G.R.No.

207843,July15,2015COMMISSIONEROF
INTERNALREVENUE,Petitioner,v.COURTOFTAX
APPEALS(SECONDDIVISION)ANDPETRON
CORPORATION,*Respondents.:JULY2015PHILIPPINE
SUPREMECOURTJURISPRUDENCE
COMMISSIONEROFINTERNALREVENUE,Petitioner,v.COURTOFTAXAPPEALS(SECOND
DIVISION)ANDPETRONCORPORATION,*Respondents.
DECISIONPERLASBERNABE,J.:
Assailedinthispetitionforcertiorari1aretheResolutionsdatedFebruary13,20132andMay8,20133of
theCourtofTaxAppeals,SecondDivision(CTA)inCTACaseNo.8544reversingandsettingasidethe
earlierdismissalofthepetitionforreviewfiledbyprivaterespondentPetronCorporation(Petron)inthe
saidcaseonthebasesofprematurityandlackofjurisdiction.

TheFacts
Petron,whichisengagedinthemanufactureandmarketingofpetroleumproducts,importsalkylateasa
raw material or blending component for the manufacture of ethanolblended motor gasoline.4 For the
period January 2009 to August 2011, as well as for the month of April 2012, Petron transacted an
aggregateof22separateimportationsforwhichpetitionertheCommissionerofInternalRevenue(CIR)
issuedAuthorities to Release Imported Goods (ATRIGs), categorically stating that Petron's importation
of alkylate is exempt from the payment of the excise tax because it was not among those articles
enumeratedassubjecttoexcisetaxunderTitleVIofRepublicActNo.(RA)8424,5asamended,orthe
1997NationalInternalRevenueCode(NIRC).Withrespect,however,toPetron'salkylateimportations
coveringtheperiodSeptember2011toJune2012(excludingApril2012),theCIRinserted,withoutprior
notice,areservationforallATRlGsissued,6statingthat:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Thisiswithoutprejudicetothecollectionofthecorrespondingexcisetaxes,penaltiesandinterest
dependingonthefinalresolutionoftheOfficeoftheCommissionerontheissueofwhetherthisitem
issubjecttotheexcisetaxesundertheNationalInternalRevenueCodeof1997,asamended.7
InJune2012,Petronimported12,802,660litersofalkylateandpaidvalueaddedtax(VAT)inthetotal
amountofP41,657,533.00asevidencedbyImportEntryandInternalRevenueDeclaration(IEIRD)No.
SN 122406532. Based on the Final Computation, said importation was subjected by the Collector of
Customs of Port Limay, Bataan, upon instructions of the Commissioner of Customs (COC), to excise

taxes of P4.35 per liter, or in the aggregate amount of P55,691,571.00, and consequently, to an
additionalVATof12%ontheimposedexcisetaxintheamountofP6,682,989.00.8Theimpositionofthe
excise tax was supposedly premised on Customs Memorandum Circular (CMC) No. 1642012 dated
July 18, 2012, implementing the Letter dated June 29, 2012 issued by the CIR, which states
that:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
[A]lkylatewhichisaproductofdistillationsimilartothatofnaphta,issubjecttoexcisetaxunder
Section148(e)oftheNationalInternalRevenueCode(NIRC)of1997.9
In view of the CIR's assessment, Petron filed before the CTA a petition for review,10 docketed as CTA
Case No. 8544, raising the issue of whether its importation of alkylate as a blending component is
subjecttoexcisetaxascontemplatedunderSection148(e)oftheNIRC.
On October 5, 2012, the CIR filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and
prematurity.11redarclaw
Initially,inaResolution12 dated November 15, 2012, the CTA granted the CIR's motion and dismissed
the case. However, on Petron's motion for reconsideration,13 it reversed its earlier disposition in a
Resolution14 dated February 13, 2013, and eventually denied the CIR's motion for reconsideration15
therefrominaResolution16datedMay8,2013.Ineffect,theCTAgaveduecoursetoPetron'spetition,
findingthat:(a)thecontroversywasnotessentiallyforthedeterminationoftheconstitutionality,legality
or validity of a law, rule or regulation but a question on the propriety or soundness of the CIR's
interpretationofSection148(e)oftheNIRCwhichfallswithintheexclusivejurisdictionoftheCTAunder
Section4thereof,particularlyunderthephrase"othermattersarisingunder[theNIRC]"17and(b)there
are attending circumstances that exempt the case from the rule on nonexhaustion of administrative
remedies, such as the great irreparable damage that may be suffered by Petron from the CIR's final
assessmentofexcisetaxonitsimportation.18redarclaw
Aggrieved, the CIR sought immediate recourse to the Court, through the instant petition, alleging that
theCTAcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionwhenitassumedauthoritytotakecognizanceofthecase
despiteitslackofjurisdictiontodoso.19redarclaw
TheIssueBeforetheCourt
ThecoreissuetoberesolvediswhetherornottheCTAproperlyassumedjurisdictionoverthepetition
assailingtheimpositionofexcisetaxonPetron'simportationofalkylatebasedonSection148(e)ofthe
NIRC.
TheCourt'sRuling

