Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ejusdem Generis
Ejusdem Generis
Ejusdem or Eiusdem Generis: Of the same kind or released under bond pursuant to the last paragraph of Section
2301 of the Tariff and Customs Code.
nature. A rule of interpretation that where a class of
things is followed by general wording that is not itself The respondent Court, in its resolution of February 3, 1971, granted
expansive, the general wording is usually restricted the motion to release the goods subject to the condition that a cash
things of the same type as the listed items. bond in the sum of P43,854.59 be filed by private respondent with
the Bureau of Customs. The bond having been filed, respondent
Court issued an order, dated February 9, 1971, directing petitioner
to release the shipment. Petitioner filed on March 2, 1971a motion
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v CA G.R. No. 33471 January for reconsideration upon the ground that the importation in
31, 1972 question, classified as non-essential consumer goods, is banned by
Central Bank Circulars No. 289, dated February 21, 1970, No. 294 of
A shipment of 438 packages of foodstuffs, declared in the name of March 10, 1970, and No. 295 of March 20, 1970, and "acquired the
private respondent Eusebio Dichoco under Entry No. 109924 (70) status of prohibited importation or importation contrary to law" and
arrived on December 16, 1970 at the Port of Manila. The shipment cannot be released under bond. Private respondent filed his
was covered by a "Customs No-Dollar Declaration", dated opposition dated March 4, 1971. Respondent court in its resolution
December 15, 1970. On December 28, 1970, the Collector of dated March 8, 1971, granted the motion for reconsideration,
Customs of Manila issued a warrant of seizure and detention (S.I. declaring that "Section 2301 of the Tariff and Customs Code
Case No. 12055) for violation of Section 2530 (f) of the Tariff and provides that articles the importation of which is prohibited by law
Customs Code, in relation to Central Bank Circular Nos. 247, 289, cannot be released under bond" and set aside its resolutions of
and 295 and section 102 (k) of the said Code. February 3 and February 9, 1971. Private respondent filed a motion
for reconsideration of respondent court's resolution of March 8,
On the same date, private respondent requested the release of the 1971, and said court, in its resolution of March 24, 1971, reversed
shipment upon the posting of a cash bond, which request, although its resolution of March 8, 1971 and reinstated the resolution of
favorably recommended by the Collector of Customs, was denied February 3, 1971, ordering the immediate release of the foodstuffs.
by the Commissioner of Customs. However, the proper taxes and
duties amounting to P25,998.00 were imposed on the shipment and Respondent court issued an order, dated April 12, 1971, requiring
paid by private respondent. After hearing, the Collector of Customs petitioner to appear on April 16, 1971 and show cause why he
issued his decision, on January 19, 1971, decreeing the seizure and should not be declared in contempt of Court for non-compliance
forfeiture of the shipment "for the simple reason that claimants with the resolution of March 24, 1971. Petitioner filed on April 16,
failed to comply with the regulations, that is, with the Central Bank 1971 his "Motion for Reconsideration and Explanation", explaining
circulars requiring the production of release certificates for why he should not be held in contempt and at the same time
importations similar to the subject articles." On appeal, the praying for the reconsideration of the order of March 24, 1971,
Commissioner of Customs affirmed the decision on January 21, which ordered the release of the goods upon the ground that goods
1971. imported without release certificates required by the Central Bank
are "merchandise of prohibited importation" and cannot therefore
On January 27, 1971 private respondent filed before respondent be released under any kind of bond.
court a "petition for review, with a motion for release of goods
under bond", upon the grounds that the decision appealed from April 19, 1971, respondent court found petitioner's explanation for
was not supported by substantial evidence and that the goods his failure to comply with the order of March 24, 1971 satisfactory,
seized did not constitute prohibited importation as contemplated in but denied the motion for reconsideration upon the ground that it
Sections 2530 (f) and 102 (k) of the Tariff and Customs Code. In his was filed 23 days after his receipt of the resolution, and ordering
answer filed before respondent court, the Commissioner of Customs him to comply, within three days, with the order of March 24, 1971.
