REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES THRU: THE

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT

(PCGG), AFP ANTI-GRAFT BOARD, COL. ERNESTO A.
PUNSALANG and PETER T. TABANG (Petitioners)
vs.
HON. EUTROPIO MIGRINO, as Presiding Judge, Regional
Trial Court, NCJR, Branch 151, Pasig, Metro Manila and
TROADIO TECSON (Respondents)
(G.R. No. 89483, August 30, 1990)
PONENTE: Cortes, J.
FACTS:
On May 13, 1986, PCGG Chairman Jovito R. Salonga
created the New Armed Forces of the Philippines Anti-Graft
Board. The Board was created to "investigate the unexplained
wealth and corrupt practices of AFP personnel, both retired
and in active service." The order further stated that" [t]he Board
shall be primarily charged with the task of investigating cases
of alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
(Republic Act No. 3019, as amended) and shall make the
necessary recommendations to appropriate government
agencies and instrumentalities with respect to the action to be
taken thereon based on its findings.
Acting on information received by the Board, which
indicated the acquisition of wealth beyond his lawful income,
private respondent Lt. Col. Troadio Tecson (ret.) was required
by the Board to submit his explanation/comment together with
his supporting evidence by October 31, 1987. Private
respondent
requested,
and
was
granted,
several
postponements, but was unable to produce his supporting
evidence because they were allegedly in the custody of his
bookkeeper who had gone abroad. Just the same, the Board
proceeded with its investigation and submitted its resolution,
dated June 30, 1988, recommending that private respondent
be prosecuted and tried for violation of Rep. Act No. 3019, as
amended, and Rep. Act No. 1379, as amended.
The case was set for preliminary investigation by the
PCGG. Private respondent moved to dismiss the case on the
following grounds: (1) that the PCGG has no jurisdiction over
his person; (2) that the action against him under Rep. Act No.
1379 has already prescribed; (3) that E.O. No. 14, insofar as it
suspended the provisions of Rep. Act No. 1379 on prescription
of actions, was inapplicable to his case; and (4) that having
retired from the AFP on May 9, 1984, he was now beyond the
reach of Rep. Act No. 3019. The Board opposed the motion to
dismiss.
In a resolution dated February 8, 1989, the PCGG
denied the motion to dismiss for lack of merit. Private
respondent moved for reconsideration but this was denied by
the PCGG in a resolution dated March 8, 1989. Private
respondent was directed to submit his counter-affidavit and
other controverting evidence on March 20, 1989.
On March 13, 1989, private respondent filed a petition
for prohibition with preliminary injunction with the Regional Trial
Court in Pasig, Metro Manila. The case was docketed in the
respondent judges court. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss
and opposed the application for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction on the principal ground that the Regional
Trial Court had no jurisdiction over the Board, citing the case of
PCGG v. Pea. Private respondent opposed the motion to
dismiss. Petitioner replied to the opposition.
On June 23, 1989, respondent judge denied
petitioners motion to dismiss. On June 26, 1989, respondent
judge granted the application for the issuance of a writ of