Thepetitionismeritorious.
The CIR asserts that the interpretation of the subject tax provision, i.e., Section 148 (e) of the NIRC,
embodiedinCMCNo.1642012,isanexerciseofherquasilegislativefunctionwhichisreviewableby
the Secretary of Finance, whose decision, in turn, is appealable to the Office of the President and,
ultimately, to the regular courts, and that only her quasi judicial functions or the authority to decide
disputedassessments,refunds,penaltiesandthelikearesubjecttotheexclusiveappellatejurisdiction
oftheCTA.20ShelikewisecontendsthatthepetitionsuffersfromprematurityduetoPetron'sfailureto
exhaustallavailableremedieswithintheadministrativelevelinaccordancewiththeTariffandCustoms
Code(TCC).21redarclaw
TheCIR'spositioniswellgrounded.
Section4oftheNIRCconfersupontheCIRboth:(a)thepowertointerprettaxlawsintheexerciseof
herquasilegislativefunctionand(b)thepowertodecidetaxcasesintheexerciseofherquasijudicial
function. It also delineates the jurisdictional authority to review the validity of the CIR's exercise of the
saidpowers,thus:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SEC.4.PoweroftheCommissionertoInterpretTaxLawsandtoDecideTaxCases.Thepowerto
interprettheprovisionsofthisCodeandothertaxlawsshallbeundertheexclusiveandoriginal
jurisdictionoftheCommissioner,subjecttoreviewbytheSecretaryofFinance.
Thepowertodecidedisputedassessments,refundsofinternalrevenuetaxes,feesorother
charges,penaltiesimposedinrelationthereto,orothermattersarisingunderthisCodeorotherlaws
orportionsthereofadministeredbytheBureauofInternalRevenueisvestedintheCommissioner,
subjecttotheexclusiveappellatejurisdictionoftheCourtofTaxAppeals.(Emphasesand
underscoringsupplied)
TheCTAisacourtofspecialjurisdiction,withpowertoreviewbyappealdecisionsinvolvingtaxdisputes
renderedbyeithertheCIRortheCOC.Conversely,ithasnojurisdictiontodeterminethevalidityofa
rulingissuedbytheCIRortheCOCintheexerciseoftheirquasilegislativepowerstointerprettaxlaws.
These observations may be deduced from a reading of Section 7 of RA 1125,22 as amended by RA
9282,23entitled"AnActCreatingtheCourtofTaxAppeals,"enumeratingthecasesoverwhichtheCTA
mayexerciseitsjurisdiction:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Sec.7.Jurisdiction.TheCTAshallexercise:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
a.Exclusiveappellatejurisdictiontoreviewbyappeal,ashereinprovided:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
1.DecisionsoftheCommissionerofInternalRevenueincasesinvolvingdisputed

