Statutory Construction (Chill Nation Notes


- Statutes are in pari materia when they
relate to the same person or thing, or
have the same purpose or object, or cover
the same specific or particular subject
matter. It is sufficient that the 2 or more
statutes relates to the same specific
subject matter. Statutes in pari materia
should be construed together to attain the
purpose of an express national policy.
- Exception: If 2 or more statutes on the
same subject were enacted at different
times and under different conditions and
circumstances, their interpretation should
be in accordance with the circumstances
or conditions peculiar to each. A statute
will not be construed as repealing prior
acts or acts on the same subject matter.
ix. Reenacted statutes
- in relation to domestic statutes/laws
Montelibano v Ferrer
97 Phil 228
Facts: In 1940, the Subdivision Inc, of
which Montelibano is the president and
general manager, leased a lot to Benares
for five years, with an option in favor of
Benares of another five crop years. On
1951, the Subdivision instituted against
Benares an unlawful detainer case which
rendered a decision ordering him to eject
from the said lot. However, Benares
continued planting on the said lot, instead
of delivering it to Subdivision. Acting upon
Montelibano, his co-petitioners cleared the
land of sugarcane planted by Benares.
Hence, a criminal case was filed by
Benares against petitiioners. A warrant of
arrest was then filed to the petitioners.
Monteibano and his companions filed a
motion to quash the complaint and
warrant of arrest A civil case against
Municipal Judge and Benares was filed
alleging that the said judge had o
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
criminal case.
Issue: Whether or not the municipal court
may entertain the criminal case relying
upon CA 326, section 22 (Charter of the
City of Bacolod) which provides that the
City Attorney shall charge of the
prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors,
and violations of city ordinances, in the
Court of First Instance and the Municipal
Court of Bacolod.

Held: No, the Judge of Municipal Court has
no jurisdiction over the case.
In the interpretation of reenacted statutes
the court will follow the construction which
they received when previously in force.
The legislature will be presumed to know
the effect which such status originally had,
and by reenactment to intend that they
should again have the same effect.
Two statutes with a parallel scope,
purpose and terminology should, each in
its own field, have a like interpretation,
unless in particular instances there is
something peculiar in the question under
consideration, or dissimilar in the terms of
the act relating thereto, requiring a
different conclusion.
In the case at bar, the same provisions
were contested in Sayo v. Chief of Police
wherein it was held that in the City of
Manila, criminal complaints may be filed
only with the City Fiscal who is given the
exclusive authority to institute criminal
cases in the different courts of said city,
under the provisions of its Charter found in
Sec 39 of Act # 183. The provisions of the
Charter of City of Bacolod which are
substantially identical to that of Manila
should then be interpreted the same.
Therefore, the decision appealed
is reversed and the warrant of arrest
issued by the judge shall be annulled.
x. Adopted Statutes
- Where local statutes are patterned after
or copied from those of another country,
the decisions of courts in such country
construing those laws are entitled to great
weight in the interpretation of such local
xi. Common Law Principle v Statutory
- between the two, the latter should
- the former will only apply if there is no
other law applicable
Alvendia v Intermediate Court
G.R. No. 72138 (January 22, 1990)
Bonamy v Justice Paras
G.R. No. 72373 (January 22, 1990)
FACTS: The case traces to a simple
collection suit, (Civil Case No. 5182-M)
filed on September 12, 1977, by Bonifacio
Bonamy against the spouses Jesus F.
