Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > May 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-23607 May 23, 1967 - GO KA TOC SONS & CO., ETC. v. RICE AND CORN BOARD:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-23607. May 23, 1967.]

GO KA TOC SONS & CO., ETC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICE AND CORN BOARD, Defendant-Appellant.

Solicitor General A. A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General A. A. Torres, Solicitor G. S. Gaddi and Atty. A. J. Gustilo, for Defendant-Appellant.

Antonio C. Sanchez and Vicente Cabahug for Plaintiff-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. RICE AND CORN INDUSTRY; "BY-PRODUCTS OF RICE AND/OR CORN." — "Tahup." "Sungo", and "rice husk", which plaintiff acquires from rice and corn millers and from which it manufactures the vegetable oil and produces the "corn meal" or "corn germ meal" that it subsequently distributes and sells are clearly by-products of rice and/or corn, as the phrase is used Section 1 of Republic Act 3018 nationalizing the rice and corn industry.

2. ID.; ID.; INCLUSION OF TERM "BY-PRODUCTS" IN BODY OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3018, NOT INVALID. — Although the term "by-product is not particularly and specifically stated in the title of Republic Act No. 3018, its inclusion in the body of the law is not invalid, as it is germane to the subject matter expressed in the title of the law (Sumulong v. Comelec, 73 Phil., 288; Cordero v. Cabatuando, L-14542, October 31, 1962). Neither is the statutory inclusion of said term in the definition the phrase "rice and/or corn industry" an invalid legislative usurpation of the court’s function to interpret the laws, as this definition is part of the law itself.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; 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 v. Garcia, 85 Phil., 651 [Resolution on Motion to Reconsider]; Tecson v. C.J.S., L-15798, December 29, 1961).

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID; 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.)


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


Plaintiff-appellee Go Ka Toc Sons & Co. is a duly registered partnership, not wholly owned by Filipinos, engaged since 1958 in the manufacture, processing and marketing of vegetable oil extracted from corn, rice, copra, soybean, peanuts, fish, and other vegetable products.

On August 2, 1960, Republic Act 3018 was approved, Section 1 of which prohibited, among others, partnerships whose capital was not wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines from engaging, directly or indirectly, in the rice and/or corn industry. The law was to take effect on January 1, 1961. However, Section 3 (a) allowed such partnership, upon registration with the municipal treasurer, to continue business until two years from and after January 1, 1961.

"SEC. 3. All such persons, associations, partnerships, or corporations that have complied with the requirements provided in Section two hereof, if they so apply, shall be allowed to continue to engage in their respective lines of activity in the rice and/or corn industry only for the purpose of liquidation, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(a) Those engaged in the retail, wholesale, culture, transportation, handling, distribution or acquisition for the purpose of trade of rice and/or corn and the by-products thereof shall be allowed to continue to engage therein for a period of two years from the date of effectivity of this Act;"

x       x       x


On November 21, 1960, the newly created Rice and Corn Board 1 issued Resolution No. 10, pursuant to Section 6 of the law, defining the term "by-product" used in the law, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"By-product shall mean the secondary products resulting from the process of husking, grinding, milling, and cleaning of palay and corn, such as, but not limited to ‘binlid, ‘darak, ‘tahop’, ‘tiktik’ ‘corn husk’, ‘corn drips’ and ‘corn meals’."cralaw virtua1aw library

And on July 10, 1961, the RICOB issued General Circular No. 1, as amended, which defined the term "capital investment" used in Section 3 of Republic Act 3018 which limits 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.

These two circulars have been duly published and translated into the local dialect pursuant to Section 6 of Republic Act 3018.

Plaintiff-appellee, having been required by agents of RICOB to register in accordance with Section 2 of the law and the latter’s resolution, dated January 3, 1961, ruling that manufacturers and/or dealers of bijon, noodle, corn starch, gawgaw, rice wine, poultry feeds and other by-products of rice and corn are covered by the law, filed action in the Court of First Instance to declare the said law and RICOB Resolution No. 10, November 21, 1960 and General Circular No. 1, July 10, 1961, as inapplicable to it. Pending trial on the merits, the lower court issued the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for.

To abbreviate the proceedings, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts. Thereupon, the lower court rendered judgment (a) declaring Republic Act 3018 not applicable to plaintiff’s business; (b) declaring null and void RICOB’s Resolution No. 10, dated November 21, 1960 and General Circular No. 1, as amended, dated July 10, 1961 in so far as they were and are being made applicable to plaintiff’s business and (c) making and declaring permanent and perpetual the preliminary writ of injunction issued in the case.

Not satisfied with the foregoing ruling, defendant RICOB, through the Solicitor General, has taken the instant appeal to raise questions purely of law.