alleged that "the goods having been imported without the release
certificate required by the Central Bank", are "subject to forfeiture"
On April 22, 1971 petitioner filed an "Urgent Omnibus Motion and Private respondent Eusebio Dichoco, in contending that the instant
Manifestation", praying the respondent court to reconsider and set petition is without basis in fact and in law, does not deny that
aside its order of March 24 and April 19, 1971 and reinstate its "articles of prohibited importation cannot be released under bond"
order of March 8, 1971; that the case be immediately set for as provided in section 2301 of the Tariff and Customs Code. He,
hearing on the merits; and to excuse him from complying with the however, vigorously denies that the "foodstuffs in question are
order of April 19, 1971. Respondent court denied the omnibus articles of prohibited importation." He argues that the Tariff and
motion in its order dated April 27, 1971. Customs Code distinguishes articles of "prohibited importation"
from those that can be imported "only upon conditions prescribed
Hence the present petition before this Court. by law" or "importation effected contrary to law". He further argues
that Section 102 of the Tariff and Customs Code, which enumerates
Herein petitioner contends that the importation of the foodstuffs in the articles of "prohibited importations", refers to contraband or
question is prohibited and the articles thus imported may be absolutely prohibited articles and concludes in its sub-paragraph (k)
subject to forfeiture under Section 2530 (f) and 102 (k) of the Tariff with a general statement, "all other articles the importation of
and Customs Code; that the foodstuffs in question being articles of which is prohibited by law". Respondent maintains that under the
prohibited importation cannot be released under bond; and that well known rule of ejusdem generis, this general statement must be
respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting restricted only to those articles which are absolutely prohibited or
to lack of jurisdiction, in ordering the release of the foodstuffs in those considered contraband. Respondent then insists that
question. The petitioner prays that pending the determination of foodstuffs belong to that kind of importation that are, under Section
this case on its merits, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued ex 1207 of the Tariff and Customs Code, "subject to importation only
parte enjoining the implementation of respondent court's upon conditions prescribed by law", as distinguished from articles
resolutions dated March 24, 1971 and April 19, 1971; and that after "of prohibited importation," mentioned in the same section; that
due proceedings said resolutions be declared null and void and said foodstuffs, furthermore, can be classified under "importation
ordered set aside. effected contrary to law" as distinguished from "prohibited
importation" mentioned in section 2530 of the same Code.
This Court, by resolution dated May 5, 1971, issued a temporary Respondent likewise argues that section 2307 also distinguishes
restraining order, and required respondents to file an answer. On different kinds of importations when it provides that there can be
May 6, 1971 a temporary restraining order was issued restraining no redemption "where the importation is absolutely prohibited", but
respondent Court of Tax Appeals, its agents, representatives, etc. allows redemption of other kinds of importation including forfeited
from enforcing the resolutions dated March 24, 1971 and April 19, foodstuffs. Respondent claims that section 2601 also makes the
1971 issued in its C.T.A. Case No. 2206; more specifically from same distinction when it provides that "seized property, other than
directing petitioner Commissioner of Customs to release under contraband" shall be subject to sale. Respondent points out that
bond to respondent Eusebio Dichoco the shipment of foodstuffs in both the Central Bank and the Bureau of Customs, through their
question pending final judgment of the case and from citing or authorized counsel, admitted that the foodstuffs are "not prohibited
declaring said petitioner in contempt of court for failure to release importation under section 102 of the Tariff and Customs Code,
said foodstuffs, etc. "which admission bars them from asserting the contrary. 1 It is,
therefore, asserted by respondent that the imported foodstuffs in
An answer was filed, by counsel, for both respondent Court of Tax question are not contraband, and are not, as stated by respondent
Appeals and Eusebio Dichoco. In their answer, respondent allege court, among the prohibited importations enumerated in Section
special and affirmative defenses, contending that the instant 102 of the Tariff and Customs Code, 2 and so said foodstuffs may
petition is fatally defective, and certiorari does not lie; that there is be released under bond as provided in Section 2301 of the same
no legal basis for the injunction; and that the importation was not a Code. Respondent likewise points out that both the Central Bank
"prohibited importation" and can be released under bond pursuant and the Bureau of Customs have been releasing outright imported
to Section 2301 of the Tariff and Customs Code. Respondents pray foodstuffs to selected importers. Respondent also urges that the
for the dismissal of the petition and the dissolution of the purpose of the release of the importation in question is legitimate,
temporary restraining order. for said foodstuffs are intended to be eaten, and eating is always
legitimate; and that the release under bond of the foodstuffs which
are fast deteriorating would be beneficial for all parties concerned. Paragraph (k) is comprehensive in the sense that it prohibits the
Petitioner argues, finally, that Customs Administrative Order No. 19- importation of all articles not mentioned in the preceding provision
70, dated October 20, 1970, contravenes the Tariff and Customs but prohibited by other existing statutes (Tejam, Commentaries on
Code. 3. the Tariff Code of the Philippines, Vol. I, p. 6A). The legal effects of
the importation of qualifiedly prohibited articles are the same as
We cannot sustain the stand of the respondents. those of absolutely prohibited articles. (Geotina v. Court of Tax
Appeals, No. L-33500, August 30, 1971, 40 SCRA 362, 379, 383.) .