Alvendia and Felicidad M. Alvendia before

in the amount of P107.00 in cash from the Alvendias sometime in January 1980 and an additional amount of P4.000. Among its foreign buyers was Facts of the United States. 1980. In a nutshell. undeniably showing a lack of intention or capability to pay the same. . There is no question therefore. 1978. 1984. On the same date.R. The rule is "equity follows the law" but where a particular remedy is given by the law and that remedy is bounded and circumscribed by particular rules. [4] the fishpond.00 by way of proceeds of the sale of the Alvendias' vehicle. Pursuant to the alias writ issued by the Court on May 2. Doña Felisa Village and Housing Corporation. using the business name “Irene’s Wearing Apparel” was engaged in the manufacture of ladies garments. 1980. owned by the government though leased to the Alvendias. 1975 and hereby bind themselves to pay said obligation out of the first release of funds from the GSIS for housing units and lots sold by the said corporation to members of the GSIS. Andres v Manufacturers Hanover & Trust Corp.481. the Bulacan provincial sheriff levied on the Alvendias "leasehold rights" over a fishpond and a certificate of sale over said leasehold right was executed in favor of Bonamy on Sept. thereby preventing the full realization of the aforesaid decision. the trial court approved and adopted the same as the decision of the case. Bonamy sought the issuance of an alias writ of execution. In a motion dated April 23. which is applied only in the absence of and never against statutory law or as in this case. 1989) FACTS: Andres. namely. Subsequently.50. judicial rules of procedure. [2] the writs made only the Alvendias liable. HELD: In any event. it would be very improper. ISSUE: WON the judgment debtors may successfully ask that they be allowed to pay the judgment debt in cash long after they have failed to pay or redeem their properties which have been sold in execution. among other things: "(1) That defendants do hereby acknowledge the indebtedness of their family corporation. representing the cost of construction materials bought on credit from plaintiff from June 20 . men’s apparel and linens for local and foreign buyers.481. On February 2. G. alleging that the Alvendias "have not submitted any finished project with the GSIS.Statutory Construction (Chill Nation Notes) 2 the then Court of First Instance (CFI Bulacan) for the sum of P107. for the court to take it up where the law leaves it and to extend it further than the law allows. it is axiomatic that there is no justification in law and in fact for the reopening of a case which has long become final and which has in fact been executed. and "(3) That for and in consideration of this agreement the plaintiff and defendants hereby waive any and all further claims monetary or otherwise against each other regarding the subject matter of this case. "(2) That the plaintiff and defendants shall thereby join hands in asking the GSIS to expedite the releases of the funds due to said corporation. levy and sale – such motion was denied and the trial court. 1982. and [5] the leasehold rights possessed by the Alvendias had already expired before the issuance of the order. On January 6.000. 1983. the release of a loan from the GSIS. long past the aforesaid period. The doctrine of finality of judgments is grounded on fundamental consideration of public policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional error the judgments of courts must become final at some definite date fixed by law.August 12. when under the "agreement" their family corporation was also supposed to be liable. 82670 (September 15.50 representing construction materials which the Alvendias had purchased on credit from Bonamy. the first writ having been returned unsatisfied. both parties submitted to the trial court a "Compromise Agreement" providing. Bonamy moved for execution of judgment. 10. [3] the writ was premature because the Compromise Agreement contained a condition which had not yet been fulfilled. children’s wear. the spouses moved for the quashal and annulment of the writ of execution. They also failed to redeem the property within the required period despite the fact that the Final Deed of Sale was issued only on January 25. cannot be a proper subject of a levy on execution. No. that the Alvendias failed to pay on time the judgment of which the execution sale was a necessary consequence. the spouses argued as follows: [1] that the writ and the alias writ of execution levied upon properties not referred to in the judgment by compromise. He admitted though in the same motion that he received P20. Statutory Principle: Equity has been aptly described as "a justice outside legality".