assessments,refundsofinternalrevenuetaxes,feesorothercharges,penaltiesinrelation
thereto,orothermattersarisingundertheNationalInternalRevenueorotherlaws
administeredbytheBureauofInternalRevenue
2.InactionbytheCommissionerofInternalRevenueincasesinvolvingdisputedassessments,
refundsofinternalrevenuetaxes,teesorothercharges,penaltiesinrelationsthereto,orother
mattersarisingundertheNationalInternalRevenueCodeorotherlawsadministeredbythe
BureauofInternalRevenue,wheretheNationalInternalRevenueCodeprovidesaspecificperiod
ofaction,inwhichcasetheinactionshallbedeemedadenial
3.Decisions,ordersorresolutionsoftheRegionalTrialCourtsinlocaltaxcasesoriginallydecided
orresolvedbythemintheexerciseoftheiroriginalorappellatejurisdiction
4.DecisionsoftheCommissionerofCustomsincasesinvolvingliabilityforcustomsduties,feesor
othermoneycharges,seizure,detentionorreleaseofpropertyaffected,fines,forfeituresorother
penaltiesinrelationthereto,orothermattersarisingundertheCustomsLaworotherlaws
administeredbytheBureauofCustoms
5.DecisionsoftheCentralBoardofAssessmentAppealsintheexerciseofitsappellatejurisdiction
overcasesinvolvingtheassessmentandtaxationofrealpropertyoriginallydecidedbythe
provincialorcityboardofassessmentappeals
6.DecisionsoftheSecretaryofFinanceoncustomscaseselevatedtohimautomaticallyforreview
fromdecisionsoftheCommissionerofCustomswhichareadversetotheGovernmentunder
Section2315oftheTariffandCustomsCode
7.DecisionsoftheSecretaryofTradeandIndustry,inthecaseofnonagriculturalproduct,
commodityorarticle,andtheSecretaryofAgricultureinthecaseofagriculturalproduct,
commodityorarticle,involvingdumpingandcountervailingdutiesunderSection301and302,
respectively,oftheTariffandCustomsCode,andsafeguardmeasuresunderRepublicActNo.
8800,whereeitherpartymayappealthedecisiontoimposeornottoimposesaidduties.
b.Jurisdictionovercasesinvolvingcriminaloffensesashereinprovided:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
1.ExclusiveoriginaljurisdictionoverallcriminaloffensesarisingfromviolationsoftheNational
InternalRevenueCodeorTariffandCustomsCodeandotherlawsadministeredbytheBureauof
InternalRevenueortheBureauofCustoms:Provided,however,Thatoffensesorfelonies
mentionedinthisparagraphwheretheprincipalamountoftaxesandfees,exclusiveofcharges
andpenalties,claimedislessthanOnemillionpesos(P1,000,000.00)orwherethereisno
specifiedamountclaimedshallbetriedbytheregularCourtsandthejurisdictionoftheCTAshall

beappellate.AnyprovisionoflawortheRulesofCourttothecontrarynotwithstanding,the
criminalactionandthecorrespondingcivilactionfortherecoveryofcivilliabilityfortaxesand
penaltiesshallatalltimesbesimultaneouslyinstitutedwith,andjointlydeterminedinthesame
proceedingbytheCTA,thefilingofthecriminalactionbeingdeemedtonecessarilycarrywithit
thefilingofthecivilaction,andnorighttoreservethefillingofsuchcivilactionseparatelyfromthe
criminalactionwillberecognized.
2.Exclusiveappellatejurisdictionincriminaloffenses:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
a.Overappealsfromthejudgments,resolutionsorordersoftheRegionalTrialCourtsintax
casesoriginallydecidedbythem,intheirrespectiveterritorialjurisdiction.
b.Overpetitionsforreviewofthejudgments,resolutionsorordersoftheRegionalTrialCourts
intheexerciseoftheirappellatejurisdictionovertaxcasesoriginallydecidedbythe
MetropolitanTrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourtsandMunicipalCircuitTrialCourtsintheir
respectivejurisdiction.
c.Jurisdictionovertaxcollectioncasesashereinprovided:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
1.Exclusiveoriginaljurisdictionintaxcollectioncasesinvolvingfinalandexecutoryassessments
fortaxes,fees,chargesandpenalties:Provided,however,Thatcollectioncaseswherethe
principalamountoftaxesandfees,exclusiveofchargesandpenalties,claimedislessthanOne
millionpesos(P1,000,000.00)shallbetriedbytheproperMunicipalTrialCourt,MetropolitanTrial
CourtandRegionalTrialCourt.
2.Exclusiveappellatejurisdictionintaxcollectioncases:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
a.Overappealsfromthejudgments,resolutionsorordersoftheRegionalTrialCourtsintax
collectioncasesoriginallydecidedbythem,intheirrespectiveterritorialjurisdiction.
b.Overpetitionsforreviewofthejudgments,resolutionsorordersoftheRegionalTrialCourts
intheexerciseoftheirappellatejurisdictionovertaxcollectioncasesoriginallydecidedbythe
MetropolitanTrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourtsandMunicipalCircuitTrialCourts,intheir
respectivejurisdiction.(Emphasissupplied)
In this case, Petron's tax liability was premised on the COC's issuance of CMC No. 1642012, which
gave effect to the CIR's June 29, 2012 Letter interpreting Section 148 (e) of the NIRC as to include
alkylateamongthearticlessubjecttocustomsduties,hence,Petron'spetitionbeforetheCTAultimately
challengingthelegalityandconstitutionalityoftheCIR'saforesaidinterpretationofataxprovision.Inline
withtheforegoingdiscussion,however,theCIRcorrectlyarguesthattheCTAhadnojurisdictiontotake