The importation in question is a prohibited importation under
Section 102 (k) of the Tariff and Customs Code which provides, in The laws which prohibit importation mentioned in Section 102 (k)
part, as follows: . include the pertinent Central Bank Circulars which have the force
and effect of laws. "Customs law" includes not only the provisions
SEC. 102. Prohibited Importations. The importation into the of the Tariff and Customs Code but also all other laws and any
Philippines of the following articles is prohibited: regulation made pursuant thereto that is subject to enforcement by
the Bureau of Customs or otherwise subject to its jurisdiction (Sec.
k. all other articles the importation of which is prohibited by law." . 3514 of Tariff and Customs Code) and articles imported in violation
of Central Bank Circulars have the status of "merchandise of
Respondents contend that this last paragraph must, by application prohibited importation" (Chan Kian v. Collector of Customs of
of the principles of ejusdem generis, be restricted only to those Manila, Jan. 31, 1966, No. L-20803, 16 SCRA 133, 136; Seree
articles the importation of which is "absolutely prohibited," or to Investment Co. v. Commissioner of Customs, No. L-21217, Nov. 29,
contraband. This contention is not acceptable. In the first place, the 1965, 15 SCRA 431, 434; Bombay Department Store v.
specific things enumerated in paragraphs (a) to (j), inclusive, of Commissioner of Customs, No. L-20460, Sept. 30, 1965, 15 SCRA
Section 102 have no distinguishable common characteristics and 104, 107-108). It cannot be gainsaid that the importation in
they differ greatly from one another, and the rule of ejusdem question violated Central Bank Circulars, inasmuch as in the words
generis "applies only where the specific words preceding the of petitioner Commissioner of Customs in its decision of January 21,
general expression are of the same nature. Where they are of 1971, "it was established thru the admission of claimant (Dichoco)
different genera, the meaning of the general word remains that the necessary release certificate in connection with his
unaffected by its connection with them." (Black, On Interpretation importation was not secured from the Central Bank. In view thereof,
of Laws, 2nd ed., p. 218; 50 Am. Jur., p. 248). the collector after instituting the necessary seizure proceedings
forfeited the 438 packages of foodstuffs for alleged violation of
Moreover, calling contraband only the things "absolutely prohibited Central Bank Circulars Nos. 247, 289, 294 and 295 in relation to
by law" is a misnomer, for contraband means any article the Section 2530 (f) and Section 102 (k) of the Tariff and Customs
importation or exportation of which is prohibited by law (Black, Law Code." 4 If the importation in question was made contrary to
Dictionary). Central Bank circulars, then said importation is an importation
prohibited by law. That importation, even if it be termed
Section 102, when examined, shows that it prohibits the "importation effected contrary to law", as respondents call it, is
importation of two categories of articles, namely those which are nonetheless a "prohibited importation." .
absolutely prohibited, for example, those enumerated in
paragraphs b, c, d, f, h, and j, and those articles which are This Court had held: .