preliminary injunction, enjoining petitioners from investigating

or prosecuting private respondent under Rep. Acts Nos. 3019
and 1379 upon the filing of a bond in the amount of Twenty
Thousand
Pesos
(P20,000.00).
Hence, the instant petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the PCGG has jurisdiction to investigate and
prosecute the herein private respondent for violation of
Republic Acts Nos. 3019 and 1379.
HELD:
NO.
It does not suffice, as in this case, that the respondent is or
was a government official or employee during the
administration of former Pres. Marcos. There must be a prima
facie showing that the respondent unlawfully accumulated
wealth by virtue of his close association or relation with former
Pres. Marcos and/or his wife. This is so because otherwise the
respondents case will fall under existing general laws and
procedures on the matter. Rep. Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act, penalizes the corrupt practices of
any public officer. Under Rep. Act No. 1379 (An Act Declaring
Forfeited in Favor of the State Any Property Found to Have
Been Unlawfully Acquired By Any Public Officer or Employee
and Providing for the Procedure Therefor), whenever any
public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency
an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to
his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other
lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired
property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have
been unlawfully acquired [Sec. 2]. The Solicitor General shall
file the petition and prosecute the case in behalf of the
Republic, after preliminary investigation by the provincial or city
prosecutor.
Moreover, the record shows that private respondent was being
investigated for unlawfully acquired wealth under Rep. Acts
Nos. 3019 and 1379, and not under E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14A.
It will not do to cite the order of the PCGG Chairman, dated
May 13, 1986, creating the Board and authorizing it to
investigate the unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of
AFP personnel, both retired and in active service, to support
the contention that PCGG has jurisdiction over the case of
private respondent. The PCGG cannot do more than what it
was empowered to do. Its powers are limited. Its task is limited
to the recovery of the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses, their
relatives and cronies. The PCGG cannot, through an order of
its chairman, grant itself additional powers powers not
contemplated in its enabling law. The rule of law mandates that
an agency of government be allowed to exercise only the
powers granted it.
The pronouncements made above should not be taken to
mean that the PCGGs creation of the AFP Anti-Graft Board is
a nullity and that the PCGG has no authority to investigate and
cause the prosecution of members and former members of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines for violations of Rep. Acts
Nos. 3019 and 1379. The PCGG may investigate and cause
the prosecution of active and retired members of the AFP for
violations of Rep. Acts Nos. 3019 and 1379 only in relation to
E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, i.e., insofar as they involve the
recovery of the ill-gotten wealth of former Pres. Marcos and his
family and "cronies." But the PCGG would not have jurisdiction
over an ordinary case falling under Rep. Acts Nos. 3019 and

1379, as in the case at bar. E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A did not
envision the PCGG as the investigator and prosecutor of all
unlawful accumulations of wealth. The PCGG was created for
a specific and limited purpose and necessarily its powers must
be construed with this in mind.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLE:
Ejusdem Generis:
Where general words follow an enumeration of persons or
things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such
general words are not to be construed in their widest extent,
but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the
same kind or class as those specifically mentioned.
The term "subordinate" as used in E.O. Nos. 1 and 2 would
refer to one who enjoys a close association or relation with
former Pres. Marcos and/or his wife, similar to the immediate
family member, relative, and close associate in E.O. No. 1 and
the close relative, business associate, dummy, agent, or
nominee in E.O. No. 2.

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINE, INC., petitioner, VS

HON. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ as Auditor General and ISMAEL
MATHAY as AUDITOR OF THE CENTRAL BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Facts
The petitioner Colgate-Palmolive Philippines, Inc. is a
corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws
engaged in the manufacture of toilet preparations and
household remedies. On several occasions, it imported from
abroad various materials such as irish moss extract, sodium
benzoate, sodium saccharinate precipitated calcium carbonate
and dicalcium phosphate, for use as stabilizers and flavoring of
the dental cream it manufactures. For every importation made
of these materials, the petitioner paid to the Central Bank of
the Philippines the 17% special excise tax on the foreign
exchange used for the payment of the cost, transportation and
other charges incident thereto, pursuant to Republic Act No.
601, as amended, commonly known as the Exchange Tax Law.
On March 14, 1956, the petitioner filed with the Central Bank
three applications for refund of the 17% special excise tax it
had paid in the aggregate sum of P113,343.99. The claim for
refund was based on section 2 of Republic Act 601, which
reads;
SEC, 2. The tax collected under the preceding section on
foreign exchange used for the payment of the cost,
transportation and/or other charges incident to importation into
the Philippines of rice, flour, canned milk, cattle and beef,
canned fish, soya beans, butterfat, chocolate, malt syrup,
tapioca, stabilizer and flavors, vitamin concentrate, fertilizer,
poultry feed; textbooks, reference books, and supplementary
readers approved by the Board of Textbooks and/or established
public or private educational institutions; newsprint imported by
or for publishers for use in the publication of books, pamphlets,
magazines and newspapers; book paper, book cloth, chip board
imported for the printing of supplementary readers (approved by
the Board of Textbooks) to be supplied to the Government under
contracts perfected before the approval of this Act, the quantity
thereof to be certified by the Director of Printing; anesthetics,
anti-biotics, vitamins, hormones, x-ray films, laboratory reagents,
biologicals, dental supplies, and pharmaceutical drugs
necessary for compounding medicines; medical and hospital
supplies listed in the appendix to this Act, in quantities to be
certified by the Director of Hospitals as actually needed by the
hospitals applying therefor; drugs and medicines listed in the
said appendix; and such other drugs and medicines as may be
certified by the Secretary of Health from time to time to promote
and protect the health of the people of the Philippines shall be
refunded to any importer making application therefor, upon
satisfactory proof of actual importation under the rules and
regulations to be promulgated pursuant to section seven
thereof."