Manila branch. Facets informed FNSB about the situation. informed private respondent and amended its instruction y asking it to effect the payment to Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB) instead of PNB. Hence. instructed PCIB to pay $10. in eo quod plus sit. petitioner received the remittance of $10. There is always an omission that may not meet a particular situation. It is one which.No statute can be enacted that can provide all the details involved in its application.000. not negligence. The greater includes the lesser. Art 2154 of the New Civil Code is applicable. The Early Retirement Law would violate the equal protection clause of the constitution if the SC were to sustain respondent's submission that the benefits of said law are to be denied a class of government employees who are similarly situated as those covered by the said law. believing that she is qualified to avail of the benefits of the program filed and application with the respondent NIA which was denied due to the fact that she is a co-terminus employee. simper inest et minus.000 to Irene’s Wearing Apparel via Philippine National Bank (PNB) Sta. There is no substantial difference between a co-terminus employee and a contractual.000 remittance it had delivered to petitioner HELD: Yes. . petitioner received another $10.324.” Private respondent sent PNB another telex stating that the payment was to be made to “Irene’s Wearing Apparel. Facts: RA 6683 provided benefits for early retirement and voluntary separation as well as for involuntary separation due to reorganization. There was a mistake.R. ISSUE: Whether or not the private respondent has the right to recover the second $10. temporary. the following requisites must concur: 1) that he who paid was not under obligation to do so. It was evident by the fact that both remittances have the same reference invoice number. and 2) that payment was made by reason of an essential mistake of fact. xii." Petitioner Lydia Chua. For this article to apply. is compelled by a reasonable view of the statute. Facts instructed the First National State Bank (FNSB) of New Jersey to transfer $10.000 which was charged again to the account of Facets with FNSB. No. After learning about the delay.000 to petitioner. non-career and temporary. Doctrine of Necessary Implications . The doctrine states that what is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is expressed. Sec. 88979 (February 7. Issue: W/N petitioner's status as a coterminus employee is excluded from the benefits of Ra 6683 (Early Retirement Law) Held: No. expressed in the maxim. also unaware that petitioner had already received the remittance. The principle is expressed in the maxim. Facts. the payment was not effected immediately because the payee designated in the telex was only “Wearing Apparel. FNSB instructed Manufacturers Hanover and Trust Corporation (Mantrust) to effect the transfer by charging the amount to the account of FNSB with private respondent.Statutory Construction (Chill Nation Notes) 3 Sometime in August 1980. After Mantrust effected the transfer.000 but the latter refused to do so contending that the doctrine of solution indebiti does not apply because there was negligence on the part of the respondents and that they were not unjustly enriched since Facets still has a balance of $49. 2 provides for who are qualified to avail of the benefits of RA 6683 which includes. 1980.The term “necessary implication” is one that is so strong in its probability that the contrary thereof cannot reasonably be supposed. casual or emergency employee for all are tenurial employees with no fixed term. 1992) Statutory rule: Doctrine of necessary implications.” On August 28. unaware that petitioner had already received the remittance. What is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is expressed. in the second remittance. . and the contrary of which would be improbable and absurd Chua v Civil Service Commission G. under the circumstances. casual and emergency employees. The doctrine of necessary implications should be applied in this case. Her appeal with respondent Commission was likewise denied. FNSB discovered that private respondent had made a duplication of remittance. Private respondent asked petitioner to return the second remittance of $10. Ex necessitate legis or from the necessity of law. Cruz. "all regular. Private respondent.

and is such a case what is omitted in the enumeration may not. xiv. J. may impose a realty tax of “not less than one-half perfect but not more than two percent of the assessed value of real property.The legal maxim which requires the past decisions of the court be followed in the adjudication of cases is known as stare decisis et non quieta movere. by construction. Facts: Defendant Guillermo Manantan was charged with a violation of the Section 54 of the Revised Election Code which provides that “No justice. L-14129 (July 31. Held: Yes. Inc.Statutory Construction (Chill Nation Notes) 4 City of Manila v Gomez No. judge. making it broader and more generic to comprehend all kinds of judges. the doctrine of implications sustains the contention of the City of Manila that the additional one-half percent is sanctioned by the Special Education Fund Law when the same states that “the total real property tax shall not exceed a maximum of three per centum.” The additional one-half percent then is legal. The rule rests on the desirability of having stability in the law.This rule states that a person. Mariano G. STARE DECISIS . except to vote. Tuason and Co. L-37251 (August 31.5% as per charter of Manila.5%. object or thing has been omitted from a legislative enumeration. People of the Philippines v Guillermo Manatan G. object or thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to have been omitted from an enumeration must be held to have been omitted intentionally. by ordinance. the lower court dismissed the case against him.” The doctrine of necessary implications means that “that which is plainly implied in the language of a statute is as much a part of it as that which is expressed. he is excluded from this prohibition. 