qualifiedly prohibited, that is, those that may be imported subject
to certain conditions or limitations, for example, those enumerated "Thus, it is now settled that the goods imported without release
in paragraphs a and i. Accordingly the general provision in certificates required in Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 are "merchandise
paragraph k, to wit: "all other articles the importation of which is of prohibited importation" as this expression is used in said section
prohibited by law" cannot be so restricted as to comprise only those 1363 (f). To this effect have been, among others, Commissioner vs.
articles the importation of which is absolutely prohibited like Eastern Sea Trading, Commissioner vs. Santos, Commissioner vs.
explosives. Articles of prohibited importation cover not only Nepomuceno, Pascual vs. Commissioner of Customs, Seree
absolutely prohibited articles but also qualifiedly prohibited articles. Investment Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs, and Lazaro vs.
Commissioner of Customs." (Sare vs. Commissioner of Customs, amendment of the provisions of section 2301 of the tariff and
G.R. No. L-22988, June 30, 1969, 28 SCRA 715, 718.) 5 customs code. As already shown above, the said administrative
reiteration of the express prohibition of the cited section against
As a matter of law, no release certificate may be issued to such the release under bond of prohibited articles seized and held for
importation, although it is a no-dollar importation, because Circular forfeiture by the customs authorities. The tax court of course made
No. 295 provides that: " no pronouncement of the alleged nullity of the said administrative
order, the validity of which cannot be gainsaid ..." (Geotina v. Court
"No-dollar" imports not covered by Circular No. 247 shall not be of Tax Appeals, L-33500, August 30, 1971, 40 SCRA 362, 384-385).
issued any release certificate ... ." .
It may be pertinent to note that Sec. 3 of Republic Act No. 1410 "An
and the foodstuffs imported by private respondent Dichoco are not Act to prohibit the so-called "No-dollar Imports" except under
among the items listed in Circular No. 247 for which no release certain conditions" also provides that "any violation of this law or
certificates are needed. The reason for this is to protect the any provision hereof shall subject the articles imported to seizure
country's international reserve, because every import of goods or and confiscation without any right of redemption or release under
merchandise requires an immediate or future demand for foreign bond, existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding." .
exchange (Pascual v. Commissioner of Customs, 105 Phil. 1039,
1045). Private respondent also contends that there were some
importations of non-essential consumer goods that were released
The law also prohibits the release under bond of the imported by the Bureau of Customs and the Central Bank. This is true. In the
foodstuffs in question. This is provided in Section 2301 of the Tariff record We find, for example, that an importation of fresh oranges,
and Customs Code which provides: . lemons and grapefruits by Savoy Philippines Hotel was issued
Release Certificate No. 20134, dated March 31, 1971 by the Central
Sec. 2301. Warrant for Detention of Property-Bond. Upon Bank of the Philippines; that an importation of cheese by Savoy
making any seizure, the Collector shall issue a warrant for the Philippines Hotel was also issued Release Certificate No. 19980
detention of the property; and if the owner or importer desires to dated January 20, 1971; and that an importation of Danish cheese
secure the release of the property for legitimate use, the Collector by Hotel Intercontinental, Manila, was also issued Release
may surrender it upon the filing of a sufficient bond, in an amount Certificate No. 39704, dated March 4, 1971. 6 These importations,
to be fixed by him, conditioned for the payment of the appraised however, cannot be said to have been made "contrary to law" and
value of the article and/or any fine, expenses and costs which may were prohibited importations, because the importations were
be adjudged in the case: Provided, That articles the importation of authorized and were covered by "release certificates," approved
which is prohibited by law shall not be released under bond. pursuant to M. B. Resolution No. 383 dated March 4, 1970. 7 The
(Emphasis supplied.) authority granted may be justified because it was given to hotels
that cater to tourists visiting the country and are, therefore, dollar
Customs Administrative Order No. 19-70, dated October 20, 1970, earners. In order that the Central Bank might not be accused of
also provides that "all importations seized and forfeited for violation arbitrarily favoring certain importers, this Court, speaking through
of Central Bank circulars shall not be allowed to be released under Mr. Justice Teehankee, has suggested: .