The auditor of the Central Bank, however, refused to pass in

audit its claims for refund even for the reduced amount fixed by
the Officer-in-Charge of the Exchange Tax Administration, on
the theory that toothpaste stabilizers and flavors are not
exempt under section 2 of the Exchange Tax Law.
Petitioner appealed to the Auditor General, but the latter or,
December 4, 1958 affirmed the ruling of the auditor of the
Central Bank, maintaining that the term "stabilizer and flavors"
mentioned in section 2 of the Exchange Tax Law refers only to
those used in the preparation or manufacture of food or food
products
Issue
W/N the foreign exchange used by petitioner for the
importation of dental cream stabilizers and flavors is exempt
from the 17% special excise tax imposed by the Exchange Tax
Law, (Republic Act No. 601) so as to entitle it to refund.
Ruling
Yes, importation of dental cream stabilizers and flavor is except
from the 17% special excise tax by the above mentioned
section.

This view is supported by the principle "Ubi lex non distinguish

nec nos distinguire debemos", or "where the law does not
distinguish, neither do we distinguish". Since the law does not
distinguish between "stabilizer and flavors" used in the
preparation of food and those used in the manufacture of
toothpaste or dental cream, we are not authorized to make any
distinction and must construe the words in their general sense.
The rule of construction that general and unlimited terms are
restrained and limited by particular recitals when used in
connection with them, does not require the rejection of general
terms entirely. It is intended merely as an aid in ascertaining
the intention of the legislature and is to be taken in connection
with other rules of construction.

G.R. No. L-15045

January 20, 1961
IN RE: PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FROM COVERAGE BY
THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM. ROMAN CATHOLIC
ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, respondent-appellee.
GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:
FACTS
Herein respondent requests: Catholic Charities and all
religions/charitable institutions/organizations which are
directly or indirectly, wholly or partially, operated by the
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, be exempted from
compulsory coverage of RA 1161 or the Social Security Law
of 1954. Furthermore, it claimed that said Act is a labor law
and does not cover RCAM, but is limited to business and
activities for profit; it even cited senates discussion and
raised constitutional objections.

employment of all kinds, EXCEPT those expressly

excluded.
ISSUE:
WHETHER or NOT the rule of ejusdem
generis is a valid legal ground for RCAM
HELD :
No, for the rule of ejusdem generis applies
only when there is uncertainty. The definition for
employer is sufficiently comprehensive to include
religious and charitable institutions or entities not
organized for the purposes of profit and gain; it
contained exceptions which said institutions and
entities are not included.

The respondent commission issued Resolutions No. 572 and

No. 767, both of which denied the request.
Thus, the herein petition of the respondent, invoking the rule of
ejusdem generis1
The Social Security Law provides for the following provisions:
"in the System shall be compulsory upon all members
between the age of sixteen and sixty rears inclusive,
if they have been for at least six months a the service
of an employer who is a member of the System
EMPLOYER refers to any person, natural or juridical,
domestic or foreign, who carried in the Philippines
any trade, business, industry. and uses the
services of another person, who under his orders as
regard the employment, except the Government, and
any of its political subdivisions branches or
instrumentalities and GOCCs.

Corollary thereto, it is apparent that the coverage of

the Social Security Law is predicated on the existence
of employer-employee relationship extends to

http://aginglawyer.blogspot.com/2012/10/statutoryconstruction-made-easy-by.htmlProvides
for
ejusdem
generis as . THE SAME KIND OR SPECIE. This is to give
effect to both the particular and general words, by treating
the particular words as indicating the class and the general
words as indicating all that is embraced in said class, although
not specifically named by the particular words.
The rule of ejusdem generis is not of universal
application; it should be used to carry out, not to defeat the
intent or purpose of the law; the rule must give way in favor
of the legislative intent;
Limitations of ejusdem generis
requisites:
1. Statue contains an enumeration of
particular and specific words, followed by a general
word or phrase;
2. The particular and specific words
constitute a class or are of the same kind;
3. The enumeration of the particular and
specific words is not exhaustive or is not merely by
examples;
4. There is no indication of legislative intent
to give general words or phrases a broader meaning.

Prepared by Jomar B. Abellana