Statute Construed as a Whole and in Relation to Other Statutes

A. Statute Construed as a Whole

113 - Aquino v Quezon City
G.R. No. 1373!
Az"una #.
FACTS:
This case involves two petitions for review on certiorari involving the decisions declaring valid the
auction sales of two real properties by the Quezon City Local Governent for failure to pay real
property ta!es" The first case deals with a lot forerly owned by petitioners A#uino" $etitioners
withheld payent of the real property ta!es as a for of protest for the governent of then $resident
%arcos" As a result of the nonpayent& the property was sold by the Quezon City local governent&
through the Treasurer's (ffice& at public auction to private respondent Aida Linao& the highest bidder"
$etitioners claied that they learned of the sale about ) years later" They fi!ed as action for annulent
of title& re*conveyance& and daages against the respondents" The seconds case deals with a property
located in Cubao& Quezon City in the nae of Soloon Torrado" According to petitioner heirs& Torrado
paid ta!es on the iproveents on Lot + but not on the lot itself because the Treasurer's (ffice could
not locate the inde! card for that property" For failure to pay real property ta!es fro ,-./ to ,-+)& the
City Treasurer sent a 0otice of 1ntent to Sell to Torrado to his address indicated in the ta! register&
which siply states as '2utuan City" The notice was returned by reason of '1nsufficient Address" 0e!t
sent was a 0otice of Sale of 3elin#uent $roperty" This was sent to the sae address and siilarly
returned unclaied" Thereafter& a public auction was held and the lot was sold to 4eronica 2aluyot&
who ortgaged the property to Spouses 5y who then sold it to 306 Corp for failure to pay the
ortgaged debt" Also& a 0otice of Sold $roperty was subse#uently sent to Torrado which was returned
unclaied"
1SS57:
8(0 there a failure on the part of the Quezon City Local Governent to satisfy the notice
re#uireents before selling the property for ta! delin#uency9
:5L10G:
3efinitely& there is no ore logical way to construe the whole chapter on 'Collection of :eal $roperty
Ta! ;Sections </ to +<= than to stress that while three ethods are provided to enforce collection on
real property ta!es& a notice of delin#uency is a re#uireent regardless of the ethod or ethods
chosen" 1t is incorrect for the respondents to clai that notice of delin#uency has liited application
only to distraint of personal property" They ista>enly luped Section /< e!clusively with Sections /+
to .) and& in so doing& restricted its application fro the other ta! reedies" Section /< is to be
construed together with Sections // and.+ and all three operate in reference to ta! ethods in general"
$etitioners are correct in insisting that two notices ust be sent to the ta!payer concerned"
0evertheless& respondents still prevail because the Court is satisfied that the two*notice re#uireent
has been coplied with by the Treasurer's (ffice"
:eal $roperty Ta! Code
Section /<" 0otice of delin#uency in the payent of the real property ta!" 5pon the real property ta! or
any installent thereof becoing delin#uent& the provincial or city treasurer shall iediately cause
notice of the fact to be posted at the ain entrance of the provincial building and of all unicipal
buildings or unicipal or city hall and in a public and conspicuous place in each barrio of the
unicipality of the province or city as the case ay be" The notice of delin#uency shall also be
published once a wee> for three consecutive wee>s& in a newspaper of general circulation in the
province or city& if any there be& and announced by a crier at the ar>et place for at least three ar>et
days"
Such notice shall specify the date upon which ta! becae delin#uent& and shall state that personal
property ay be seized to effect payent" 1t shall also state that& at any tie& before the seizure of
personal property& payent ay be ade with penalty in accordance with the ne!t following section&
and further& that unless the ta! and penalties be paid before the e!piration of the year for which the ta!
is due& or the ta! shall heave been ?udicially set aside& the entire delin#uent real property will be sold at
public auction& and that thereafter the full title to the property will be and reain with the purchaser&
sub?ect only to the right of delin#uent ta!payer or any other person in his behalf to redee the sold
property within one year fro the date of sale"
Section //"$enalty for delin#uency" Failure to pay the real property ta! before the e!piration of the
period for the payent without penalty of the #uarterly installents thereof shall sub?ect the ta!payer
to the payent of a penalty of two per centu on the aount of the delin#uent ta! for each onth of
delin#uency or fraction thereof& until the delin#uent ta! shall be fully paid: $rovided& That in no case
shall the total penalty e!ceed twenty*four per centu of the delin#uent ta!" The rate of penalty for ta!
delin#uency fi!ed herein shall be uniforly applied in all provinces and cities"
Section /+" 3istraint of personal property for delin#uency" After delin#uency in the payent of such
ta! ay be enforced by distraining the personal property including the crops growing on land of the
delin#uent ta!payer" 1n such case& the provincial or city treasurer or his deputy shall issue a duly
authenticated certificate& based upon the records of his office& showing the fact of the delin#uency and
the aount of ta! and penalty due& and this shall be sufficient warrant for the seizure of any non*
e!ept personal property belonging to the delin#uent ta!payer in #uestion" Such process ay be
e!ecuted by the provincial or city treasurer& his deputy& or any officer authorized to e!ecute legal
process"
Section .)" :eturn of officer and disposition of proceeds" The officer conducting a sale under Section
seventy hereof shall a>e iediate return of his proceedings and a eorandu thereof shall be
entered by the provincial or city treasurer in his records" The e!cess& if any& of the proceeds of the sale
of the distrained personal property over the ta!& penalty and costs of sale and seizure and any of the
property reaining unsold in the hands of the officer& shall be returned to the ta!payer"
Section .+":edeption of real property after sale" 8ithin the ter of one year fro the date of the
registration of sale of the property& the delin#uent ta!payer or his representative& or in his absence& any
person holding a lien or clai over the property& shall have the right to redee the sae by paying the
provincial or city treasurer or his deputy the total aount of ta!es and penalties due up to the date of
redeption& the costs of sale and the interest at the rate of twenty per centu on the purchase price& and
such payent shall invalidate the sale certificate issued to the purchaser and shall entitle the person
a>ing the sae to a certificate fro the provincial or city treasurer or his deputy& stating that he had
redeeed the property"
The provincial or city treasurer or his deputy shall& upon surrender by the purchaser of the certificate of
sale previously issued to hi& forthwith return to the latter the entire purchase price paid by hi plus
the interest at twenty per centu per annu herein provided for& the portion of the cost of the sale and
other legitiate e!penses incurred by hi& and said property shall thereafter be free fro the lien of
said ta!es and penalties"
11! $ %i"ente Sotto v &ile'on Sotto
!3 (hil )**
Ostrand+ #.
Facts:
The petitioner alleges that he is the owner of said lot 0o" .<,@A that in or about the year ,-@. he
absented hiself fro the city of Cebu& leaving the respondent in charge of the lotA that on or about the
,/th of April& ,-),& the petitioner& upon visiting the office of the cler> of the Court of First 1nstance of
Cebu& discovered that the respondent had fraudulently obtained the registration of said lot in his own
nae and that a certificate of title for said lot had been issued to said respondent on Banuary )C& ,-)@A
that the petitioner& due to his long absence fro Cebu& was unable to appear in court in the land
registration proceedings and to defend his rightsA and that this action is his only reedy to recover the
property in #uestion" De therefore as>s that the decision of the Court of First 1nstance in regard to said
lot 0o" .<,@ be annulled and that a new trial be had"
1ssue:
8(0 Section <,E of the Code of Civil $rocedure is applicable in decisions on Land :egistration
$roceedings"
Deld:
0o" The original Land :egistration Act ;0o" C-/= established the Torrens Syste and the Act 0o" ,,@+
provides the aendents to sections /& ,)& ,E& ,C& ,.& ,-& )C& E/& and ,,C of the original Land
:egistration Act" 8here& Sections ,C and ,- relate to atters of procedureA all the other sections
entioned deal with adinistrative atters" 0owhere in Act 0o" ,,@+ is there any direct indication of
any intention to alter the character of the Land :egistration proceedings or to ipair the strength of the
registered titles" The purpose of the aendent of section ,C of the land :egistration Act was clearly
to a>e the Court of Land :egistration coordinate with the Courts of First 1nstance and to a>e its
?udgents appealable to the Supree Court instead of to the Courts of First 1nstance" 1n carrying out
this purpose the Legislature& by reference to certain sections of the Code of Civil $rocedure&
incorporated into the Land :egistration Act the then e!isting provisions for bills of e!ceptions and
appeals fro the Courts of First 1nstance to the Supree Court and ade certain original actions in the
Supree Court applicable to land registration atters" This was all that was done and very evidently all
it was intended to do"
Section <,E of the Code of Civil $rocedure
F8hen a ?udgent is rendered by a Court of First 1nstance upon default& and a party thereto is un?ustly
deprived of a hearing by fraud& accident& ista>e& or e!cusable negligence& and the Court of First
1nstance which rendered the ?udgent has finally ad?ourned so that no ade#uate reedy e!ists in that
court& the party so deprived of a hearing ay present his petition to the Supree Court within si!ty
days after he first learns of the rendition of such ?udgent& and not thereafter& setting forth the facts and
praying to have such ?udgent set aside" The court shall suarily on notice to both parties hear such
petition& upon oral or written testiony as it shall direct& and the ?udgent shall be set aside and a trial
upon the erits granted& upon such ters as ay be ?ust& if the facts set forth in the coplaint are
found to be true& otherwise the coplaint shall be disissed with costs"
F1f a trial on the erits is granted& the order shall forthwith be certified to the Court of First 1nstance"
$ending such petition& any ?udge of the Supree Court for cause shown& ay order a suspension of
further proceedings to enforce the ?udgent coplained of& upon ta>ing sufficient security fro the
petitioner for all costs and daages that ay be awarded against hi in case the petition is disissed"F
As Act 0o" ,,@+ only aended certain sections of the Land :egistration Act and did not purport to
aend the Act as a whole& or to introduce any new principle therein& the aended sections should be
read in connection with the other sections of the Act as if all had been enacted in the sae statute& and&
as far as possible& effect should be given to the all in furtherance of the general design of the Act"
To hold that the Legislature by a ere reference in Act 0o" ,,@+ to section <,E of the Code of Civil
$rocedure intended to include such final decrees in the ter F?udgentF as eployed in that section
would therefore be e#uivalent to holding that it proposed in this casual anner to abolish the Torrens
syste in these 1slands& a syste which had given general satisfaction& and to substitute therefor a
ongrel syste with all the disadvantages of Torrens registration but without its principal advantages"
Section E+ of the Act provides that it Fshall not be opened by reason of the absence& infancy& or other
disability of any person affected thereby& nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing ?udgents or
decrees"F 1ts features of finality and indefeasibility constitute the cornerstone of the Land :egistration
ActA if we eliinate the we ay still have a land registration syste but it will not be a Torrens
syste"
For the reasons stated& we hold that the so called Fdecree of confiration and registrationF provided for
in the Land :egistration Act is not a ?udgent within the eaning of section <,E of the Code of Civil
$rocedure& and that such a decree cannot be reopened e!cept for the reasons and in the anner stated in
section E+ of the Land :egistration Act"
11 $ Re,u-li" v Court o. A,,eals
/)3 SCRA 7*
0endoza #.