Admittedly, plaintiff-appellee has stopped from engaging in the purchase and sale of rice and/or corn since the lapse of the two year period from the effectivity of the law. It has limited its activities to the trade, processing and manufacture of corn and rice oil from raw materials consisting of corn germ proper or embryo ("sungo") and "tahup", as well as from rice husk which it secures from others who mill rice and corn. In the processing and manufacture of corn oil, plaintiff also produces a residue called "corn meal" or "corn meal germ" which it sells and trades. Are these activities covered by Republic Act 3018?

Section 1 of the law defines "rice and/or corn industry" as including the handling of distribution, either in wholesale or retail, and the acquisition for purpose of trade, of the by-products of rice and corn:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 1. No person who is not a citizen of the Philippines, or association, partnership or corporation, the capital or capital stock of which is not wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines, shall directly or indirectly engage in the rice and/or corn industry except as provided in Section three of this Act.

"As used in this Act, the term ‘rice and/or corn industry’ shall mean and include the culture, milling, warehousing, transporting, exportation, importation, handling the distribution, either in wholesale or retail, the provisions of Republic Act Numbered Eleven hundred and eighty to the contrary notwithstanding, or the acquisition for the purpose of trade of rice (husked or unhusked) or corn and the by-products thereof: Provided, That public utilities duly licensed and registered in accordance with law may transport corn or rice." (Emphasis supplied).

Now, "tahup", "sungo" and "rice husk", which plaintiff acquires from rice and corn millers and from which it manufactures the vegetable oil and produces the "corn meal" or "corn germ meal" that it subsequently distributes and sells are clearly by-products of rice and/or corn. 2

Although the term "by-product" is not particularly and specifically stated in the title of Republic Act 3018, its inclusion in the body of the law is not invalid, as the lower court held, since it is germane to the subject matter expressed in the title of the law. 3

Neither is the statutory inclusion of said term in the definition of the phrase "rice and/or corn industry" an invalid legislative usurpation of the court’s function to interpret the laws, as the lower court also ruled. This definition is part of the law itself.

Finally, the lower court determined the purpose and intention behind the law, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . In the opinion of the Court, it was never the intention of the Legislature in enacting Republic Act No. 3018 to include in its purpose or scope the processing of the by-products of rice and corn because Filipinos do not depend for their survival by eating the by- products of rice and corn. . . .

"Assuming, without admitting, that the law in question really intended to include in its object the nationalization not only of the rice and corn industry but also the trade of the by-products just mentioned above, the business in which the plaintiff has been engaged and since December 31, 1962, as is at present, engaged, the Court is of the opinion that in the trade, processing, manufacture of corn and rice oil from the raw materials of corn germ proper or embryo (sungo) and tahup and from rice husk converting the remaining parts into ‘corn meal’ or ‘corn germ meal’ which is traded and sold and that it acquired its raw materials from those engaged in milling rice and/or corn, the said Republic Act No. 3018 does not cover the plaintiff’s business activities just mentioned.

"This is a fair and reasonable interpretation and application of said Republic Act No. 3018, because to include in its control, limitation and prohibition the business of the plaintiff mentioned above, would be not only to render the said law unconstitutional for not including in its title ‘and the by-products thereof’, but also to unreasonably stretch out and expand the scope and intention of the law to include in its context the processing and extracting of oil from rice and corn and the manufacture of corn meal or corn germ meal and the selling and trading of the same.

"As a logical result of this interpretation of the law spelled out by this Court, it must necessarily follow that the Resolution No. 10, Annex 1 and the general circular dated July 10, 1961, quoted under paragraph 3 of the parties’ Stipulation of Facts are hereby declared null and void in so far as they attempted to include in the scope of said law the defendant’s business activities described above in which it engaged since December 31, 1962, and in which it has been engaged partly engaged since its formation in 1959."cralaw virtua1aw library

What the court a quo did was to resort to statutory construction. But this was improper as well as incorrect. The law 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. So the court’s only duty was to apply the law as it was. 4 The purpose of the Act, as expressed in the introductory note of the bill, can control the language of the law only in case of ambiguity. 5 There is none here. Furthermore, the court below’s interpretation would render the statute nugatory and defeat its aims, rather than apply and effectuate its provisions, 6 since it struck off the phrase "by-products thereof" from the text of the law.

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.

The foregoing considerations render moot and academic the question regarding the validity of General Circular No. 1 of July 10, 1961.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the writ of injunction issued therein is annulled and set aside. No costs. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Zaldivar and Castro, JJ., concur.

Makalintal, J., did not take part.

Endnotes:



1. Hereinafter referred to as "RICOB."

2. See RICOB Res. No. 10, Nov. 21, 1960.

3. Sumulong v. COMELEC, 73 Phil. 288; Cordero v. Cabatuando L- 14542, Oct. 31, 1962.

4. People v. Garcia, 85 Phil. 651 [Resolution on Motion to Reconsider]; Tecson v. S.S.S., L-15798, Dec. 29, 1961.

5. 82 C.J.S. 621; 50 Am. Jur. 291, 296.