1962) Statutory rule: The rule of “casus omissus pro omisso habendus est” can operate and apply only if and when the omission has been clearly established. Follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been settled. 1% as per Special Education Fund law and . On the other hand. shall aid any candidate in any manner in any election. et al. The rule of casus omissus has no applicability to the case at bar for the maxim only applies and operate if and when the omission has been clearly established. CASUS OMISSUS . Because of this. It means one should follow past precedents and should not disturb what has been settled. the maxim operates and applies only if and when the omission has been clearly established. Courts of Industrial Relations and justices of the peace.5% as per order of the municipal board. Held: Yes.M.R.” Defendant contends that this provision excludes justice of the peace and as such.. Issue: W/N a justice of the peace is included in the prohibition of Section 54 of the Revised Election Code. Facts: The Revised Charter of Manila fixes the annual realty tax at 1. The Solicitor General appealed. Private respondent Esso Philippines paid the additional one-half percent realty tax under protest and later filed a complaint for recovery of the said amount. v Hon. Courts of Agrarian Relations. 1978) Statutory rule: Stare Decisis. be included therein. Matters already decided on . Although petitioner argues that when Section 54 of the Revised Election Code omitted the words “justice of peace” from the Revised Administrative Code provision from which it was taken and thus making the intention of the legislature clear in the omission. L-33140 (October 23. What is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is expressed. like judges of the Courts of First Instance. the word judge in the former provision was qualified or modified by the phrase “of first instance. The Real Property Tax Law imposes that a city council. 1981) Statutory rule: Doctrine of necessary implications. Furthermore. No.R.In other words. the municipal board of Manila imposed an additional .” The term “judge” in Section 54 is not modified or qualified. No. Issue: W/N the additional one-half percent imposed by the City of Manila is valid or legal. The principle proceeds from a reasonable certainty that a particular person. It contended that the additional one-half percent is void because it is not authorized by the city charter or any law.5% to fix the total imposable tax on real property at 3% which is divided into the following: 1.” xiii. . the Special Education Fund Law imposed an “annual additional tax of 1% on the assessed value of real property in addition to the real property tax regularly levied thereon” but “the total real property tax shall not exceed 3%” Since the maximum limit imposed is 3%. fiscal….

founded on logic. 1914 in Case No. 7681 of the Court of Land Registration. 735 and the titles derived therefrom be declared void due to certain irregularities in the land registration proceeding. he withdrew his certificate of candidacy. When the law does not distinguish. courts should not distinguish. CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF WORDS AND PHRASES i. Inc. 5. During the pendency.000. The validity of OCT No. is a corollary of the principle that general words and phrases in a statute should ordinarily be accorded their natural and general significance. there should be no distinction in the application of a statute where none is indicated. 735 is valid and no longer open to attack. Facts: Private respondent Sycwin Coating & Wires Inc. when it speaks of "any judgment" which may be charged against a counter bond. private respondent attached some of the properties of Varian Industrial corporation upon the posting of a supersedes bond. As a result. Rules a. Facts: On March 22. The latter in turn posted a counter bond through Petitioner Philippine British Assurance so the attached properties were released. They alleged that it had been fraudulently or erroneously included in OCT No. V. 115245 (July 11. Facts: Respondents Aquial claimed ownership of a parcel of land located in Quezon City having an area of 383 hectares. In other words. 735 was already decided upon by the Supreme Court in the cases of Benin vs Tuason. Three days later. courts should not distinguish. Issue: W/N the counter bond issued through Petitioner Corporation covers execution of a judgment pending appeal. Held: OCT No. The same was however returned unsatisfied as varian failed to deliver the attached personal properties upon demand.00 for failure to file his statement of contributions and expenditures. Sycwin thus prayed that petitioner corporation be ordered to pay the value of its bond which was granted. 1992. The rule. Considerng the governing principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere (follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been settled). 735. Juanito Pilar v COMELEC G. respondent Commission imposed a fine of P10..R. Since the law did not make any distinction nor intended any exception. Philippine British Assurance Co. The ruling in these cases was also applied in other cases involving the validity of OCT No.Statutory Construction (Chill Nation Notes) 5 the merits cannot be relitigated again and again. founded on logic. filed a complaint for a collection of money against Varian Industrial Corporation. the court ruled that respondents cannot maintain their action without eroding the long settled holding of the courts that OCT No. 735 is valid.R. It applies to the payment of any judgment that may be recovered by plaintiff.Ubi lex non distinguit. petitioner filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Isabela. courts should not distinguish. No. The trial court then rendered a decision favorable to the private respondent and Writ of execution was issued in favor of private respondent. Alcantara vs Tuason and Pili vs Tuason. Issue: W/N OCT No. it should be interpreted to refer not only to a final and executory judgment but also a judgment pending appeal. It is a recognized rule that where the law does not distinguish. courts should not distinguish . 1987) Statutory rule: When the law does not distinguish. Petitioner contends that it is clear from the law that the candidate must have entered . The rule. Plaintiffs Aquial prayed that OCT No. v IAC G. No. Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. Neither the rules nor provisions of the counter bond limited its application to a final and executory judgment. 735 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal and that it was registered in the names of Petitioners Tuason pursuant to a decree issued on July 6. Held: The counter bond was issued in accordance with Sec. The rule requires that a general term or phrase should not be reduced into parts and one part distinguished from the other so as to justify its exclusion from the operation of the law. L-72005 (May 29. 735 is valid. is corollary of the principle that general words and phrases of a statute should ordinarily be accorded their natural and general significance. 1995) Statutory rule: The rule is well recognized that where the law does not distinguish. nec nos distinguere debemus.

Statutory Construction (Chill Nation Notes) 6 the political contest. . private respondent was clearly precluded from the benefits of probation. Petitioner contends that the check in question was drawn against his dollar account with a foreign bank and as such. Exceptions in the Statute . People of the Philippines v Evangelista G. the Bouncing Checks Law. Statutory rule: If the law makes no distinction. The RTC set aside the Probation Officer's recommendation and granted private respondent's application on April 23. Held: Yes. Private respondent filed his application for probation on December 28. the term "every candidate" must be deemed to refer not only to a candidate who pursued his campaign.R. having withdrawn his certificate of candidacy three days after its filing." having appealed from the judgment of the trial court and applied for probation after the Court of Appeals had affirmed his conviction.General terms in a statute are to receive a general construction. . However. Cecilio de Villa v CA G. the rule is that where the law does not make any exception. Parenthetically. neither should the court. Words having a technical meaning . Held: Yes. Inc. 1996) Issue: W/N a foreign check drawn against a foreign account is covered by BP 22. . General and Special Terms 1. Facts: Petitioner Cecilio De Villa was charged before the RTC of Makati for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. 110898 (February 20. 14 of Ra 7166 states that "every candidate" has the obligation to file his statement of contributions and expenditures. unless retrained by the context or by plain inferences from the scope and purpose of the act. 1992.R. courts should not distinguish. Pedro M.” It is a cardinal rule that where the law does not distinguish. 13 of Resolution No. Words having a general meaning . 2348 categorically refers to "all candidates who filed their certificate of candidacy".Where the law does not make any exception. the law makes no distinction between meritorious and unmeritorious appeals so neither should the court. though payable outside thereof are within the coverage of the law. 2. it is not covered by the Bouncing Checks Law. Furthermore. he had already waived his right to make his application for probation. 1991) Statutory rule: When the law does not make any exception. Facts: Private respondent Guildo Tugonon was charged and convicted of frustrated homicide. Jimenez G.General terms or provisions in a statute may be restrained and limited by specific terms or provisions with which they are associated. He filed a petition for probation. b. the Chief Probation and Parole Officer recommended denial of private respondent's application for probation on the ground that by appealing the sentence of the trial. courts may not except something unless compelling reasons exist to justify it. v Hon. courts may not except unless compelling reasons exist to justify it.Special terms in a statute may sometimes be expanded to a general signification by the consideration that the reason of the law is general. Held: Yes. after PD 1990 had taken effect. As the law makes no distinction or qualification as to whether the candidate pursued his candidacy or withdrew the same. It is thus covered by the prohibition that "no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfect the appeal from the judgment of conviction" and that "the filing of the application shall deemed a waiver of the right to appeal. 1993. c.General terms should not be given a restricted meaning. and should have either won or lost. but also to who who withdrew his candidacy. L-14787 (January 28. No. Issue: W/N respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion by granting private respondent's application for probation despite the appeal filed by the private respondent. Sec. 87416 (April 8. Sec. No. courts may not except something unless compelling reasons exist to justify it. 1961) . Colgate-Palmolive Philippines. No. The law does not distinguish the currency involved in the case since what the law only specifies is that “checks drawn and issued in the Philippines. Issue: W/N petitioner can be held liable for failure to file a statement of contributions and expenditures since he was a "non-candidate"..R.Special terms refer exclusively to a specific or particular class.

the PCGG has no jurisdiction to investigate him. However the same law also provides that “foreign exchanged used for xxx importation to the Philippines of xxx stabilizers and flavors xxx shall be refunded to any importer making application therefore. resembling.343. They import materials including “stabilizers and flavors” is among those petitioner imports. Col. Respondent contends that since petitioners use these as toothpaste. Facts: Petitioner corporation engages in manufacturing toilet preparations and household remedies. that is where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things. d. the general word of phrase is to be construed to include. industrial starch and more. the term "subordinate" as used in EO 1 and 2 would refer to one who enjoys close association or relation with former President Marcos and/or his wife. together with supporting evidence thereto.” Petitioner now seeks a refund of the 17% special excise tax they paid in the total sum of P113. Tecson to submit his explanation or comment. all the items in an enumeration belong to or fall under one specific class. petitioner pays 17% special excise tax on the foreign exchange used for the payment of the cost. such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent. Hence. persons. both retired and in active service. Issue: W/N the foreign exchange used by petitioner in the importation of dental cream stabilizers and flavors is exempt from the 17% special excise tax imposed by the Exchange Tax Law so as to entitle it to a refund. Eutorpio Migrinio and Troadio Tecson G. Held: No. with the result that the general language will be limited by specific language which indicates the statute’s object and purpose. transportation and other charges pursuant to RA 601. The rule is applicable only to cases wherein." Private respondent mainly argues that he is not one of the subordinates contemplated in Executive Orders No. the law must be seen in its entirety. the Philippine Anti-Graft Board required private respondent Lt. poultry feed. the Exchange Tax Law. Issue: W/N private respondent may be investigated and prosecuted by the Board.The purpose of the rule ejusdem generis is to give effect to both the particular and general words. Republic of the Philippines v Hom. book supplies/materials and medical supplies and that for petitioners to be exempt. for violation of RA 3019 and 1379. things or cases akin to. business associate or subordinate. although not specifically named by the particular words. Ejusdem Generis . 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. Held: Yes.Statutory Construction (Chill Nation Notes) 7 Statutory rule: General terms may be restricted by specific word. . or to be restricted to. the following which were also included are hardly such: fertilizer. 1.99. Facts: Acting on information received which indicated the acquisition of wealth beyond his lawful income. The anti-graft Board was created by the PCGG to "investigate the unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of AFP personnel. Court ruled that although “stabilizers and flavors” are preceded by items that might fall under food products. 2. 1990) Statutory rule: Applying the rule in statutory construction known as ejusdem generis. namely: food products. Applying the rule in statutory construction. the same is not a food product. an agency of the PCGG. For every importation. No. but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those especially mentioned. by treating the particular words as indicating the class and the general words as indicating all that is embraced in said class. This canon of statutory construction is known as ejusdem generis (or the same kind or specie). Therefore. The rule of construction that general and unlimited terms are restrained and limited by a particular recital does not require the rejection of general terms entirely. except for one general term. The refusal to deny refund was based on the argument that all the items enumerated for the tax exemption fall under one specific class. . Private respondent was unable to provide supporting evidence because they were allegedly in the custody of his bookkeeper who ha gone abroad. similar to the immediate family member. 89483 (August 30. the “stabilizers and flavors” they use must fall under the category of food products. 14 and 14-A are acts of his alone and not connected with being a crony.The general rule is that where a general word or phrase follows an enumeration of particular and specific words of the same class or where the latter follows the former.R. or of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned.