&AC1S2
$rivate respondent Acil Corporation owned several hectares of land in 3avao& which the governent
too> pursuant to the Coprehensive Agrarian :efor Law ;:"A" 0o" //<.=" $rivate respondent's
certificates of title were cancelled and new ones were issued and distributed to farer*beneficiaries"
The lands were valued by the Land 2an> of the $hilippines" $rivate respondent re?ected the
governent's offer& pointing out that the land should be valued at the higher price per hectare"
$rivate respondent filed a $etition for Bust Copensation in the :TC of 3avao& sitting as a Special
Agrarian Court" Dowever& the :TC disissed its petition on the ground that private respondent should
have appealed to the 3epartent of Agrarian :efor Ad?udication 2oard ;3A:A2=& pursuant to the
latter's :evised :ules of $rocedure& before recourse to it ;the :TC= could be had" $rivate respondent
oved for reconsideration but its otion was denied on (ctober ,E& ,--C" $rivate respondent therefore
filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals& contending that a petition for ?ust copensation
under :"A" 0o" //<. falls under the e!clusive and original ?urisdiction of the :TC" Dis contention was
sustained by the Court of Appeals and set aside the order of disissal of the :TC" Accordingly& the
case was reanded to the :TC for further proceedings"
3SS45S2
8hether or not under the Coprehensive Agrarian :efor Law ;:"A" 0o" //<.= the petition for ?ust
copensation can be tried by the :TC9
65782
Conse#uently& although the new rules spea> of directly appealing the decision of ad?udicators to the
:TCs sitting as Special Agrarian Courts& it is clear fro the law that the original and e!clusive
?urisdiction to deterine such cases is in the :TCs" Any effort to transfer such ?urisdiction to the
ad?udicators and to convert the original ?urisdiction of the :TCs into appellate ?urisdiction would be
contrary to the law and therefore would be void" 8hat ad?udicators are epowered to do is only to
deterine in a preliinary anner the reasonable copensation to be paid to landowners& leaving to
the courts the ultiate power to decide this #uestion"
8D7:7F(:7 the petition for review on certiorari is 85N358 and the decision of the Court of
Appeals is A&&3R058"
11) $ Sa9onas v Court o. A,,eals
/* SCRA 7:
1orres #r.+ #.
Facts:
The case is for cancellation of the inscription of a 0otice of Levy on 7!ecution fro a certificate of
Title covering a parcel of real property" The inscription was caused to be ade by the private
respondent on Transfer Certificate of Title 0o" 0*.-@.E of the :egister of 3eeds of %ari>ina& issued in
the nae of the spouses 5ychocde& and was later carried over to and annotated on Transfer Certificate
of Title 0o" 0*,@-C,. of the sae registry& issued in the nae of the spouses Sa?onas& who purchased
the parcel of land fro the 5ychocdes& and are now the petitioners in this case"
The sub?ect property was bought by Sa?onas spouses on Septeber ,-+E and caused the annotation of
their adverse clai on August ,-+C" The 3eed of Sale was e!ecuted upon the full payent of the
purchase price and the sae was registered only on August ,-+<"
%eanwhile& without the petitioners' >nowledge& there has been a coproise agreeent between the
spouses 5ychocde and $ilares ;5ychocde's ?udgent creditor=& and a notice of levy on e!ecution was
issued on February ,)& ,-+<" (n February ,)& ,-+<& defendant sheriff :oberto Garcia of Quezon City
presented said notice of levy on e!ecution before the :egister of 3eeds of %ari>ina and the sae was
annotated at the bac> of TCT 0o" .-@.E as 7ntry 0o" ,)E)+E"
1ssue:
8hich should be preferred between the notice of levy on e!ecution and the deed of absolute sale" The
3eed of Absolute Sale was e!ecuted on Septeber C& ,-+C& but was registered only on August )+&
,-+<& while the notice of levy on e!ecution was annotated si! ;/= onths prior to the registration of the
sale on February ,)& ,-+<"
3ecision:
The annotation of the adverse clai is e#uivalent to notice to third persons of the interest of the
claiant" The provision of the law ;$3 ,<)-= that the adverse clai is only valid for E@ days cannot be
upheld" Clearly& the intention of the law is otherwise as ay be gleaned on the following discussion:
GSec" .@ Adverse Clai* 8hoever clais any part or interest in registered land adverse to the
registered owner& arising subse#uent to the date of the original registration& ay& if no other provision is
ade in this decree for registering the sae& a>e a stateent in writing setting forth fully his alleged
right or interest& and how or under who ac#uired& a reference to the nuber of certificate of title of
the registered owner& the nae of the registered owner& and a description of the land in which the right
or interest is claied"
The stateent shall be signed and sworn to& and shall state the adverse claiantHs residence& and a
place at which all notices ay be served upon hi" This stateent shall be entitled to registration as an
adverse clai on the certificate of title" The adverse clai shall be effective for a period of thirty days
fro the date of registration" After the lapse of said period& the annotation of adverse clai ay be
cancelled upon filing of a verified petition therefor by the party in interest: $rovided& however& that
after cancellation& no second adverse clai based on the sae ground shall be registered by the sae
claiant"
2efore the lapse of thirty days aforesaid& any party in interest ay file a petition in the Court of First
1nstance where the land is situated for the cancellation of the adverse clai& and the court shall grant a
speedy hearing upon the #uestion of the validity of such adverse clai& and shall render ?udgent as
ay be ?ust and e#uitable" 1f the adverse clai is ad?udged to be invalid& the registration thereof shall
be ordered cancelled" 1f& in any case& the court& after notice and hearing shall find that the adverse clai
thus registered was frivolous& it ay fine the claiant in an aount not less than one thousand pesos&
nor ore than five thousand pesos& in its discretion" 2efore the lapse of thirty days& the claiant ay
withdraw his adverse clai by filing with the :egister of 3eeds a sworn petition to that effect"I
Construing the provision as a whole would reconcile the apparent inconsistency between the portions
of the law such that the provision on cancellation of adverse clai by verified petition would serve to
#ualify the provision on the effectivity period" The law& ta>en together& siply eans that the
cancellation of the adverse clai is still necessary to render it ineffective& otherwise& the inscription
will reain annotated and shall continue as a lien upon the property" For if the adverse clai has
already ceased to be effective upon the lapse of said period& its cancellation is no longer necessary and
the process of cancellation would be a useless cereony"
To interpret the effectivity period of the adverse clai as absolute and without #ualification liited to
thirty days defeats the very purpose for which the statute provides for the reedy of an inscription of
adverse clai& as the annotation of an adverse clai is a easure designed to protect the interest of a
person over a piece of real property where the registration of such interest or right is not otherwise
provided for by the Land :egistration Act or Act C-/ ;now $"3" ,<)- or the $roperty :egistration
3ecree=& and serves as a warning to third parties dealing with said property that soeone is claiing an
interest or the sae or a better right than the registered owner thereof"
$etition was granted" The inscription of the notice of levy on e!ecution on TCT 0o" 0*,@-C,. is
ordered CA0C7LL73"
117 $ Ses-reno v Central ;oard o. Assess'ent A,,eals
/7< SCRA 3)<
(an=ani-an #.