6. 50 Am. Jur. 358-364.

7. Section 6, Republic Act 3018.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20627 May 4, 1967 - ‘Y’ SHIPPING CORPORATION v. MAXIMO ERISPE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20262 May 11, 1967 - EMILIA SOMODIO v. RUFO S. SUCALDITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23095 May 12, 1967 - PEDRO D. GENATO v. FAUSTINO SY-CHANGCO

  • G.R. No. L-21755 May 13, 1967 - IN RE: CHUA BENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23656 May 15, 1967 - IN RE: TEOFILO YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20810 May 16, 1967 - IN RE: ALFONSO PO CHU KING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22791 May 16, 1967 - CIRILO BARNACHEA, ET AL. v. EMILIANO C. TABIGNE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23534 May 16, 1967 - JOSE A. ARCHES v. ANACLETO I. BELLOSILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20900 May 16, 1967 - CAMPUA UY TINA v. DAVID P. AVILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22147 May 16, 1967 - IN RE: LEE BING HOO v. REPULIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22273 May 16, 1967 - PAGKAKAISANG ITINATAGUYOD NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA ANG TIBAY, ET AL. v. ANG TIBAY INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23501 May 16, 1967 - FILIPINAS INVESTMENT & FINANCE CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-22793 May 16, 1967 - CARMELITA TAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23729 May 16, 1967 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24281 May 16, 1967 - ROSITA C. TALEON, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17463 May 16, 1967 - TEODORO SUMALJAG BONGAL, ET AL. v. BARBARA P. VDA. DE BONGAL

  • G.R. No. L-17500 May 16, 1967 - PEOPLE’S BANK AND TRUST CO., ET AL. v. DAHICAN LUMBER COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18937 May 16, 1967 - NATIVIDAD E. IGNACIO, ET AL. v. EDUARDO ELCHICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18981 May 16, 1967 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MOISES SONGCUYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19791 May 16, 1967 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. RAFAEL HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23212 May 18, 1967 - CAUSAPIENCIA CLEMENTE, ET AL. v. H.E. HEACOCK CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24105 May 18, 1967 - JAIME BALITE v. JUDGE DOMINGO CABANGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18936 May 23, 1967 - NATIVIDAD E. IGNACIO, ET AL. v. PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY INC.

  • G.R. No. L-21675 May 23, 1967 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22336 May 23, 1967 - MERCEDES DE LA MAZA v. MARCELO OCHAVE

  • G.R. No. L-23607 May 23, 1967 - GO KA TOC SONS & CO., ETC. v. RICE AND CORN BOARD

  • G.R. No. L-16177 May 24, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANCHO A. PELAGIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20383 May 24, 1967 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-20426 May 24, 1967 - MIGUEL ALBANO, ET AL. v. FERMIN RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20909 May 24, 1967 - IN RE: VICENTE TIU TUA PI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21281 May 24, 1967 - EDILBERTO BALANE, ET AL. v. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23074 May 24, 1967 - POLICARPIO REAL v. JESSIE TROUTHMAN

  • G.R. No. L-22730 May 24, 1967 - RAMON A. GONZALES v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20954 May 29, 1967 - ELIAS GALLAR v. HERMENEGILDA HUSAIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23450 May 24, 1967 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. MAGDALENA AYSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23507 May 24, 1967 - JUANA LAUREL-MANILA, ET AL. v. DIONISIO GALVAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23925 May 24, 1967 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE PORT OF MANILA v. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24262 May 24, 1967 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL. v. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26153 May 24, 1967 - GUALBERTO TENCHAVEZ v. ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18838 May 25, 1967 - CARMEN M. PASCUAL, ET AL. v. RAMON MENESES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17462 May 29, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE RAZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19421 May 29, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGRIPINO FONTANOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20853 May 29, 1967 - BONIFACIO BROS., INC., ET AL. v. ENRIQUE MORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21199 May 29, 1967 - JOSE G. SYSON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21807 May 29, 1967 - JOSE C. ZULUETA v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22345 May 29, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADOR GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20897 May 30, 1967 - IN RE: TY ENG HUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21739 May 30, 1967 - IN RE: ONG CHIAN SUY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21445 May 30, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MONICO REYES

  • G.R. No. L-23113 May 30, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO COMIGJOD

  • G.R. Nos. L-18292-4 May 30, 1967 - CRESENTE PICHAY, ET AL. v. ISAIAS CELESTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19453-4 May 30, 1967 - GREGORIO E. FAJARDO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22558 May 31, 1967 - GREGORIO ARANETA, INC. v. PHILIPPINE SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD.

  • G.R. No. L-27l97 May 31, 1967 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. MUNICIPALITY OF LIBMANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25656 May 31, 1967 - NAZARIO NALOG, ET AL. v. NEMESIO DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23236 & L-23254 May 31, 1967 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23368 May 31, 1967 - ARTURO H. TROCIO v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.