cognizance of the petition as its resolution would necessarily involve a declaration of the validity or
constitutionality of the CIR's interpretation of Section 148 (e) of the NIRC, which is subject to the
exclusive review by the Secretary of Finance and ultimately by the regular courts. In BritishAmerican
Tobaccov.Camacho,24theCourtruledthattheCTA'sjurisdictiontoresolvetaxdisputesexcludesthe
powertoruleontheconstitutionalityorvalidityofalaw,ruleorregulation,towit:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WhiletheabovestatuteconfersontheCTAjurisdictiontoresolvetaxdisputesingeneral,thisdoes
notincludecaseswheretheconstitutionalityofalaworruleischallenged.Wherewhatisassailedis
thevalidityorconstitutionalityofalaw,oraruleorregulationissuedbytheadministrativeagencyin
theperformanceofitsquasilegislativefunction,theregularcourtshavejurisdictiontopassuponthe
same.xxx.25
Inassertingitsjurisdictionoverthepresentcase,theCTAexplainedthatPetron'spetitionfiledbeforeit
"simplyputsinquestion"theproprietyorsoundnessoftheCIR'sinterpretationandapplicationofSection
148(e)oftheNIRC(asembodiedinCMCNo.1642012)"inrelationto"theimpositionofexcisetaxon
Petron'simportationofalkylatethus,theCTApositsthatthecaseshouldberegardedas"othermatters
arisingunder[theNIRC]"underthesecondparagraphofSection4oftheNIRC,thereforefallingwithin
theCTA'sjurisdiction:26
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SEC.4.PoweroftheCommissionertoInterpretTaxLawsandtoDecideTaxCases.Thepowerto
interprettheprovisionsofthisCodeandothertaxlawsshallbeundertheexclusiveandoriginal
jurisdictionoftheCommissioner,subjecttoreviewbytheSecretaryofFinance.
Thepowertodecidedisputedassessments,refundsofinternalrevenuetaxes,feesorothercharges,
penaltiesimposedinrelationthereto,orothermattersarisingunderthisCodeorotherlawsor
portionsthereofadministeredbytheBureauofInternalRevenueisvestedinthecommissioner,
subjecttotheexclusiveappellatejurisdictionoftheCourtofTaxAppeals.(Emphasesand
underscoringsupplied)
TheCourtdisagrees.
AstheCIRaptlypointedout,thephrase"othermattersarisingunderthisCode,"asstatedinthesecond
paragraphofSection4oftheNIRC,shouldbeunderstoodaspertainingtothosemattersdirectlyrelated
to the preceding phrase "disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other
charges,penaltiesimposedinrelationthereto"andmustthereforenotbetakeninisolationtoinvokethe
jurisdictionoftheCTA.27Inotherwords,thesubjectphraseshouldbeusedonlyinreferencetocases
thatare,tobeginwith,subjecttotheexclusiveappellatejurisdictionoftheCTA,i.e.,thosecontroversies
over which the CIR had exercised her quasijudicial functions or her power to decide disputed
assessments, refunds or internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation
thereto,nottothosethatinvolvedtheCIR'sexerciseofquasilegislativepowers.

In Enrile v. Court of Appeals,28 the Court, applying the statutory construction principle of ejusdem
generis,29 explained the import of using the general clause "other matters arising under the Customs
Law or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Customs" in the enumeration of cases
subjecttotheexclusiveappellatejurisdictionoftheCTA,sayingthat:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
[T]he'othermatters'thatmaycomeunderthegeneralclauseshouldbeofthesamenatureas
thosethathaveprecededthemapplyingtheruleofconstructionknownasejusdemgeneris.30
(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)
Hence, as the CIR's interpretation of a tax provision involves an exercise of her quasilegislative
functions,theproperrecourseagainstthesubjecttaxrulingexpressedinCMCNo.1642012isareview
bytheSecretaryofFinanceandultimatelytheregularcourts.InCommissionerofCustomsv.Hypermix
FeedsCorporation,31theCourthasheldthat:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Thedeterminationofwhetheraspecificruleorsetofrulesissuedbyanadministrativeagency
contravenesthelawortheconstitutioniswithinthejurisdictionoftheregularcourts.Indeed,the
Constitutionveststhepowerofjudicialrevieworthepowertodeclarealaw,treaty,internationalor
executiveagreement,presidentialdecree,order,instruction,ordinance,orregulationinthecourts,
includingtheregionaltrialcourts.Thisiswithinthescopeofjudicialpower,whichincludesthe
authorityofthecourtstodetermineinanappropriateactionthevalidityoftheactsofthepolitical
departments.xxx.32
Besides, Petron prematurely invoked the jurisdiction of the CTA. Under Section 7 of RA 1125, as
amended by RA 9282, what is appealable to the CTA is the decision of the COC over a customs
collector'sadverserulingonataxpayer'sprotest:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SEC.7.Jurisdiction.TheCTAshallexercise:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
a.Exclusiveappellatejurisdictiontoreviewbyappeal,ashereinprovided:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
1.DecisionsoftheCommissionerofInternalRevenueincasesinvolvingdisputedassessments,
refundsofinternalrevenuetaxes,feesorothercharges,penaltiesinrelationthereto,orother
mattersarisingundertheNationalInternalRevenueorotherlawsadministeredbytheBureauof
InternalRevenue
xxxx
4.DecisionsoftheCommissionerofCustomsincasesinvolvingliabilityforcustomsduties,feesor
othermoneycharges,seizure,detentionorreleaseofpropertyaffected,fines,forfeituresorother

penaltiesinrelationthereto,orothermattersarisingundertheCustomsLaworotherlaws
administeredbytheBureauofCustoms
xxxx
Section11ofthesamelawisnolesscategoricalinstatingthatwhatmaybethesubjectofanappealto
theCTAisadecision,rulingorinactionoftheCIRortheCOC,amongothers:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SEC.11.WhoMayAppealModeofAppealEffectofAppeal.Anypartyadverselyaffectedbya
decision,rulingorinactionoftheCommissionerofInternalRevenue,theCommissionerofCustoms,
theSecretaryofFinance,theSecretaryofTradeandIndustryortheSecretaryofAgricultureorthe
CentralBoardofAssessmentAppealsortheRegionalTrialCourtsmayfileanappealwiththeCTA
withinthirty(30)daysafterthereceiptofsuchdecisionorrulingoraftertheexpirationoftheperiod
fixedbylawforactionasreferredtoinSection7(a)(2)herein.
xxxx
In this case, there was even no tax assessment to speak of. While customs collector Federico
BulanhaguihimselfadmittedduringtheCTA'sNovember8,2012hearingthatthecomputationhehad
written at the back page of the IEIRD served as the final assessment imposing excise tax on Petron's
importationofalkylate,33theCourtconcurswiththeCIR'sstancethatthesubjectIEIRDwasnotyetthe
customscollector'sfinalassessmentthatcouldbethepropersubjectofreview.Andevenifitwere,the
sameshouldhavebeenbroughtfirstforreviewbeforetheCOCandnotdirectlytotheCTA.Itshouldbe
stressedthattheCTAhasnojurisdictiontoreviewbyappeal,decisionsofthecustomscollector.34The
TCC prescribes that a party adversely affected by a ruling or decision of the customs collector may
protestsuchrulingordecisionuponpaymentoftheamountdue35and,ifaggrievedbytheactionofthe
customs collector on the matter under protest, may have the same reviewed by the COC.36 It is only
afterthecocshallhavemadeanadverserulingonthemattermaytheaggrievedpartyfileanappealto
theCTA.37redarclaw
Notably, Petron admitted to not having filed a protest of the assessment before the customs collector
andelevatingapossibleadverserulingthereintotheCOC,reasoningthatsuchaprocedurewouldbe
costlyandimpractical,andwouldunjustlydelaytheresolutionoftheissueswhich,beingpurelylegalin
nature anyway, were also beyond the authority of the customs collector to resolve with finality.38 This
admission is at once decisive of the issue of the CTA's jurisdiction over the petition. There being no
protestrulingbythecustomscollectorthatwasappealedtotheCOC,thefilingofthepetitionbeforethe
CTAwasprematureastherewasnothingyettoreview.39redarclaw
Verily,thefactthatthereisnodecisionbytheCOCtoappealfromhighlightsPetron'sfailuretoexhaust
administrative remedies prescribed by law. Before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the

courts, it is a precondition that he avail of all administrative processes afforded him, such that if a
remedywithintheadministrativemachinerycanberesortedtobygivingtheadministrativeofficerevery
opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy must be
exhaustedfirstbeforethecourt'spowerofjudicialreviewcanbesought,otherwise,theprematureresort
tothecourtisfataltoone'scauseofaction.40Whilethereareexceptionstotheprincipleofexhaustion
ofadministrativeremedies,ithasnotbeensufficientlyshownthatthepresentcasefallsunderanyofthe
exceptions.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheResolutionsdatedFebruary13,2013andMay8,2013of
theCourtofTaxAppeals(CTA),SecondDivisioninCTACaseNo.8544areherebyREVERSEDandSET
ASIDE. The petition for review filed by private respondent Petron Corporation before the CTA is
DISMISSEDforlackofjurisdictionandprematurity.
SOORDERED.cralawlawlibrary
Sereno,C.J.,(Chairperson),LeonardoDeCastro,Bersamin,andPerez,JJ.,concur.
Endnotes:
*SeeResolutiondatedAugust28,2013grantingpetitioner'smotiontocorrectcaptionrollo,p.81.

1Id.at233.

2Id.at3756.SignedbyAssociateJusticeCaesarA.CasanovaandCielitoN.MindaroGrullawith

AssociateJusticeJuanitoC.Castaneda,Jr.dissenting.
3Id.at5871.

4Id.at205.

5Entitled"ANACTAMENDINGTHENATIONALINTERNALREVENUECODE,ASAMENDED,AND

FOROTHERPURPOSES"(January1,1998).
6Rollo,p.206.

7Id.

8Id.at207.

9Seeid.

10

10Id.at203235.

11Id.at240250.

12Id.at273288.SignedbyAssociateJusticesJuanitoC.Castaneda,Jr.,CaesarA.Casanova,and

CielitoN.MindaroGrulla.
13DatedNovember23,2012.Id.at289325.

14Id.at3756.

15DatedMarch1,2013.Id.at327348.

16Id.at5871.

17Seeid.at40and44.

18Seeid.at4446.

19Seeid.at8.

20Id.at911.

21RA1937,entitled"ANACTTOREVISEANDCODIFYTHETARIFFANDCUSTOMSLAWSOFTHE

PHILIPPINES"(approvedonJune22,1957).
22ApprovedonJune16,1954.

23Entitled"ANACTEXPANDINGTHEJURISDICTIONOFTHECOURTOFTAXAPPEALS(CTA),

ELEVATINGITSRANKTOTHELEVELOFACOLLEGIATECOURTWITHSPECIALJURISDICTION
ANDENLARGINGITSMEMBERSHIP,AMENDINGFORTHEPURPOSECERTAINSECTIONSOR
REPUBLICACTNO.1125,ASAMENDED,OTHERWISEKNOWNASTHELAWCREATINGTHE
COURTOFTAXAPPEALS,ANDFOROTHERPURPOSES"(April23,2004).
24584Phil.489(2008).

25Id.at511.

26Seerollo,pp.40,44,and61.

27Seeid.at18.

28140Phil.199(1969).

29Theruleofejusdemgenerisstatesthat"[w]heregeneralwordsfollowanenumerationofpersons

orthings,bywordsofaparticularandspecificmeaning,suchgeneralwordsarenottobeconstrued
intheirwidestextent,butareheldtobeasapplyingonlytopersonsorthingsofthesamekindor
classasthosespecificallymentioned."(Republicv.Migrio,267Phil.337,345[1990],citingSmith,
BellandCo.,Ltdv.RegisterofDeedsofDavao,96Phil.58[1954],furthercitingBlackon
InterpretationofLaws,2ndEd.,p.203.)
30Enrilev.CourtofAppeals,supranote28,at205,citingOlladav.CTA,99Phil.604,609610(1956).

31COCv.HypermixFeedsCorporation,G.R.No.179579,February1,2012,664SCRA666.

32Id.at672,citingSmartCommunications,Inc.v.NationalTelecommunicationsCommission,456

Phil.145,158159(2003).
33Seerollo,p.44.

34SeeLopez&Sons,Inc.v.CTA,100Phil.850,856857(1957).

35SeeSection2308ofRA1937,entitled"ANACTTOREVISEANDCODIFYTHETARIFFAND

CUSTOMSLAWSOFTHEPHILIPPINES"(July1,1957).
36SeeSection2313ofRA1937.

37SeeSection2402ofRA1937.

38Seerollo,p.118.

39SeeCMSEstate,Inc.v.COC,119Phil.420(1964).

40ProvinceofZamboangaDelNortev.CourtofAppeals,396Phil.709,717(2000).