&AC1S2
$etitioner purchased two ;)= parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title issued by the
:egister of 3eeds of Cebu City"
The conveyance included Fa residential house of strong aterials constructed on the lots above*
entionedI

located in Cebu City"
Thereafter& petitioner declared the real property constructed on the said lots for purposes of ta!
assessent as a residential house" The declared property was assessed by :espondent City Assessor of
Cebu City at a ar>et value of $/@&@@@"@@ and an assessed value of $E/&-@@"@@"
3uring a ta!*apping operation conducted in February ,-+-& the field inspectors of the Cebu City
Assessor discovered that the real property was actually a residential building consisting of four ;C=
storeys with a fifth storey used as a roof dec>"
:espondent City Assessor of Cebu City issued Ta! 3eclaration assessing the building therein at a
higher net ar>et value and an assessed value" $etitioner protested the new assessent for being
Fe!cessive and unconscionable&F

contending that it was increased by ore than ,&@@@J as copared to
its previous ar>et value" De #uestioned the new assessent before the Local 2oard of Assessent
Appeals of Cebu City& which however disissed petitioner's appeal" Dence& petitioner elevated his case
to C2AA& then filed a otion for reconsideration& contending that:
Section )E of $3 C/C applies to this case considering that the appellee has not yet subitted the
re#uired certification to the secretary of finance to the effect that the general revision of property
assessents for cebu city has been finished" Sec" )E of $3 C/C uses the con?unctive word 'and' between
the phrases: 'assessents shall becoe effective and 'ta!es shall accrue and be payable"'
3SS452
8(0 C2AA erred in not strictly applying or refusing to apply Section )E of $residential 3ecree 0o"
C/C in defining 'ar>et value' as basis for coputing the 'assessed value'
65782
Sec" )C of $3 )/C or Gthe :eal $roperty Ta! CodeI and Sec" )< which covers other property sub?ect to
assessent and to bac> ta!es should be construed together and both given effect& for if Sec" )C is the
only applicable provision& then Sec" )< which re#uires payent of bac> ta!es will be rendered
superfluous and nugatory"
Corollary of the rule that the whole statute should be given effect and construed as to not nullify or
render nugatory another provision of the sae statute"
11* $ #avellana v 1ayo
G.R. No. 1*:1: $ 8e"e'-er /:+ 1:)/
;arrera+ #.
FACTS: The petitioners are duly elected and #ualified ebers of the %unicipal Council of the
%unicipality of 2uenavista& 1loiloA and that the respondent at the tie the acts herein below
coplained of too> place& was and still is the duly*elected and #ualified %ayor of the %unicipality"
The %unicipal Council of 2uenavista ;Council= unaniously approved :esolution 0o" <& Series of
,-/@ which set the regular sessions of the Council and which resolution was duly approved by the
respondent" At the tie and place set for the regular session of the Council& the %ayor& 4ice*%ayor& )
Councilors& and the Secretary were absent" The si! councilors& who are the petitioners in this case& were
present and they proceeded to elect aong theselves a teporary presiding officer and Acting
Secretary to ta>e notes of the proceedings" Daving thus elected a teporary presiding officer and a
secretary of the Council& they proceeded to do business" (n the subse#uent Council eetings& the
%ayor& 4ice %ayor& ) Councilors and Secretary were still not around" 8hen the %inutes of the
$roceeding was presented to the %ayor& the latter refused to act upon said inutes& or particularly to
approve or disapprove the resolution as approved by the Council& the %ayor declaring the sessions
above referred to as null and void and not in accordance with"
1SS57: 8hether or not the sessions held by the Council were valid
:5L10G: This Court ;the trial court=& after perusal of all the records of this case has reached the
conclusion that the sessions held by the petitioner during the absence of the respondent %ayor were
perfectly valid and legal" The attendance of the %ayor is not essential to the validity of the session as
long as there is #uoru constituted in accordance with law" To declare that the proceedings of the
petitioners were null and void is to encourage recalcitrant public officials who would frustrate valid
session for political end or consideration" $ublic interest will iensely suffer& if a ayor who belongs
to one political group refuses to call or attend a session& because the Council is controlled by another
political group" ;And this was upheld by the SC"=
8e find said award proper under Article ). of the new Civil Code& E considering that according to the
trial court& he ;Golez= was able to prove that he suffered the sae& as a conse#uence of appellant's
refusal to perfor his official duty& not withstanding the action ta>en by the $rovincial Fiscal an the
$rovincial 2oard upholding the validity of the session in #uestion"
37C1S1(0: Trial Court decision affired"
11: $ Asturias Su=ar Central v. Co''issioner o. Custo's
G.R. No. 1:337 $ Se,te'-er 3<+ 1:):
Ruiz Castro+ #.
Facts:
Asturias Sugar Central& 1nc" is engaged in the production and illing of centrifugal sugar& the sugar so
produced being placed in containers >nown as ?ute bags" 1n ,-<.& 1t ade two iportations of ?ute
bags& free fro custos duties and special iport ta! upon the $etitionerHs filing of re*e!portation and
special iport ta! bond& conditioned upon the e!portation of the ?ute bags within one year fro the
date of iportation"
Dowever& out of the CC&+@@ ?ute bags iported first& only +&/C. were e!ported and only )<&@@@ were
e!ported out of the .<&)@@ ?ute bags iported on the second shipent" 1n other words& of the total
nuber of iported ?ute bags only EE&/C. bags were e!ported within one year after their iportation"
The reaining +/&E<E bags were e!ported after the e!piration of the one*year period but within three
years fro their iportation"
$etitioner re#uested the Coissioner of Custos for a wee>'s e!tension of :e*e!portation and
Special 1port Ta! 2ond no" / which was to e!pire the following day& citing reasons for its failure to
e!port the reaining ?ute bags within the period of one year" Dowever& this re#uest was denied by the
Coissioner"
3ue to the petitioner's failure to show proof of the e!portation of the balance of +/&E<E ?ute bags within
one year fro their iportation& the $etitioner was re#uired to pay the aount of p)+&/)-"C)
representing the custos duties and special iport ta! due thereon& which the petitioner paid under
protest and later on deanded the refund of the aount it had paid"
1ssues:
a"= 8hether or not the Coissioner of Custos is vested with discretion to e!tend the period of one
year provided for in section )E of the $hilippine Tariff Act of ,-@-"
b"= 8hether or not interpretation or construction of an abiguous or uncertain statute by the 7!ecutive
3epartent or other Adinistrative Agencies be given consideration9 1n the case at bar& the 2ureau of
Custos"
Deld:
a"= Section )E of the $hilippine Tariff Act (f ,-@- and the superseding sec" ,@<;!= of the Tariff and
Custos Code& while fi!ing at one year the period within which the containers therein entioned ust
be e!ported& are silent as to whether the said period ay be e!tended" 2y reason of this silence& the
2ureau of Custos 1ssued Adinistrative (rders E+- and // to eliinate confusion and provide a
guide as to how it shall apply the law& and& ore specifically& to a>e officially >nown its policy to
consider the one*year period entioned in the law as non*e!tendible"
b"= Considering that the statutory provisions in #uestion ;Section )E of the $hilippine Tariff Act of ,-@-
and Sec" ,@<;!= of the Tariff and Custos Code=have not been the sub?ect of previous ?udicial
interpretation& then the application of the doctrine of F?udicial respect for adinistrative construction;in
the case at bar the 2ureau of Custos issued Adinistrative (rders E+- and // to eliinate confusion
and provide a guide as to how it shall apply the law& and& ore specifically& to a>e officially >nown
its policy to consider the one*year period entioned in the law as non*e!tendible"& F would& initially& be
in order"
(nly where the court of last resort has not previously interpreted the statute is the rule applicable that
courts will give consideration to construction by adinistrative or e!ecutive departents of the state"
The foral or inforal interpretation or practical construction of an abiguous or uncertain statute or
law by the e!ecutive departent or other agency charged with its adinistration or enforceent is
entitled to consideration and the highest respect fro the courts& and ust be accorded appropriate
weight in deterining the eaning of the law& especially when the construction or interpretation is long
continued and unifor or is conteporaneous with the first wor>ings of the statute& or when the
enactent of the statute was suggested by such agency"
Considering that the 2ureau of Custos is the office charged with ipleenting and enforcing the
provisions of our Tariff and Custos Code& the construction placed by it thereon should be given
controlling weight"
1n applying the doctrine or principle of respect for adinistrative or practical construction& the courts
often refer to several factors which ay be regarded as bases of the principle& as factors leading the
courts to give the principle controlling weight in particular instances& or as independent rules in
theselves" These factors are the respect due the governental agencies charged with adinistration&
their copetence& e!pertness& e!perience& and infored ?udgent and the fact that they fre#uently are
the drafters of the law they interpretA that the agency is the one on which the legislature ust rely to
advise it as to the practical wor>ing out of the statute& and practical application of the statute presents
the agency with uni#ue opportunity and e!periences for discovering deficiencies& inaccuracies& or
iproveents in the statute"
Statute Construed as a Whole and in Relation to Other Statutes
;. Statute Construed in Relation to Constitution and Other Statutes
1/< $ (781 v Colle"tor o. 3nternal Revenue
:< (hil )7!
#u=o+ #.
FACTS * The plaintiff $hilippine Long 3istance Telephone Copany is a corporation organized and
carrying on business under a special franchise granted by the $hilippine Legislature& Act" 0o" ECE/
approved on 0oveber )+& ,-)+& as aended by Coonwealth Act" 0o" C@.& and under the franchise
contained in Act" 0o" ,E/+ of the $hilippine Coission originally granted to Bohn 1" Sabin and Louis
Glass on Buly /& ,-@<& and ac#uired by the plaintiff on August ,& ,-E@& fro its iediate predecessor&
the $hilippine Telephone and Telegraph Copany& with the approval of the $ublic Service
Coission" The plaintiff paid its franchise ta!& but oitted thirteen ite as basis of the ta!" (ne of
the ites is FAounts due fro custoers but uncollected and either written off or carried on plaintiff
appellant's ;1tes ,& C& <& /& .& +& ,)& and ,E"F The aounted ta! is $ ,/.& C,.")< and the aount of Ta!
is $ E& @//"<."