bond, either surety or cash, nor allowed to be redeemed ... ." This
order cannot be said to contravene section 2301 or the Tariff and But it might perhaps be desirable that the Central Bank spell out
Customs Code, as contended by private respondent. Anent this such exceptions and the cases where it will grant "prior specific
matter, this Court has held that: approvals" as against the standing prohibition for the guidance of
all concerned, so that it may not be charged with acting arbitrarily
Respondent importer's petition before the tax court was filed to and without any definite set of rules and guidelines that assures
seek judgment "sustaining [the importer's] right to the discharge of equal treatment and equal application of its circulars to all.
its importation from the carrying vessel and its release under bond (Geotina v. Court of Tax Appeals, No. L-33500, August 31, 1970, 40
to it and declaring Customs Administrative Order No. 19-70 null and SCRA 362, 380-381.) .
void" as an alleged unauthorized and arbitrary modification or
The reason advanced by private respondent for the release of the position would thereby be set at naught. (Geotina vs. Court of Tax
importation in question is that foodstuffs are intended to be eaten, Appeals, No. L-33500, August 30, 1971, 40 SCRA 362, 383-384.) .
and eating is always legitimate. This argument is beside the point.
The issue in the present case is whether or not the foodstuffs were Another issue raised by private respondent is that the instant
imported contrary to law, and not whether the purpose for which petition for certiorari is procedurally defective upon the grounds
the articles were imported is licit or illicit. Even if the purpose of that the disputed resolution of March 24, 1971 was already final
importing the foodstuffs be legitimate, that purpose alone will not and unappealable because of the failure of petitioner to file a timely
justify the prohibited importation, because this is a case where the motion for reconsideration. Regarding this point, it may be said that
end does not justify the means. if private respondent meant that the order of March 24, 1971 had
become unassailable and the lapse of fifteen days had given it
The final reason advanced by private respondent, that the release conclusiveness, said contention can not be sustained because the
under bond of the deteriorating foodstuffs would be beneficial to all order complained of is interlocutory, and an interlocutory order is
parties concerned, does not cleanse the importation of its illegality such that it is always subject to correction and amendment before
and will not justify their release under bond. The Tariff and Customs final judgment is rendered in the case.
Code expressly prohibits the release under bond of articles of
prohibited importation. Because "articles of prohibited importation" Private respondent also argues that petitioner has not shown that
are not allowed to be imported, the government expects no respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion or error of
revenue from such banned articles. Regarding this point, this Court jurisdiction in issuing the order complained of. Under Section 1 of
has held: . Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, certiorari may issue not only when
the inferior court has acted with grave abuse of discretion, but also
It is utterly fallacious, therefore, when such banned goods are when it has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Although a
nevertheless sought to be imported in violation of law, to assume court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties it has
that it is to the interest of the Government, where the goods are been held that if a court has no power to give certain kinds of relief,
perishable to release them to the importer under bond to secure and it acts otherwise, it is acting without jurisdiction (14 Am. Jur.
payment of the appraised value thereof in case they are finally 2d, p. 786). It has been shown that the trial court could not, under
declared forfeited in favor of the Government. the law and decisions of this Court, order the release of the
forfeited imported foodstuffs, under bond, and in ordering its
For the code expressly prohibits the release under bond of such release it had acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction.
articles of prohibited importation. The Government expects no
revenue from such banned articles, since they are not allowed to be Private respondent furthermore contends that petitioner had an
imported. Otherwise, the law's prohibition would be rendered totally adequate remedy, that is appeal. Suffice it to state that a petition
nugatory, since such banned articles, which are mostly luxury for certiorari is the proper procedure for obtaining a relief from, or
items, are in great demand and command sky-high prices assuring review of, an interlocutory order. (14 Am. Jur. 2d., p. 789.) .
