GO KA TOC SONS AND CO v.
RICE AND CORN BOARD (LEAH) subsequently filed action in the Court of First Instance to declare the said
23 May 1967 | GR Nr. 23607 | BENGZON, J.P., J |
Adherence to or departure from, language of statute, literal interpretation
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: GO KA TOC SONS & CO., ETC
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: RICE AND CORN BOARD
SUMMARY:
DOCTRINE:
RESORT TO STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION NOT PROPER WHEN
THE LAW IS CLEAR. —Republic Act No. 3018 is clear in enunciating the
policy that only Filipinos and associations, partnerships or corporations 100%
Filipino can engage even in the trade and acquisition of the by-products of rice
and/or corn. Hence there was no need for the court below to resort to statutory
construction, its only duty being to apply the law as it was. (People vs. Garcia,
85 Phil., 651 [Resolution on Motion to Reconsider]; Tecson vs. C.J.S., L-15798,
December 29, 1961).
PURPOSE OF A STATUTE AS EXPRESSED IN EXPLANATORY
NOTE OF THE BILL MAY ONLY CONTROL IN CASE OF AMBIGUITY.
— The purpose of a statute, as expressed in the introductory note of the bill, can
control the language of the law only in case of ambiguity, (82 CJ.S. 621; 50
Am. Jur. 291, 296.)
FACTS:
1. Go Ka Toe Sons & Co is a duly registered partnership that is not wholly
Filipino-owned since 1958 in the manufacturing, processing, and marketing
of vegetable oil that is extracted from corn, rice, copra, soybean, peanuts,
fish and other vegetable products.
2. 02 August 1960 – approval of RA 3018 prohibiting partnerships whose
capital was not wholly Filipino-owned, from engaging directly or indirectly,
in the rice and/or corn industry.
3. 01 January 1961 – when RA 3018 takes effect, however, Sec 3(a) allowed
such partnerships, upon registration with the municipal treasurer to continue
business until 2 years of from and after 01 January 1961.
4. 21 November 1960 – newly created Rice and Corn Board issued Resolution
Nr. 10 pursuant to Section 6 of the law, defining the term “by-product” used
in the law.
5. 10 July 1961 – Rice and Corn Board issued General Circular Nr. 1 as
amended, that defined the term “capital investment” used in Section 3 of
RA 3018 limiting the maximum amount of capital investments of alien
persons and entities engaged in the rice and/or corn industry to the amount
stated in their statement made pursuant to Section 2 of the law.
6. Go Ka Toc & Sons were required by the agents of the Board to register in
accordance with Section 2 of the law and the latter’s resolution,
law and Board Resolution Nr. 10 dated 21 November 1960 and General
Circular Nr. 1 dated 10 July 1961 as it is inapplicable.
7. Parties entered into a stipulation of facts. Thereupon the lower court
rendered the judgement:
a. Declaring RA 23018 inapplicable to the business of the plaintiff;
b. Declaring null and void of the Board Resolution Nr. 10 dated 21
November 1960 and General Circular Nr. 1 as amended, dated 10
July 1961 in so far as they were and are being made applicable to
the business of the plaintiff
c. Making and declaring permanent and perpetual the preliminary
writ, injunction issued in the case.
8. Go Ka Toc & Sons Co stopped from engaging in the purchase and sale of
rice and/or corn since the lapse of the 2-year period form the effectivity of
the law.
9. It has limited its activities to trading, processing, and manufacturing of corn
and rice oil from the raw materials consisting of corn germ proper or
embryo and as well as form rice husk which it secures from others who mill
rice and corn.
10. In the processing and manufacturing of corn oil, the company also produces
a residue also known as corn meal or corn meal germ which can be sold and
be traded.
ISSUE:
WoN the activities done are adherent to RA 3018
RULING:
Judgment appealed from is reversed and the writ of injunction issued therein is
annulled and set aside.
RATIO:
Since plaintiff-appellee is covered by the statute, there is no necessity for an
extensive discussion regarding the validity of Resolution No. 10 of November 21,
1960. The power and authority of appellant RICOB to issue such rules and
regulations implementing the law, proceeds from the law itself. 7 Said resolution, by
enumerating some specific examples of by-products of rice and/or corn, merely
carried out the provisions of law. And the sole reason why the lower court
invalidated it, was its mistaken stand that the term "by-product" ought not to have
been made a part of the statute.