5nder Act 0o" ,E/+& sections C and <& the copany was sub?ect to the franchise ta! of )J of all gross
receipts" 5nder Act" 0o" ECE/& the franchise ta! was reduced to ,J" The coplaint originally prays for
?udgent for the su of $E&-..")) because it included the aount of $<CE"E) which defendant
appellee adits to have erroneously collected fro plaintiff*appellant and& therefore& is obliged to
refund to plaintiff*appellant& and the further su of $)C)"/, which is aditted by plaintiff*appellant to
have been legally collected and therefore renounced its clai thereto"
The coplaint deanded the su of $E&-..")) instead of $E&,-,")- as appears in the above schedule"
The Collector of 1nternal :evenue deanded the payent of said su of $E&-..")) and the plaintiff*
appellant paid it under the protest and as>ed for the ruling of the officer" The ruling being adverse& the
plaintiff*appellant brought action in the Court of the First 1nstance of %anila" The court absolved the
defendant*appellee fro the plaintiff's coplaint without pronounceent as to costs"
1SS57 * 8(0 the court erred in construing the phrase Fgross receiptsF
D7L3 * 0o" The aounts above entioned due fro custoers which are uncollected or written off or
carried in the boo>s are sub?ect to the franchise ta! in the aount of $E&@//"<." The appellants
contends that it should not pay the franchise ta! on uncollected fees or aounts due fro the regular
custoers& on the ground that they were not gross receipts" F:eceiptsF eans aounts actually
received& for otherwise they would not be receipts" 1t should be noted that the $hilippine Legislature
granted the franchises through Acts 0os" ,E/+ and ECE/ the authority vested in it by Section .C of the
$hilippine 2ill of ,-@)& the first organic act& and by Section )+ of the Bones Law& which respectively
reads as follows:
That all franchises& privileges or concessions granted under this Act shall """""" provide for
the effective regulation of the charges thereof& for the official inspection and regulation of
the boo>s and accounts of the corporations& and for the payent of a reasonable percentage
of gross earnings into the Treasury of $hilippine 1slands& or of the province or unicipality
within which such franchises are granted and e!ercised """"""
That all franchises or rights granted under this act """""" shall provide"" for the payent of a
reasonable percentage of gross earnings to the Treasury of the $hilippines& or of the
province or unicipality wherein such franchises are grafted and e!ercised""""""
The acts of the Legislature granting the franchises should be construed so as not to contravene or
violate the organic acts above entioned& for otherwise said legislative acts would be null and void or
unconstitutional" The organic acts use the word Fearnings"F A person ay have earned his salary but
ay not have collected it& or ay be unable to collect it fro an insolvent eployer" A person cannot
deand payent of his unpaid salary unless he has earned it" This would show that to collect is a
different act fro to earn" Conse#uently& the uncollected Fgross receiptsF which should be construed as
eaning the sae thing as Fgross earningsF should be sub?ect to the franchise ta!"
1/1 $ City o. Na=a v A=na
G.R. No. 3)<!: $ 31 0ay 1:7)
0artin+ #.
Facts:
(n Bune ,<& ,-.@& The city of 0aga enacted (rdinance 0o" E/@ changing and aending the graduated
ta! on #uarterly gross sales of erchants prescribed in Section E of (rdinance 0o" C of the city of 0aga
to percentage ta! on gross sales provided for in Section ) thereof" (n February ,E& ,-., & private
respondents filed with the city Treasurer of the city of naga a clai for refund with interests" They are
alleging that under the e!isting law& (rdinance 0o" E/@& which aended Section E& (rdinacne 0o" C of
the City of 0aga& did not ta>e effect in ,-.@& the year it was approved but in the ne!t succeeding year
after the year of its approval and that the ta!es they paid in ,-.@ on their gross sales fo the #uarter fro
Buly ,& ,-.@ to Septeber E@& ,-.@ were illegal and should be refunded" The City treasurer denied the
clai for refund of the aounts in#uestion"
$rivate respondents then filed a coplaint see>ing to have (rdinance 0o" E/@ declared effective only
in the year following year of its approval& ,-.," To have Sections C& / and + of (rdinance 0o" E/@
declared un?ust& oppressive and arbitrary and therefore null and voidA and to re#uire the City treasurer
to refund the sus being claied with interests" 1n their answer& petitioners clai that private
respondents were not copelled but voluntarily ade the payents of their ta!es under (rdinance 0o"
E/@" That the said ordinacne was published in accordance with the law" That in accordance with
republic Act 0o" E@< ;charter of the City of 0age= an ordinance ta>es effect after the tenth day follwing
its passage unless otherwise stated in said ordinance"
(n (ctober -& ,-.,& the respondent Budge rendered ?udgent holding that (rdinance 0o" E/@& series
,-.@ of the City of 0aga was enforceable in the year following the date of its approval that is ,-., and
re#uired the petitioners to reiburse the aounts prayed for and corresponding interests"
1ssue:
8(0 the (rdinance shall cover ,-.@"
Deld:
0o" The ordinance in #uestion is the one that changes the graduated sales ta! on gross sales or receipts
to a percentage ta! on their gross sales K An (rdinance which definitely falls within the clause of
Section )E@- of the :evised Adinistrative Code" Accordingly it should be effective and enforceable
in the ne!t succeeding year after the year of its approval or in ,-.,"
1t will be easily noted that Section of the :evised Adinistrative Code conteplates of two tpes of
unicipal ordinances& naely a unicipal ordinance which changes a unicipal license ta already in
e!istence and an ordinance which creates an entirely new ta!"
1// $ Re,u-li" v Asun"ion
/31 SCRA /11
8avide #r.+ #.
Facts: Ale!ander 3ionisio y %anio& eber of the $0$& was assigned to the Central $olice 3istrict
Coand Station ) in 0ovaliches& when he was dispatched to 3ualay Street to respond to a
coplaint that a person was creating trouble there" 3ionioso proceeded to the place& where he
subse#uently shot to death TLSgt" :oeo Sadang" 8hile trial for hoicide was already in progress in
the :TC of QC& the case was disissed for refilling with the Sandiganbayan on the ground that it is the
Sandiganbayan which has ?urisdiction over the case" The private prosecutor oved for disissal citing
the opinion of the Sec of the 3(B that cries coitted by $0$ ebers arenot cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan because they fall within the e!clusive ?urisdiction of the regular courts as provided in
:A /-.< and the Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a special court as stated in the
,-.Econstitution and as the ,-+. constitution provides that the present anti*graftcourt shall continue to
function and e!ercise it ?urisdiction"
1SS57:," 8hether the ter Gregular courtsI includes the Sandiganbayan
)" 8hether all offenses coited by public officer or eployee with penaltyhigher than prision
correctional would autoaticaly be cognizable by the Sandiganbayan"
D7L3:
,"Mes& Sandiganbayan is a regular Court" :egular courts are those within the ?udicial departent of the
governent& naely& the Supree Court and such lower courts which as established by law& under
Section ,/& Chapter C& 2oo> 11 of the Adinistrative Code of ,-+.& includes the Court of Appeals&
Sandiganbayan& Court of Ta! Appeals& :egional TrialCourts& Shari'a 3istrict Courts& %etropolitan Trial
Courts& %unicipal Trial Court& %unicipal Circuit Trial Courts& and Shari'a Circuit Courts"FAccordingly&
the ter regular courts in Section C/ of :"A" 0o" /-.< eans civil courts" This is inline with the
purpose of the law to reove the ?urisdiction of Court* %artial over criinal cases involving $0$
ebers due to reorganization and turning $0$ into civilian in character whichin return andates the
transfer of criinal cases against ebers of the $0$ to the civilian courts"
)" 0o& 1f the allegation in the inforation of the offense of any public officer is not related to his
function in his public office then :TC has the e!clusive ?urisdiction over the case"
The Court sanctioned the transfer of cases fro the :TC for lac> of ?urisdiction to the Sandiganbayan"
The court ruled that the Sandiganbayan is a regular court" 8hile it is a special court& it is a regular court
within the conte!t of :A /-.< because Git is a court norally functioning with continuity within the
?urisdiction vested on itI and that the ter regular courts is used in Sec" C/ of :A /-.< to distinguish
the said courts for courts*artial for it see>s to divest the latter of such ?urisdiction and andates its
transfers to the forer pursuant to the policy of the law to establish a police force national in scope and
civilian in character" The Sandiganbayan is a regular court as stated in the Adinistrative Code of
,-+."Dowever& for the Sandiganbayan to have ?urisdiction it is necessary that the offenses were
coitted by public officers in relation to their office" 1n here&there is no indication that the trouble*
a>er was the victi and that he was shot by 3ionisio in the course of the latterHs ission" As such&
the court directed the :TC of QC to conduct a preliinary hearing within ,< fro receipt of decision&
to deterine if the crie was coitted in relation to public office" 1f it be deterined in the
affirative& the case shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan as if the sae were originally fined with
it" (therwise& the :TC should proceed with the trial of the case and render ?udgent thereon"
1/3 $ (hili,,ine 3nternational 1radin= Cor,. v An=eles
/)3 SCRA !/1
1orres #r.+ #.