it referred to "suspension" as a punitive measure. Associated Words (Noscitur a sociis) . Dra. 1993) FACTS: Petitioner contends that the importation of the foodstuffs in question is prohibited and the articles thus imported may be subject to forfeiture under Sec. Prohibited Importations. — The importation into the Philippines of the following articles is prohibited: (k) All other articles the importation of which is prohibited by law. and are not as stated by Respondent Court.R. Under the rule of Noscitur a sociis. Held: Yes. HELD: Yes. e. or consequence implies the exclusion of all others. The foodstuffs in question being articles of prohibited importation cannot be released under bond. — Any vessel or aircraft. All the words associated with the word "suspension" in said provision referred to penalties in administrative cases. ISSUE: W/N the imported foodstuffs in question are not contraband. The imported foodstuffs are considered prohibited importation under Sec. the importation or exportation of which is effected or attempted contrary to law. 102 (k) of the Tariff and Customs Code NOTE: Sec. Property Subject to Forfeiture Under Tariff and Customs Laws. Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius . Issue: W/N the Ombudsman has the power to preventively suspend government officials working in other offices other than that of the Ombudsman pending the investigation of administrative complaints. But this maxim is not applicable where words are used by example only. v Secretary Juan Flavier. restricting common rights. who were employees of the national center for mental health. articles and other objects shall. 102 of the Tariff and Customs Code therefore these foodstuffs may be released under bond as provided in Sec.R. business associate.This maxim states that where a particular word or phrase is ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various meanings. G. thing. Facts: The private respondents filed an administrative complaint with the Ombudsman against the petitioners for violation of the Antigraft and Corrupt Practices Act. are or were intended to be used as instrument in the importation or exportation of the former. Where a particular word is equally susceptible of various meanings. . 1993) Statutory Rule: Noscitur a socciis. Commissioner of Customs v Court of Tax Appeals G. Brigida Buenaseda et al. Where a particular word is equally susceptible of various meanings. its correct construction may be made specific by considering the company of terms in which it is found or with which it is associated. in the opinion of the Collector. When the Constitution vested on the Ombudsman the power to "recommend the suspension" of a public official or employees. f. under the following conditions. its correct construction may be made clear and specific by considering the company of words in which it is found or with which it is associated. Sec. and imposing penalties and forfeitures. dummy. 2530 (f) and 102 (k) of the Tariff and Customs Code. be subject to forfeiture: (f. Nos. while petitioner contends that the Ombudsman can only recommend to the Heads of Departments and other agencies the preventive suspension of officials and employees facing administrative investigation conducted by his office. cargo. The respondents argue that the preventive suspension laid by the Ombudsman under Sec.The express mention of one person. creating rights and remedies. 2301 of the same code. removal. its correct construction may be made specific by considering the company of terms in which it is found or with which it is associated.) Any article of prohibited importation or exportation. agent or nominee in EO 2. et al. 13(8) of Art. The Ombudsman has the power to suspend the employees of the said institution may it be in punitive or preventive suspension.Statutory Construction (Chill Nation Notes) 8 relative and close associate in E) 1 and the close relative. No. In response. the word "suspension" should be given the same sense as the other words with which it is associated. 106719 (September 21. among the prohibited importations enumerated in Sec. 9 of the 1987 Constitution. -This maxim and its corollary canons are generally used in the construction of statutes granting powers. censure. demotion. 48886-88 (July 21. as well as those statutes which are strictly construed. and all other articles which. 2530.g. have been used. 24 of RA 6770 is contemplated in by Sec. fine. e. the Ombudsman filed an order directing the preventive suspension of the petitioner. 102.