great profit to the smuggler. The smuggler would have the greatest
profit motive to wreak havoc upon the currency by purchasing Private respondent finally urges that the instant petition is
dollars at the highest black market rates to purchase and bring in defective in that the copies of the orders subject thereof were not
these high-profit luxury items. Should he succeed in smuggling certified. This contention has no merit. The Rules of Court should be
them in, his venture is a complete success. If he is caught, then all liberally construed, for they are intended to secure a method by
he has to do is put up a bond for the release of the goods "to which the issues may be properly laid before the court. When those
secure payment of the appraised value thereof" to the Government, issues are already clear before the court, the deficiency in the
and he can still realize a substantial profit from the sale of the observance of the rules should not be given undue importance.
banned goods thus released to him. All the measures designed by What is important is that the case is decided upon the merits and
the Central Bank to strengthen and stabilize our peso and to check that it should not be allowed to go off on procedural points. (Co
the unregulated flow of foreign exchange from the country with the Tiamco v. Diaz, 75 Phil. 672.)
ultimate end of setting aright the country's economy and financial
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the questioned resolutions of NO. Civil Case decision dismissed and nullified. TRO was made
respondent Court of Tax Appeals, dated March 24, 1971 and April permanent.
19, 1971 in its CTA Case No. 2206 entitled "Eusebio Dichoco,
petitioner, versus Commissioner of Customs, respondent" are Applying the rule in statutory construction known as ejusdem
annulled and set aside, and the restraining order issued by this generis, that is where general words follow an enumeration of
Court on May 5, 1971 is made permanent. No pronouncement as to persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning,
costs. It is so ordered. 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.
FACTS:
Petitioner Ello filed with the lower court separate informations
against sixteen persons charging them with squatting as penalized
by Presidential Decree No. 772. Before the accused could be
arraigned, respondent Judge Echaves motu proprio issued an
omnibus order dismissing the five informations (out of 16 raffled)
VERA VS. CUEVAS G.R. Nos. L-33693-94 May 31, 1979 The Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction which restrained
the CIR from requiring private respondents to print on the labels of
Private respondents (the companies) are engaged in the their rifled milk products the words.
manufacture, sale and distribution of filled milk products
throughout the Philippines. Private respondent, Institute of Special Civil Action No. 52383, on the other hand, is an action for
Evaporated Filled Milk Manufacturers of the Philippines, is a prohibition and injunction with a petition for preliminary injunction.
corporation organized for the principal purpose of upholding and Respondent-companied therein pray that the respondent Fair Trade
maintaining at its highest the standards of local filled milk industry, Board desist from further proceeding from the action filed by the
of which all the other private respondents are members. Philippine Association of Nutrition for misleading advertisement,
mislabeling and/or misbranding. That petitoners' milk was not
Civil Case No. 52276 is an action for declaratory relief with ex-parte labeled as an imitation of cow's milk.
petition for preliminary injunction wherein plaintiffs pray for an
adjudication of their respective rights and obligations in relation to Both cases was heard jointly.
the enforcement of Section 169 of the Tax Code against their filled
milk products. Respondent court held to perpetually restrain the CIR and the Fair
Trade Board from requiring respondent-companies to print on the
The controversy arose when the Commissioner of Internal Revenue labels on the filled milk products.
required the companies to withdraw from the market all of their
filled milk products which do not bear the inscription required by ISSUE: Whether respondent court was correct.
Section 169 of the Tax Code within fifteen (15) days from receipt of
the order with a warning of action if they failed. RULING:
Section 169. Inscription to be placed on skimmed milk. All Section 169 of the Tax code has been repealed by implication. It
condensed skimmed milk and all milk in whatever form, from which was enacted together with Sections 141 and 177, which were
the fatty part has been removed totally or in part, sold or put on already repealed. Through it, Section 169 became a merely
sale in the Philippines shall be clearly and legibly marked on its declaratory provision, without a tax purpose, or a penal sanction.
immediate containers, and in all the language in which such
containers are marked, with the words, "This milk is not suitable for It was also apparent that Section 169 does not apply to filled milk.
nourishment for infants less than one year of age," or with other Following ejusdem generis, the provision specifically stated
equivalent words. skimmed milk which implies a restriction in scope of the classes of
milk.