$1TC issued Adinistrative (rder 0o" S(C$7C +-*@+*@, under which applications to the $1TC for
iportation fro the $eopleHs :epublic of China ust be accopanied by a viable and confired
e!port progra of $hilippine products" $1TC barred :eington and Firestone fro iporting products
fro China on the ground that they were not able to coply with the re#uireent of the said
adinistrative order" Thereafter they filed a petition for prohibition and andaus against the said
order of $1TC in which the trial court upheld and declared to be null and void for being
unconstitutional" The court contends further authority to process and approve applications for iports
S(C$7C and to issue rules and regulations pursuant to L(1 ,CC has already been repealed by 7( ,EE
issued on February ).& ,-+." Dence& the $1TC filed a certiorari see>ing the reversal of the said
decision"
1SS57: 8hether or not $1TCHs Adinistrative (rder +-*@+*@, is valid"
D7L3: The Supree Court held that $1TC is epowered to issue such orderA nevertheless& the said A(
is invalid within the conte!t of Article ) of the 0ew Civil Code" The Court cited Tanada vs Tuvera
which states that all statues including those of local application and private laws shall be published as
condition for their effectivity& which shall begin ,< days after publication in the (fficial Gazette or a
newspaper of general circulation unless a different effectivity date is fi!ed by the legislature" The A(
under consideration is one of those issuances which should be published for its effectivity since it is
punitive in character"
1/! $ 8ialdas v (erdi"es
1<1 (hil 7)
5nden"ia+ #.
FACTS: a alien who operated a retail store in Cebu decided to close his Cebu store and transfer it to
3uaguete" :TL ;retail trade law= and Ta! Code Sec" ,-- were the statutes ta>en into consideration in
this case" The forer authorizes any alien who on %ay ,<& ,-<C is actually engaged in retail& to
continue to engage therein until his voluntary retireent fro such business& but not to establish or
open additional stores for retail business" The latter provides that any business for which the privilege
ta! has been paid ay be reoved and continued in any other place without payent of additional ta!"
1SS57: whether the transfer by the alien fro Cebu to 3uaguete can be considered as a voluntary
retireent fro business"
:5L10G: 0o" Although the trial court affired the #uestion& the SC ruled otherwise stating that :TC
overloo>ed the clear provision of Sec" ,--"
1/ $ 7i"hau"o v A,ostol
!! (hil 13*
Street+ #.
Facts:
$etitioner& a corporation duly organized under the $hil" laws& engaged for several years in the business
of iporting carabao and other draft anials& and was desirous of iporting& fro $no*$ehn& a
shipent of draft cattle and bovine cattle for the anufacture of seru" Dowever& respondent 3irector
of Agriculture refused to adit said cattle e!cept upon condition that drafts be iunized" $etitioner
however contends that the respondent has no authority over the atter& invo>ing section ,./) of the
Adinistrative Code& as aended by Act 0o" E@<)" (n the other hand& relying upon section ,..@ of
the Adinistrative Code& Adin" (rder 0o" ), of the 2ureau of Agriculture& and 3ept" (rder 0o" / of
the Secretary of Agriculture and 0atural :esources& respondent aintained its decision" Dence& the
issue"
1ssue: 8hether or not section ,..@ ;and other siilar acts= has been repealed by iplication by Act
E@<) and hence cannot be applied with the case at bar9
Deld and :easoning: 0o" The Court ruled that the contention of the petitioner is untenable for the
reason that the invo>ed section ,./)& as aended& is obviously of a general nature while ,..@ is a
particular one" Section ,..@ is therefore not inconsistent with section ,./) and instead be considered a
special #ualification of the latter provision" %oreover& the court ephasized thatGspecific legislation
upon a particular sub?ect is not affected by a general law upon a sae sub?ect unless it clearly appears
that the provision of the two laws are so repugnant""!!!NThe special act and the general law ust
stand together& the one as the law of the particular sub?ect and the other as the general law of the
land"ITherefore& Section ,..@ of the Adinistrative Code reains in effect and serves as a
suppleentary provision to section ,./)& as aended
1/) $ Gar"ia v (as"ual
113 (hil )3/
FACTS * The acting ?ustice of the peace of the unicipality of San Bose& 0ueva 7ci?a appointed
petitioner Sieon T" Garcia& ?unior typist civil service eligible& as cler> of the ?ustice of the peace court
of said unicipality on Buly ,& ,-<+" This appointent was approved by the 3epartent of Bustice" (n
Buly .& ,-<+& the acting ?ustice of the peace forwarded the appointent& duly approved by the
departent and the Civil Service Coission& to the unicipal treasurer" The petitioner subitted
certain vouchers supporting his daily tie record& duly approved by the acting ?ustice of the peace& for
payent& but the treasurer returned the vouchers with the inforation that they be first approved by the
unicipal ayor before payent could be ade" The vouchers were subitted to the ayor but the
latter did not want to approve the" The reason of the ayor was an opinion of the provincial fiscal&
that :ep" Act 0o" ,<<, has repealed Section .< of :ep" Act 0o" )-/& otherwise >nown as the Budiciary
Act" Section .< of the ?udiciary act provides that the ?ustices of the peace of first class unicipalities
ay have cler>s of the court and other necessary eployees at the e!pense of said unicipalities&
which cler>s of court and eployees shall be appointed by the respective ?ustices of the peace" (n the
other hand& :ep" Act 0o" ,<<,& which is claied to have repealed section .< of :ep" Act 0o" )-/&
provides O
Dereafter& all eployees whose salaries are paid out of the general funds of the
unicipalities shall& sub?ect to the civil service law& be appointed by the unicipal ayor
upon the recoendation of the corresponding chief of office" $rovided& that in case of
disagreeent between the chief of office concerned and the unicipal %ayor& the atter
shall be subitted for action to the proper provincial departent head whose decision shall
be final""""
The ?udge below ruled that said :ep" Act 0o" ,<<, did not e!pressly repeal section .< of the Budiciary
Act and that the two laws& although apparently in conflict with each other& ay be reconciled&
following the principle of law that a prior specific statute is not repealed by a subse#uent general law"
The ?udge further ruled that there being no specific grant of authority in favor of the ayor to appoint
the cler> of court of the ?ustice of the peace the power to appoint should not be considered lodged in
said ayor" Lastly& the ?udge held that the intent of the law in placing the appointent of cler>s in the
?ustice of the peace is to prevent the cler>s fro the iportunities and pressure of pre?udicial politics"
1SS57 * 8(0 the provisions of :ep" Act 0o" ,<<, repealed the provisions of section .< of the
Budiciary Act
D7L3 * 0o" The court finds no erit on the above contention" 8hen the provisions of a general law&
applicable to the entire state& are repugnant to the provisions of a previously enacted special law&
applicable in a particular locality only& the passage of such general law does not operate to odify or
repeal the special law& either wholly or in part& unless such odification or repeal is provided for in
e!press words& or arises by necessary iplication" A cursory reading of the provisions of :ep" 0o" ,<<,
clearly shows that what it intended to be ade sub?ect to appointent by the unicipal ayor are
subordinate officials in the unicipality& li>e eployees in the e!ecutive branch and eployees in the
unicipal council or board" There is no reason why said act& as a general law& ay be considered as
having repealed the specific provisions of section .< of :ep" Act 0o" )-/"
Stri"t or 7i-eral Constru"tion
A. 3n General
1/7 $ (eo,le v Gar"ia
* (hil )1
1uason #.
&AC1S2
The lower court& ignoring the AppellantHs inority& sentenced hi to an indeterinate penalty of C
years& ) onths and , day of prision correccional to + years of prision ayor for the crie of robbery"
:A C. which aended Art" +@ of the :$C by reducing fro ,+ to ,/ the age below which the
Appellant has to Gbe coitted to the custody or care of a public or private& benevolent or charitable
institution&I instead of being convicted and sentenced to prison& has given rise to the controversy" The
Solicitor General believes that the aendent by iplication has also aended par" ) of Art" /+ of the
:$C& which provides that when the offender is over ,< and under ,+ years of age& Gthe penalty ne!t
lower than that prescribed by law shall be iposed& but always in the proper period"I
3SS452
8L0 the Appellant& being ,. years of age at the tie of the coission of the crie& was entitled to
the privileged itigating circustance of Art" /+& par" ) of the :$C"
65782
Mes" 8e find no irreconcilable conflict between Art" /+& par" )& as it now stands and Art" +@ as
aended" There is no incopatibility between granting Appellant of the ages of ,< to ,+ a privileged
itigating circustance and fi!ing at ,/ the a!iu age of persons who are to be placed in a
reforatory institution" All parts of a statute are to be haronized and reconciled so that effect ay be
given to each and every part thereof& and that conflicting interest in the sae statute are never to be
supposed or so regarded& unless forced upon the court by an unabiguous language"
1/* $ Riera v (al'aroli
!< (hil 1<
Street+ #.
