to reasonably
place petitioners under preventive suspension. /or, it is not enough to rule that the "mbudsman has authority to suspend
petitioners preventively while the case is in progress before him. ?qually important is the determination whether it is
necessary to issue the preventive suspension under the circumstances. (egretfully, 7 cannot see any sufficient basis to
justify the preventive suspension. That is why, 7 go for granting oral argument to the parties so that we can truthfully
determine whether the preventive suspension of respondents are warranted by the facts. Fe may be suspending >ey
government officials and employees on the basis merely of speculations which may not serve the ends of justice but
which, on the other hand, deprive them of their right to due process. The simultaneous preventive suspension of top
officials and employees of the 9ational !enter for 0ental Cealth may just disrupt, the hospitalGs normal operations,
much to the detriment of public service. Fe may safely assume that it is not easy to replace them in their respective
functions as those substituting them may be ta>ing over for the first time. The proper care of mental patients may thus be
unduly jeopardi@ed and their lives and limbs imperilled.
7 would be amenable to holding oral argument to hear the parties if only to have enough factual and legal bases to justify
the preventive suspension of petitioners.
AG.R. No. 7909'. )*#- 22, 1988.B
MANOLO P. %ULE, Petitioner, 1. THE HONORABLE COURT O% APPEALS,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
MELENCIO?HERRERA, J.4
This is a Petition for Review on !ertiorari of the 2ecision of respondent !ppellate
"ourt, which affirmed the ,ud(ment of the Re(ional Trial "ourt, Cucena "it+,
3ranch C/, convictin( petitioner Athe accused#appellantB of /iolation of 3atas
Pambansa 3l(. 22 AThe 3ouncin( "hec@s CawB on the basis of the Stipulation of
8acts entered into between the prosecution and the defense durin( the pre#trial
conference in the Trial "ourt. The facts stipulated upon read5chanroblesvirtualawlibrar+
JaB That this "ourt has ,urisdiction over the person and sub,ect matter of this case=
JbB That the accused was an a(ent of the Towers !ssurance "orporation on or before
:anuar+ 21, 1981=
JcB That on :anuar+ 21, 1981, the accused issued and made out chec@ %o. 2;H'1,
dated :anuar+ 2', 1981 in the sum of P2,5'1.&5=
JdB That the said chec@ was drawn in favor of the complainin( witness, Ro+ %adera=
JeB That the chec@ was drawn in favor of the complainin( witness in remittance of
collection=
JfB That the said chec@ was presented for pa+ment on :anuar+ 2', 1981 but the same
was dishonored for the reason that the said chec@in( account was alread+ closed=
J(B That the accused 9anolo 8ule has been properl+ identified as the accused part+
in this case.Jcralaw virtua1aw librar+
!t the hearin( of !u(ust 2?, 1985, onl+ the prosecution presented its evidence
consistin( of 7*hibits J!,J J3J and J".J !t the subse>uent hearin( on September 1H,
1985, petitioner#appellant waived the ri(ht to present evidence and, in lieu thereof,
submitted a 9emorandum confirmin( the Stipulation of 8acts. The Trial "ourt
convicted $etitioner-ppellant.
4n appeal, respondent !ppellate "ourt upheld the Stipulation of 8acts and affirmed
the ,ud(ment of conviction. 1
6ence, this recourse, with petitioner#appellant contendin( that5,(c5chanrobles.com.ph
JThe 6onorable Respondent "ourt of !ppeals erred in affirmin( the decision of the
Re(ional Trial "ourt convictin( the petitioner of the offense char(ed, despite the
cold fact that the basis of the conviction was based solel+ on the stipulation of facts
made durin( the pre#trial on !u(ust 8, 1985, which was not si(ned b+ the petitioner,
nor b+ his counsel.Jcralaw virtua1aw librar+
8indin( the petition meritorious, we resolved to (ive due course.
The 1985 Rules on "riminal Procedure, which became effective on :anuar+ 1, 1985,
applicable to this case since the pre#trial was held on !u(ust 8, 1985, provides5,(c5chanrobles.com.ph
JS7". '. Pre#trial a(reements must be si(ned. I %o a(reement or admission made
or entered durin( the pre#trial conference shall be used in evidence a(ainst the
accused unless reduced to writin( and si(ned b+ him and his counsel.J ARule 118B
K?mphasis suppliedL
3+ its ver+ lan(ua(e, the Rule is mandator+. Fnder the rule of statutor+ construction,
ne(ative words and phrases are to be re(arded as mandator+ while those in the
affirmative are merel+ director+ A9c$ee v. Republic, 9' Phil. 82& K195'LB. The use
of the term JshallJ further emphasi1es its mandator+ character and means that it is
imperative, operatin( to impose a dut+ which ma+ be enforced A3ersabal v. Salvador,
%o. C#?591&, :ul+ 21, 19H8, 8' S"R! 1H;B. !nd more importantl+, penal statutes
whether substantive and remedial or procedural are, b+ consecrated rule, to be
strictl+ applied a(ainst the (overnment and liberall+ in favor of the accused APeople
v. Terrado, %o. C#2?;25, %ovember 25, 198?, 125 S"R! ;'8B.
The conclusion is inevitable, therefore, that the omission of the si(nature of the
accused and his counsel, as mandatoril+ re>uired b+ the Rules, renders the
Stipulation of 8acts inadmissible in evidence. The fact that the law+er of the accused,
in his memorandum, confirmed the Stipulation of 8acts does not cure the defect
because Rule 118 re>uires both the accused and his counsel to si(n the Stipulation of
8acts. .hat the prosecution should have done, upon discoverin( that the accused did
not si(n the Stipulation of 8acts, as re>uired b+ Rule 118, was to submit evidence to
establish the elements of the crime, instead of rel+in( solel+ on the supposed
admission of the accused in the Stipulation of 8acts. .ithout said evidence
independent of the admission, the (uilt of the accused cannot be deemed established
be+ond reasonable doubt.
"onse>uentl+, under the circumstances obtainin( in this case, the ends of ,ustice
re>uire that evidence be presented to determine the culpabilit+ of the accused. .hen
a ,ud(ment has been entered b+ consent of an attorne+ without special authorit+, it
will sometimes be set aside or reopened A%atividad v. %atividad, 51 Phil. ;1?
K1928LB.chanrobles virtual lawlibrar+
.67R784R7, the ,ud(ment of respondent !ppellate "ourt is R7/7RS72 and this
case is hereb+ ordered R7#4P7%72 and R79!%272 to the appropriate 3ranch of
the Re(ional Trial "ourt of Cucena "it+, for further reception of evidence.
S4 4R27R72.