Aisporna Vs.

Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines

G.R. NO. L-39419
April 12, 1982

Topic: Statutory Construction, Doctrine of Associated Words (Noscitur a Sociis)

Facts:

Petitioner Aisporna was charged for violation of Section 189 of the Insurance Act.
Petitioner’s husband, Rodolfo S. Aisporna (Rodolfo) was duly licensed by the Insurance
Commission as agent to Perla Copania de Seguros. Thru Rodolfo, a 12-month Personal Accident
Policy was issued by Perla with beneficiary to Ana M. Isidro for P5,000. The insured died by
violence during lifetime of policy.

Subsequently, petitioner was charged because the aforementioned policy was issued with
her active participation, which is not allowed because she did not possess a certificate of
authority to act as agent from the office of the Insurance Commission.

Petitioner contended that being the wife of Rodolfo, she naturally helped him in his work,
and that the policy was merely a renewal and was issued because her husband was not around
when Isidro called by telephone. Instead, appellant left a note on top of her husband’s desk.

The trial court found petitioner guilty as charged. On appeal, the trial court’s decision
was affirmed by respondent appellate court, finding petitioner guilty of a violation of the first
paragraph of Section 189 of the Insurance act.

Issue:

Whether or not a person can be convicted of having violated the first paragraph of
Section 189 of the Insurance Act without reference to the second paragraph of the same section.

Ruling:

The petition is meritorious. Petition appealed from is reversed, and accused is acquitted
of the crime charged.

A perusal of the provision in question shows that the first paragraph thereof prohibits a
person from acting as agent, sub-agent or broker in the solicitation or procurement of
applications for insurance without first procuring a certificate of authority so to act from the
Insurance Commissioner, while its second paragraph defined who an insurance agent is within
the intent of this section and, finally, the third paragraph thereof prescribes the penalty to be
imposed for its violation.

The definition of an insurance agent as found in the second paragraph of Section 189 is
intended to define the word “agent” mentioned in the first and second paragraphs of the aforesaid
section. More significantly, in its second paragraph, it is explicitly provided that the definition of
an insurance agent is within the intent of Section 189.

Applying the definition of an insurance agent in the second paragraph to the agent
mentioned in the first and second paragraphs would give harmony to the aforesaid three
paragraphs of Section 189. Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the
stature as a whole. The particular words, clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached
and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing
the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce harmonious whole. A statute must be so
construed as to harmonize and give effect to all its provisions whenever possible. More
importantly the Doctrine of associated words (Noscitur a Sociis) provides that where a
particular word or phrase in a statement is ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various
meanings, its true meaning may be made clear and specific by considering the company in which
it is found or with which it is associated.

Considering that the definition of an insurance agent as found in the second paragraph is
also applicable to the agent mentioned in the first paragraph, to receive compensation by the
agent is an essential element for a violation of the first paragraph of the aforesaid section.

In the case at bar, the information does not allege that the negotiation of an insurance
contracts by the accused with Eugenio Isidro was one for compensation. This allegation is
essential, and having been omitted, a conviction of the accused could not be sustained. It is well-
settled in our jurisprudence that to warrant conviction, every element of the crime must be
alleged and proved.

The accused did not violate Section 189 of the Insurance Act.