Facts:
Buan $ons was a Spanish sub?ect who died in %anila" De was arried to Antonia :ierra who& at the
tie of $onsH death& was residing in $ala de %allorca" The Consul General for Spain in the $hil
1slands produced a will and as>ed that it be aditted to probate" 2ecause of the distance of %anila
fro $ala de %allorca and the 7uropean 8ar& the widow did not have any news until soe tie later"
8hen she found out& she opposed the petition for probate however this was denied on the ground that
ore than / onths has elapsed since the order of the court" The will deprives the widow opportunity
to oppose the probate and she alleges that the foralities re#uired by law were not coplied with
hence the case at bar"
1ssue: 8L0 a rehearing can be ordered it being alleged that the widow was prevented fro participating
in the probate of the will and that will was not e!ecuted in the foralities re#uired by law
Deld: 0(P
The SC ay have the power to set aside any ?udgent& order or proceeding under Sec" ,,E however
under Sec" <,E this power is liited to granting a new trial upon ?udgents rendered upon default" The
default intended here can only arise in contentious litigations where a party has been ipleaded as a
defendant and served with process but fails to appear or to answer" The proceeding to probate is a will
is not a contentious litigation because nobody is ipleaded or served with process" 1t is a special
proceeding& and although notice of the application is published& nobody is bound to appear and no
order for ?udgent by default is ever entered"
The action of the court aditting a will to probate has the full effect of a ?udgent and is entitled to full
faith and credence in other courts" The proceeding by which this is accoplished is considered a
proceeding in re hence binding on all person in interest whether they appear to contest the probate or
not" The probate of a will& while conclusive as to its due e!ecution& in no way involves the intrinsic
validity of its provisions" 1n the case at bar& if it should appear later upon the distribution of the estate
of Buan $ons that any provision in the will is contrary to law then the law will prevail" The widow can
then go to court at the proper ?uncture and discuss the #uestion of the validity of the will as it affects
her interests adversely"
Stri"t or 7i-eral Constru"tion
;. Statutes Stri"tly Construed
1/: $ (eo,le v Su-ido
G.R. No. /173! $ Se,te'-er + 1:7
0artin+ #.
FACTS:
(n Septeber ).& ,-<+& the accused*appellant filed a otion praying that ;,= the court enter of record
that the ?udgent of the Court of Appeals has been proulgated and ;)= that his appeal bond be
cancelled" Accused*appellant argued that although he could not pay the fine and the indenity
prescribed in the ?udgent of the Court of Appeals& he could not be re#uired to serve the aount of
fine and indenity in the for of subsidiary iprisonent because said ?udgent did not e!pressly
and specifically provide that he should serve the fine and indenity in for of subsidiary
iprisonent in case of insolvency"
(n 3eceber ,@& ,-<-& the offended party registered its opposition to accused*appellant's otion for
cancellation of appeal bond and as>ed the lower court to re#uire accused*appellant to pay the fine of
$<@@"@@ and the indenity of $<&@@@"@@ with subsidiary iprisonent in case of insolvency" The
lower court issued an order denying the accused*appellant's otion and declared in accordance with the
ters of the ?udgent of the Court of Appeals that the accused*appellant has to suffer subsidiary
iprisonent in case he could not pay the fine and indenity prescribed in the decision"
1SS57:
8hether or not the accused*appellant can be re#uired to serve the fine and indenity in for of
subsidiary iprisonent in case of insolvency"
D7L3:
0o" 5nder Article E<< of the :evised $enal Code Fa libel coitted by eans of writing& printing&
litography& engraving& radio& phonograph& paintings& theatrical e!hibition& cineatographic e!hibition
or any siilar eans& shall be punished by prision correccional in its iniu and ediu period or a
fine ranging fro )@@ to /@@@ pesos or both& in addition to the civil action which ay be brought by
the offended partyF" 1t is evident fro the foregoing provision that the court is given the discretion to
ipose the penalty of iprisonent or fine or both for the crie of libel" 1t will be noted that the lower
court chose to ipose upon the accused: three onths ofarresto ayorA a fine of $<@@"@@A
indenification of the offended party in the su of $,@&@@@"@@A subsidiary iprisonent in case of
insolvencyA and the payent of the costs" (n the other hand& the Court of Appeals in the e!ercise of its
discretion decided to eliinate the penalty of three ;E= onths arresto ayor and to reduce the
indenity of $,@&@@@"@@ to $<&@@@"@@"
A careful scrutiny of the decision of the trial court reveals that the clause Fwith subsidiary
iprisonent in case of insolvencyF is separated by a coa fro the preceding clauseF is hereby
sentenced to three onths ofarresto ayor with the accessory penalties of the law& to pay a fine of five
hundred ;$<@@"@@= pesos& to indenify the offended party& %ayor Arsenio Lacson& in the su of Ten
Thousand $esos ;$,@&@@@"@@= pesos"F The use of a coa in the part of the sentence is to a>e Fthe
subsidiary iprisonent in case of insolvencyF refer not only to non*payent of the indenity& but
also to non*payent of the fine"
Fortunately& however& accused*appellant is favored by the retroactive force of Article E- of the :evised
$enal Code& as aended by :epublic Act 0o" <C/< which e!epts an accused person fro subsidiary
iprisonent in case of insolvency to pay his civil liability"
1t is a well >nown rule of legal hereneutics that penal statutes are to be strictly construed against the
governent and liberally in favor of the accused" 1n the interpretation of a penal statute& the tendency
is to give it careful scrutiny& and to construe it with such strictness as to safeguard the rights of the
defendant" Considering that Article E- of the :evised $enal Code& as aended& is favorable to the
accused*appellant& the sae should be ade applicable to hi" Thus applying Article E- of the :evised
$enal Code& as aended& to the accused*appellant& he cannot also be re#uired to serve his civil liability
to the offended party in for of subsidiary iprisonent in case of insolvency because this is no
longer re#uired by the aforesaid article"
13< $ (eo,le v Ato,
/*) SCRA 1)3
(an=ani-an+ #.
Facts:
STAT5T7: Sec" ,, of :A ./<-& which aended Art" EE< of the :$C& provides that the death penalty
for rape ay be iposed if the Goffender is a parent& ascendant& step*parent& guardian& relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the Erd civil degree& or the coon*law spouse of the parent of the
victiI
1SS57: 8hether the coon*law husband of the girlHs grandother included
:5L10G: 0oP Courts ust not bring cases within the provisions of the law which are not clearly
ebraced by it" 0o act can be pronounced criinal which is not clearly within the ters of a statute
can be brought within the" Any reasonable doubt ust be resolved in favor of the accused
131 - Centeno v. %illaon-(ornillos
Facts of the case:
(fficers of the Civic (rganization >nown as SaahangQatandaanng0ayonngTi>ay
launched a fund drive for the purpose of renovating the chapel of their 2arrio"
$etitioner %artin Centeno& the Chairan of the Group& approached Budge Angeles& a
resident of the 2arrio and solicited fro her a contribution in the aount of $,<@@"@@"
1t is aditted that the solicitation was ade without the perit fro the 3epartent of
Social Services"
Conse#uenty& Budge filed a coplaint against the petitioner for violation of $3 ,</C
orSolicitation $erit Law"
CentenosH contention was that the Solicitation Law only covers solicitations ade for
charitable or public welfare but not for religious purposes"
:TC rendered a ?udgent finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt"

1ssue:
8(0 the ter Gcharitable or public purposeI should be construed in its broadest sense so as to
include religious purpose"
Deld:
0o" The Court ruled that $3 ,</C which punishes a person who solicits or receives contribution for
Gcharitable or public purposeI without any perit first secured fro the 3epartent of the Social
Services did not include Greligious purposesI in the acts punishable& The law cannot be construed to
punish the solicitation of contributions for religious purposes& such as for the repair of a church
renovation for while charitable purposes includes religious not all charitable includes religious"
Following the rule that penal laws should be strictly construed and what is not clearly included as
punishable is e!cluded& the ter GcharitableI should be strictly construed so as to e!clude solicitation
for GreligiousI purposes in the scope of the law"
13/ $ %illasenor v O"o-(esquerra
G.R. No. 1*<7<< $ 0ar"h !+ /<<)
Reyes+ R.1.+ #.
Facts:
1ssue:
8(0 a preventive suspension in an adinistrative proceeding bar preventive suspension in a criinal
case founded on the sae facts and circustances9
Deld:
133 $ Azar"on v Sandi=an-ayan
/* SCRA 7!7
(an=ani-an+ #.
Facts: $etitioner Alfredo Azarcon owned and operated an earth*oving business& hauling dirt and ore"
Dis services were contracted by $1C($" (ccasionally& he engaged the services of sub*contractors li>e
Baie Ancla whose truc>s were left at the forerHs preises"
(n %ay )<& ,-+E& a 8arrant of 3istraint of $ersonal $roperty was issued by 21: coanding one of
its :egional 3irectors to distraint the goods& chattels or effects and other personal property of Baie
Ancla& a sub*contractor of accused Azarcon and a delin#uent ta!payer" A 8arrant of Garnishent was
issued to and subse#uently signed by accused Azarcon ordering hi to transfer& surrender& transit
andLor reit to 21: the property in his possession owned by Ancla" Azarcon then volunteered hiself
to act as custodian of the truc> owned by Ancla"
After soe tie& Azarcon wrote a letter to the :eg" 3ir of 21: stating that while he had ade
representations to retain possession of the property of Ancla& he thereby relin#uishes whatever
responsibility he had over the said property since Ancla surreptitiously withdrew his e#uipent fro
hi" 1n his reply& the 21: :eg" 3ir" said that AzarconHs failure to coply with the provisions of the
warrant did not relieve hi fro his responsibility"
Along with his co*accused& Azarcon was charged before the Sandiganbayan with the crie of
alversation of public funds or property" (n %arch +& ,--C& the Sandiganbayan rendered a 3ecision
sentencing the accused to suffer the penalty of iprisonent ranging fro ,@ yrs and , day of prision
ayor in its a!iu period to ,. yrs& C os and , day of reclusion teporal" $etitioner filed a
otion for new trial which was subse#uently denied by Sandiganbayan" Dence& this petition"
1ssue: 8hether or not Sandiganbayan has ?urisdiction over a privateindividual designated by 21: as a
custodian of distrained property"
Deld: SC held that the SandiganbayanHs decision was null and void for lac> of ?urisdiction"
Sec" C of $3 ,/@/ provides for the ?urisdiction of the Sandiganbayan" 1t was specified therein that the
only instances when the Sandiganbayan will have ?urisdiction over a privateindividual is when the
coplaint charges the private individual either as a co*principal& accoplice or accessory of a public
officer or eployee who has been charged with a crie within its ?urisdiction"
The 1nforation does no charge petitioner Azarcon of becoing a co*principal& accoplice or
accessory to a public officer coitting an offense under the SandiganbayanHs ?urisdiction" Thus&
unless the petitioner be proven a public officer& Sandiganbayan will have no ?urisdiction over the crie
charged"
Art" )@E of the :$C deterines who public officers are" Granting that the petitioner& in signing the
receipt for the truc> constructively distrained by the 21:& coenced to ta>e part in an activity
constituting public functions& he obviously ay not be deeed authorized by popular election" 0either
was he appointed by direct provision of law nor by copetent authority" 8hile 21: had authority to
re#uire Azarcon to sign a receipt for the distrained truc>& the 0ational 1nternal :evenue Code did not
grant it power to appoint Azarcon a public officer" The 21:Hs power authorizing a privateindividual to
act as a depositary cannot be stretched to include the power to appoint hi as a public officer" Thus&
Azarcon is not a public officer"
13! $ (eo,le v 0anantan
11 (hil )37
Re=ala+ #.
Facts:
Guillero %anantan was charged with a violation of Section <C& :evised 7lection Code" Dowever&
%anantan clais that as F?ustice of peaceF& the defendant is not one of the officers enuerated in the
said section" The lower court denied the otion to disiss holding that a ?ustice of peace is within the
purview of Section <C"
5nder Section <C& F0o ?ustice& ?udge& fiscal& treasurer& or assessor of any province& no officer or
eployee of the Ary& no eber of the national& provincial& city& unicipal or rural police force and
no classified civil service officer or eployee shall aid any candidate& or e!ert any influence in any
anner in a election or ta>e part therein& e!cept to vote& if entitled thereto& or to preserve public peace&
if he is a peace officer"F"
3efendant subits that the said election was ta>en fro Section CC- of the :evised Adinistration
Code wherein& F0o ?udge of the First 1nstance& ?ustice of the peace& or treasurer& fiscal or assessor of
any province and no officer or eployee of the $hilippine Constabulary& or any 2ureau or eployee of
the classified civil service& shall aid any candidate or e!ert influence in any anner in any election or
ta>e part therein otherwise than e!ercising the right to vote"F" De clais that the words F?ustice of
peaceF was oitted revealed the intention of Legislature to e!clude ?ustices of peace fro its operation"
1ssue:
1s ?ustice of peace included in the prohibition of Section /C of the :evised 7lection Code9
Deld:
Mes& it is included in Section <C" Bustices of the peace were e!pressly included in Section CC- of the
:evised Adinistrative Code because the >inds of ?udges therein were specified& i"e"& ?udge of the First
1nstance and ?ustice of the peace" 1n Section <C& however& there was no necessity therefore to include
?ustices of the peace in the enueration because the legislature had availed itself of the ore generic
and broader ter& F?udge"F& which includes all >inds of ?udges"
A F?ustice of the peaceF is a ?udge" A F?udgeF is a public officer& who& by virtue of his office& is clothed
with ?udicial authority" This ter includes all officers appointed to to decide litigated #uestions while
acting in that capacity& including ?ustices of the peace& and even ?urors& it is said& who are ?udges of
facts"
Fro the history of Section <C of :7C& the first oission of the word F?ustice of the peaceF was
effected in Section C+ of Coonwealth Act 0o" E<. and not in the present code as averred by
defendant*appellee" 8henever the word F?udgeF was #ualified by the phrase Fof the First 1nstance'& the
words F?ustice of the peaceF were oitted" 1t follows that when the legislature oitted the words
F?ustice of the peaceF in :A ,+@& it did not intend to e!ept the said officer fro its operation" :ather&
it had considered the said officer as already coprehended in the broader ter F?udgeF"
The rule of Fcasus oisus pro oisso habendus estF is li>ewise invo>ed by the defendant*appellee"
5nder the said rule& a person& ob?ect or thing oitted fro an enueration ust be held to have been
oitted intentionally" Dowever& it is applicable only if the oission has been clearly established" 1n the
case at bar& the legislature did not e!clude or oit ?ustices of the peace fro the enueration of
officers precluded fro engaging in partisan political activities" 1n Section <C& ?ustices of the peace
were ?ust called F?udgesF" Also& the application of this rule does not proceed fro the ere fact that a
case is criinal in nature& but rather fro a reasonable certainty that a particular person& ob?ect or thing
has been oitted fro a legislative enueration" 1n the case at bar& there is no oission but only
substitution of ters"
The rule that penal statutes are given a strict construction is not the only factor controlling the
interpretation of such lawsA instead& the rule erely serves as an additional& single factor to be
considered as an aid in deterining the eaning of penal laws"
Also& the purpose of the statute s to enlarge the officers within its purview" Bustices of the Supree
Court& the Court of Appeals& and various ?udges& such as the ?udges of the Court of 1ndustrial :elations&
?udges of the Court of Agrarian :elations& etc"& who were not included in the prohibition under the old
statute& are now within its encopass"
The rule Fe!pressio unius est e!clusion alteriusF has been erroneously applied by CA and lower courts
because they were not able to give reasons for the e!clusion of the legislature for the ter F?ustices of
peaceF"
13 $ 4S v 1ori-io
1 (hil *
Facts: :espondent Toribio is an owner of carabao& residing in the town of Caren in the province of
2ohol" The trial court of 2ohol found that the respondent slaughtered or caused to be slaughtered a
carabao without a perit fro the unicipal treasurer of the unicipality wherein it was slaughtered&
in violation of Sections E@ and EE of Act 0o" ,,C.& an Act regulating the registration& branding& and
slaughter of Large Cattle" The act prohibits the slaughter of large cattle fit for agricultural wor> or other
draft purposes for huan consuption"
The respondent counters by stating that what the Act is ;,= prohibiting is the slaughter of large cattle in
the unicipal slaughter house without a perit given by the unicipal treasurer" Furtherore& he
contends that the unicipality of Caren has no slaughter house and that he slaughtered his carabao in
his dwelling& ;)= the act constitutes a ta>ing of property for public use in the e!ercise of the right of
einent doain without providing for the copensation of owners& and it is an undue and
unauthorized e!ercise of police power of the state for it deprives the of the en?oyent of their private
property"
1ssue: 8hether or not Act" 0o" ,,C.& regulating the registration&branding and slaughter of large cattle&
is an undue and unauthorized e!ercise of police power"
Deld: 1t is a valid e!ercise of police power of the state"
$olice power is the inherent power of the state to legislate laws which ay interfere with personal
liberties" To ?ustify the state in the e!ercise of its sovereign police power it ust appear ;,= that the
interest of the general public re#uires it and ;)= that the eans are reasonably necessary for the
accoplishent of the purpose& and not unduly oppressive upon individuals"
The court is of the opinion that the act applies generally to the slaughter of large cattle for huan
consuption& A0M8D7:7& without a perit duly secured fro the unicipal treasurer& For to do
otherwise is to defeat the purpose of the law and the intent of the law a>ers" The act priarily see>s
to protect large cattle against theft to a>e it easy for the recovery and return to owners& which
encouraged the to regulate the registration and slaughter of large cattle"
Several years prior to the enactent of the said law& an epideic struc> the $hilippine islands which
threatened the survival of carabaos in the country" 1n soe provinces seventy& eighty and even one
hundred percent of their local carabaos perished due to the said epideic" This drove the prices of
carabaos up to four or five*fold& as a conse#uence carabao theft becae rapant due to the lu!urious
prices of these wor> anials" %oreover& this greatly affected the food production of the country which
propted the governent to iport rice fro its neighboring countries"
As these wor> anials are vested with public interest for they are of fundaental use for the
production of crops& the governent was propted to pass a law that would protect these wor>
anials" The purpose of the law is to stabilize the nuber of carabaos in the country as well as to
redistribute the throughout the entire archipelago" 1t was also the sae reason why large cattles fit for
far wor> was prohibited to be slaughtered for huan consuption" %ost iportantly& the
respondentHs carabao was found to be fit for far wor>"
These reasons satisfy the re#uisites for the valid e!ercise of police power"
Act 0o" ,,C. is not an e!ercise of the inherent power of einent doain" The said law does not
constitute the ta>ing of carabaos for public purposeA it ?ust serves as a ere regulation for the
consuption of these private properties for the protection of general welfare and public interest" Thus&
the deand for copensation of the owner ust fail"
13) $ City o. 0anila v Chinese Co''unity o. 0anila
!< ,hil 3!:
FACTS: $etitioner ;City of %anila= filed a petition praying that certain lands be e!propriated for the
purpose of constructing a public iproveent naely& the e!tension of :izal Avenue& %anila and
claiing that such e!propriation was necessary"
Derein defendants& on the other hand& alleged ;a= that no necessity e!isted for said e!propriation and
;b= that the land in #uestion was a ceetery& which had been used as such for any years& and was
covered with sepulchres and onuents& and that the sae should not be converted into a street for
public purposes"
The lower court ruled that there was no necessity for the e!propriation of the particular strip of land in
#uestion"
$etitioner therefore assails the decision of the lower court claiing that it ;petitioner= has the authority
to e!propriate any land it ay desireA that the only function of the court in such proceedings is to
ascertain the value of the land in #uestionA that neither the court nor the owners of the land can in#uire
into the advisable purpose of the e!propriation or as> any #uestions concerning the necessities thereforA
that the courts are ere appraisers of the land involved in e!propriation proceedings& and& when the
value of the land is fi!ed by the ethod adopted by the law& to render a ?udgent in favor of the
defendant for its value"
1SS57: 8L0 the courts ay in#uire into and hear proof upon the necessity of the e!propriation9
D7L3: Mes" The courts have the power to restrict the e!ercise of einent doain to the actual
reasonable necessities of the case and for the purposes designated by the law" 8hen the unicipal
corporation or entity attepts to e!ercise the authority conferred& it ust coply with the conditions
accopanying such authority" The necessity for conferring the authority upon a unicipal corporation
to e!ercise the right of einent doain is& without #uestion& within the power of the legislature" 2ut
whether or not the unicipal corporation or entity is e!ercising the right in a particular case under the
conditions iposed by the general authority& is a #uestion that the courts have the right to in#uire into"
137 $ (a=dan=anan v Court o. A=rarian Relations
1<! (hil :1<
;en=zon+ #.
Facts:
1ssue:
Deld:
13* $ 0anila 7od=e No. 7)1 v Court o. A,,eals
G.R. No. !1<<1 $ Se,te'-er 3<+ 1:7)
FACTS:
The $hilippine Coission enacted Act 0o" ,E@/ which authorized the City of %anila to reclai a
portion of %anila 2ay" The reclaied area was to for part of theLuneta e!tension" The act provided
that the reclaied area shall be the property of the City of %anila& and the city is authorized to set aside
a tract of the reclaied land for a hotel site and to lease or to sell the sae" Later& the City of %anila
conveyed a portion of the reclaied area to $etitioner" Then $etitioner sold the land& together with all
the iproveents& to the Tarlac 3evelopent Corporation ;T3C="
1SS57:
8hether the reclaied land is patrionial or public doinion"
:5L10G:
The reclaied land is a public doinion" To say that the land is patrionial will render nugatory and a
surplus age the phrase of the law to the effect that the City of %anila Gis hereby authorized to lease or
sellI" A sale of public doinion needs a legislative authorization& while a patrionial land does not"
Statute and its aendents construed together
8hatever changes the legislature ade it should be given effect together with the other parts"
:eddendo singular singuilis
4ariation of the doctrine of last antecedent
:eferring each to eachA
:eferring each phrase or e!pression to its appropriate ob?ect& or
let each be put in its proper place& that is& the word should be
ta>en distributively"
A sale of public doinion needs a legislative authorization& while a
patrionial land does not"
1!< $ 0a"tan Ce-u 3nternational Air,ort Authority v 0ar"os
/)1 SCRA ))7
8avide+ #r.+ #.
FACTS:
%actan Cebu 1nternational Airport Authority ;%C1AA= was created to Gprincipally underta>e to
econoical& efficient and effective control& anageent and supervision of the %actan 1nternational
AirportN and such other airports as ay be established in the province of CebuNI Section ,C of its
charter e!cepts the Authority fro payent of realty ta!es but in ,--C& the City Treasurer deanded
payent for realty ta!es on several parcels of land belonging to the other" %C1AA filed a petition in
:TC contending that& by nature of its powers and functions& it has the sae footing of an agency or
instruentality of the national governent" The :TC disissed the petition based on Section ,-E R
)EC of the local Governent Code or :"A" .,/@" Thus this petition"
1SS57:
8hether or not the %C1AA is e!cepted fro realty ta!es9
:5L10G:
8ith the repealing clause of :A .,/@ the ta! e!eption provided" GAll general and special in the
charter of the %C1AA has been e!pressly repeated" 1t state laws& acts& City Charters& decrees& e!ecutive
orders& proclaations and adinistrative regulations& or part of parts thereof which are inconsistent
with any of the provisions of the Code are hereby repeated or odified accordingly"I Therefore the SC
affired the decision and order of the :TC and herein petitioner has to pay the assessed realty ta! of its
properties effective Banuary ,& ,--) up to the present"
1!1 $ Allian"e o. Govern'ent Wor>ers v 0inister o. 7a-or and 5',loy'ent
G.R. No. )<!<3 $ Au=ust 3+ 1:*3
Facts:
$etitioner is a federation of unions in govt*owned corps" and in govt schools" 1t petitioned the SC for a
ruling that $3 +<,& re#uiring Fall eployers""" to pay their eployees receiving a basic salary of not
ore than $,&@@@ a onth""" a ,Eth onth pay&F applies to govt eployees
D7L3:
0(" 1t is an old rule of statutory construction that restrictive statutes and acts wLc ipose burdens on
the public treasury or wLc diinish rights and interests& no atter how broad their ters do not
ebrace the Sovereign& unless the Sovereign is specifically entioned" The :epublic of the $hil" as a
sovereign cannot be covered by a general ter li>e FeployerF unless the language used in the law is
clear and specific to that effect"
1SS57 ): %ay governent eployees act through a labor federation which uses the collective
bargaining power to secure increased copensation for its ebers9
D7L3:
0(" The ters and conditions of eployent in the Governent including any political subdivision or
instruentality thereof are governed by law" And this is effected through statutes or adinistrative
circulars& rules and regulations and not through Collective 2argaining agreeents"
5nder the present constitution& ;,-.E=& G(CC's are now part of the civil service& thus& not allowed to
use concerted activities to get other benefits or higher salaries different fro that provided by law and
regulation
1!/ $ 0o-il (hili,,ine 5?,loration v Custo's Arrastre Servi"e
G.R. No. /313: $ 8e"e'-er 17+ 1:))
Facts:
Four cases of rotary drill parts were shipped fro abroad on S"S" FLeovilleF& consigned to %obil
$hilippines 7!ploration& 1nc"& %anila" The shipent was discharged to the custody of the Custos
Arrastre Service& the unit of the 2ureau of Custos then handling arrastre operations therein" The
Custos Arrastre Service later delivered to the bro>er of the consignee three cases only of the
shipent" %obil $hilippines 7!ploration& 1nc"& filed suit in the Court of First 1nstance of %anila against
the Custos Arrastre Service and the 2ureau of Custos to recover the value of the undelivered case
in the aount of $,+&C-E"E. plus other daages" 3efendants filed a otion to disiss the coplaint
on the ground that not being persons under the law&defendants cannot be sued" Appellant contends that
not all governent entities are iune fro suitA that defendant 2ureau of Custos as operator of the
arrastre service at the $ort of %anila& is discharging proprietary functions and as such& can be sued by
private individuals"
1ssue:
8hether or not the defendants can invo>e state iunity
Deld:
0ow& the fact that a non*corporate governent entity perfors a function proprietary in nature does
not necessarily result in its being suable" 1f said non*governental function is underta>en as an incident
to its governental function& there is no waiver thereby of the sovereign iunity fro suit e!tended
to such governent entity" The 2ureau of Custos& to repeat& is part of the 3epartent of Finance&
with no personality of its own apart fro that of the national governent" 1ts priary function is
governental& that of assessing and collecting lawful revenues fro iported articles and all other
tariff and custos duties& fees& charges& fines and penalties ;Sec" /@)& :"A" ,-E.=" To this function&
arrastre service is a necessary incident" Clearly& therefore& although said arrastre function ay be
deeed proprietary& it is a necessary incident of the priary and governental function of the 2ureau
of Custos& so that engaging in the sae does not necessarily render said 2ureau liable to suit" For
otherwise& it could not perfor its governental function without necessarily e!posing itself to suit"
Sovereign iunity& granted as to the end& should not be denied as to the necessary eans to that end"

S7CT1(0 /@)" Functions of the 2ureau" O The general duties& powers and ?urisdiction of the bureau
shall include:
a" The assessent and collection of the lawful revenues fro iported articles and all other dues& fees&
charges& fines and penalties accruing under the tariff and custos laws"
b" The prevention and suppression of suggling and other frauds upon the custos"
c" The supervision and control over the entrance and clearance of vessels and aircraft engaged in
foreign coerce"
d" The general supervision& control and regulation of vessels engaged in the carrying of passengers and
freight or in towage in coastwise trade and in the bays and rivers of the $hilippines"
e" The prohibition and suppression of unnecessary noises& such as e!plosion of gasoline engines& the
e!cessive blowing of whistles or sirens& and other needless and disturbing sounds ade by water craft
in the ports of the $hilippines or in parts of rivers included in such ports"
f" The e!clusion& if the conditions of traffic should at any tie so re#uire& of vessels of ore than one
hundred and fifty tons fro entering& berthing or ooring in the $asig :iver"
g" The and easureent& registration& docuenting and licensing of vessels built or owned in the
$hilippines& the recording of sales& transfers and encubrances of such vessels& and the perforance of
all the duties pertaining to arine registry"
h" The inspection of $hilippine vessels& and supervision over the safety and sanitation of such vessels"
i" The enforceent of the lawful #uarantine regulations for vessels entering $hilippine ports"
?" The enforceent of the tariff and custos laws and all other laws& rules and regulations relating to
the tariff and custos adinistration"
>" The licensing of arine officers who have #ualified in the e!aination re#uired by law to be carried
on $hilippine vessels& the deterination of the #ualifications of pilots& the regulation of this service&
and the !ing of the fees which they ay charge"
l" The supervision and control over the handling of foreign ails arriving in the $hilippines& for the
purpose of the collection of the lawful duty on dutiable articles thus iported and the prevention of
suggling through the ediu of such ails"
1!3 $ 4y Coque v Sio"a
!3 (hil !<
Ostrand #.
Facts:
1ssue:
Deld: