VOL.

504, OCTOBER 9, 2006 53

Republic vs. Del Monte Motors, Inc.
*
G.R. No. 156956. October 9, 2006.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by

EDUARDO T. MALINIS in His Capacity as Insurance
Commissioner, petitioner, vs. DEL MONTE MOTORS,
INC., respondent.

Insurance; Statutes; Statutory Construction; Basic is the

statutory construction rule that provisions of a statute should be
construed in accordance with the purpose for which it was enacted;
Thus, a single claimant may not lay stake on the securities to the
exclusion of all others.·Basic is the statutory construction rule that
provisions of a statute should be construed in accordance with the
purpose for which it was enacted. That is, the securities are held as
a contingency fund to answer for the claims against the insurance
company by all its policy holders and their beneficiaries. This step
is taken in the event that the company becomes insolvent or
otherwise unable to satisfy the claims against it. Thus, a single
claimant may not lay stake on the securities to the exclusion of all
others. The other parties may have their own claims against the
insurance company under other insurance contracts it has entered
into.

Same; Same; Same; The insurance commissioner has been given

a wide latitude of discretion to regulate the insurance industry so as
to protect the insuring public; An implied trust is created by the law
for the benefit of all claimants under subsisting insurance contracts
issued by the insurance company.·The insurance commissioner has
been given a wide latitude of discretion to regulate the insurance
industry so as to protect the insuring public. The law specifically
confers custody over the securities upon the commissioner, with
whom these investments are required to be deposited. An implied
trust is created by the law for the benefit of all claimants under
subsisting insurance contracts issued by the insurance company.
 Same; Same; Same; Court has recognized that the construction
of a statute by administrative agencies is entitled to great respect
and should ordinarily be controlling, unless clearly shown to be in
sharp

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

54

54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Del Monte Motors, Inc.

conflict with the governing statute or the Constitution and other

laws.·The emergence of the multifarious needs of modern society
necessitates the establishment of diverse administrative agencies.
In addressing these needs, the administrative agencies charged
with applying and implementing particular statutes have
accumulated experience and specialized capabilities. Thus, in a long
line of cases, this Court has recognized that their construction of a
statute is entitled to great respect and should ordinarily be
controlling, unless clearly shown to be in sharp conflict with the
governing statute or the Constitution and other laws.

Same; Same; Same; Trial court erred in issuing the Writ of

Garnishment against the security deposit of Capital Insurance and
Surety Co. (CISCO).·Clearly, then, the trial court erred in issuing
the Writ of Garnishment against the security deposit of CISCO. It
follows that without the issuance of a valid order, the insurance
commissioner, could not have been in contempt of court.

PETITION for review on certiorari of an order of the

Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Br. 221.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.
Eduardo B. Francisco for respondent.

PANGANIBAN, C.J.:

The securities required by the Insurance Code to be

deposited with the Insurance Commissioner are intended
to answer for the claims of all policy holders in the event
that the depositing insurance company becomes, insolvent
or otherwise unable to satisfy their claims. The security
deposit must be ratably distributed among all the insured
who are entitled to their respective shares; it cannot be
garnished or levied upon by a single claimant, to the
detriment of the others.

55

VOL. 504, OCTOBER 9, 2006 55

Republic vs. Del Monte Motors, Inc.

The Case
1
Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the
Rules 2 of Court, seeking to reverse the January 16, 2003
Order of the Regional Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Branch
221) in Civil Case No. Q-97-30412. The RTC found
Insurance Commissioner Eduardo T. Malinis guilty of
indirect contempt for3 refusing to comply with the December
18, 2002 Resolution of the lower court. The January 16,
2003 Order states in full:

„On January 8, 2003, [respondent] filed a Motion to Cite

Commissioner Eduardo T. Malinis of the Office of the Insurance
Commission in Contempt of Court because of his failure and refusal
to obey the lawful order of this court embodied in a Resolution
dated De-cember 18, 2002 directing him to allow the withdrawal of
the security deposit of Capital Insurance and Surety Co. (CISCO) in
the amount of P11,835,375.50 to be paid to Sheriff Manuel Paguyo
in the satisfaction of the Notice of Garnishment pursuant to a
Decision of this Court which has become final and executory.
„During the hearing of the Motion set last January 10, 2003,
Commissioner Malinis or his counsel or his duly authorized
representative failed to appear despite notice in utter disregard of
the order of this Court. However, Commissioner Malinis filed on
January 15, 2003 a written Comment reiterating the same grounds
already passed upon and rejected by this Court. This Court finds no
lawful justification or excuse for Commissioner MalinisÊ refusal to
implement the lawful orders of this Court.
„Wherefore, premises considered and after due hearing,
Commissioner Eduardo T. Malinis is hereby declared guilty of
Indirect Contempt of Court pursuant to Section 3 [of] Rule 71 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure for willfully disobeying and refusing
4
to implement and obey a lawful order of this Court.‰

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 20-50.

2 Id., at pp. 70-71. Penned by Judge (now Court of Appeals Justice)
Noel G. Tijam.
3 Id., at pp. 54-69.
4 January 16, 2003 Order; Rollo, pp. 70-71.

56

56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Del Monte Motors, Inc.

The Facts

On January 15, 2002, the RTC rendered a Decision in Civil

Case No. Q-97-30412, finding the defendants (Vilfran
Liner, Inc., Hilaria Villegas and Maura Villegas) jointly and
severally liable to pay Del Monte Motors, Inc.,
P11,835,375.50 representing the balance of Vilfran LinerÊs
service contracts with respondent. The trial court further
ordered the execution of the Decision against the
counterbond posted by Vilfran Liner on June 10, 1997, and
issued by Capital Insurance and Surety Co., Inc. (CISCO).
On April 18, 2002, CISCO opposed the Motion for
Execution filed by respondent, claiming that the latter had
no record or document regarding the alleged issuance of the
coun-terbond; thus, the bond was not valid and enforceable.
On June 13, 2002, the RTC granted the Motion for
Execution and issued the corresponding Writ. Armed with
this Writ, Sheriff Manuel S. Paguyo proceeded to levy on
the properties of CISCO. He also issued a Notice of
Garnishment on several depository banks of the insurance
company. Moreover, he served a similar notice on the
Insurance Commission, so as to enforce the Writ on the
security deposit filed by CISCO with the Commission in
accordance with Section 203 of the Insurance Code.
On December 18, 2002, after a hearing on all the
pending Motions, the RTC ruled that the Notice of
Garnishment served by Sheriff Paguyo on the insurance
commission was valid. The trial court added that the letter
and spirit of the law made the security deposit answerable
for contractual obligations incurred by CISCO under the
insurance contracts the latter had entered into. The RTC
resolved thus:

„Furthermore, the Commissioner of the Office of the Insurance

Commission is hereby ordered to comply with its obligations under
the Insurance Code by upholding the integrity and efficacy of bonds
validly issued by duly accredited Bonding and Insurance
Companies; and to safeguard the public interest by insuring the
faithful per

57

VOL. 504, OCTOBER 9, 2006 57

Republic vs. Del Monte Motors, Inc.

formance to enforce contractual obligations under existing bonds.

Accordingly said office is ordered to withdraw from the security
deposit of Capital Insurance & Surety Company, Inc. the amount of
P11,835.50 to be paid to Sheriff Manuel S. Paguyo in satisfaction of
5
the Notice of Garnishment served on August 16, 2002.‰

On January 8, 2003, respondent moved to cite Insurance

Commissioner Eduardo T. Malinis in contempt of court for
his refusal to obey the December 18, 2002 Resolution of the
trial court.

Ruling of the Trial Court

The RTC held Insurance Commissioner Malinis in

contempt for his refusal to implement its Order. It
explained that the commissioner had no legal justification
for his refusal to allow the withdrawal
6
of CISCOÊS security
deposit. Hence, this Petition.

Issues

Petitioner raises this sole issue for the CourtÊs

consideration:

„Whether or not the security deposit held by the Insurance

Commissioner pursuant to Section 203 of the Insurance Code may
7
be levied or garnished in favor of only one insured.‰
The CourtÊs Ruling

The Petition is meritorious.

_______________

5 December 18, 2002 Resolution, pp, 15-16; Rollo, pp. 68-69.

6 The case was deemed submitted for decision on February 8, 2005,
upon receipt by this Court of petitionerÊs Memorandum signed by
Assistant Solicitor General Karl B. Miranda and Solicitor Marsha C.
Recon. RespondentÊs Memorandum, signed by Atty. Eduardo E.
Francisco, was received by the Court on November 26, 2004.
7 PetitionerÊs Memorandum, p. 11. Uppercase in the original.

58

58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Del Monte Motors, Inc.

Preliminary Issue:
Propriety of Review

Before discussing the principal issue, the Court will first

dispose of the question of mootness.
Prior to the filing of the instant Petition, Insurance
Commissioner Malinis sent the treasurer of the Philippines
a letter dated March 26, 2003, stating that the former had
no objection to the release of the security deposit to Del
Monte Motors. Portions of the fund were consequently
released to respondent in July, October, and December
2003. Thus, the issue arises: whether these circumstances
render the case moot.
Petitioner, however, contends that the partial releases
should not be construed as an abandonment of its stand
that security deposits under Section 203 of the Insurance
Code are exempt from levy and garnishment. The Republic
claims that the releases were made pursuant to the
commissionerÊs power of control over the fund, not to the
lower courtÊs Order of garnishment. Petitioner further
invokes the jurisdiction of this Court to put to rest the
principal issue of whether security deposits made with the
Insurance Commission may be levied and garnished.
 The issue is not totally moot. To stress, only a portion of
respondentÊs claim was satisfied, and the Insurance
Commission has required CISCO to replenish the latterÊs
security deposit. Respondent, therefore, may one day
decide to further garnish the security deposit, once
replenished. Moreover, after the questioned Order of the
lower court was issued, similar claims on the security
deposits of various insurance companies have been made
before the Insurance Commission. To set aside the
resolution of the issue will only postpone a task that is
certain to crop up in the future.
Besides, the business of insurance is imbued with public
interest. It is subject to regulation by the State, with
respect not only to the relations between the insurer and
the insured,

59

VOL. 504, OCTOBER 9, 2006 59

Republic vs. Del Monte Motors, Inc.

8
but also to the internal affairs of insurance companies. As
this case is undeniably endowed with public interest and
involves a matter of public policy, this Court shall not shirk
from its duty to educate the bench and the bar by
formulating guiding9 and controlling principles, precepts,
doctrines and rules.

Principal Issue:
Exemption of Security Deposit from Levy or
Garnishment

Section 203 of the Insurance Code provides as follows:

„Sec. 203. Every domestic insurance company shall, to the extent of

an amount equal in value to twenty-five per centum of the minimum
paid-up capital required under section one hundred eighty-eight,
invest its funds only in securities, satisfactory to the Commissioner,
consisting of bonds or other evidences of debt of the Government of
the Philippines or its political subdivisions or instrumentalities, or
of government-owned or controlled corporations and entities,
including the Central Bank of the Philippines: Provided, That such
investments shall at all times be maintained free from any lien or
encumbrance; and Provided, further, That such securities shall be
deposited with and held by the Commissioner for the faithful
performance by the depositing insurer of all its obligations
under its insurance contracts. The provisions of section one
hundred ninety-two shall, so far as practicable, apply to the
securities deposited under this section.
„Except as otherwise provided in this Code, no judgment
creditor or other claimant shall have the right to levy upon

_______________

8 AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. National Labor Relations

Commission, 334 Phil. 712; 267 SCRA 47, January 28, 1997, citing
Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. v. National Labor Relations Commission,
119 SCRA 459, November 15, 1989.
9 ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Commission on Elections, 380
Phil. 780; 323 SCRA 811, January 28, 2000; Gonzales v. Chavez, 205
SCRA 816, February 4, 1992.

60

60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Del Monte Motors, Inc.

any of the securities of the insurer held on deposit pursuant

to the requirement of the Commissioner.‰ (Emphasis supplied)

Respondent notes that Section 203 does not provide for an

absolute prohibition on the levy and garnishment of the
security deposit. It contends that the law requires the
deposit, precisely to ensure faithful performance of all the
obligations of the depositing insurer under the latterÊs
various insurance contracts. Hence, respondent claims that
the security deposit should be answerable for the
counterbond issued by CISCO.
The Court is not convinced. As worded, the law
expressly and clearly states that the security deposit shall
be (1) answerable for all the obligations of the depositing
insurer under its insurance contracts; (2) at all times free
from any liens or encumbrance; and (3) exempt from levy
by any claimant.
To be sure, CISCO, though presently under
conservatorship, has valid outstanding policies. Its policy
holders have a right under the law to be equally protected
by its security deposit. To allow the garnishment of that
deposit would impair the fund by decreasing it to less than
the percentage of paid-up capital that the law requires to
be maintained. Further, this move would create, in favor of
respondent, a preference of credit over the other policy
holders and beneficiaries.
Our Insurance
10
Code is patterned after that of
California. Thus, the ruling of the stateÊs Supreme Court
on a similar concept as that of the security deposit is
instructive. Engwicht

_______________

10 Maria Clara L. Campos, in her commentary on the Insurance Code

of the Philippines, traces the history of the present Insurance Code as
follows:

„The forerunner of this [Insurance] Code was the Insurance Act which took
effect on July 1, 1915, and which was copied almost verbatim from the
California Insurance Act, with the exception of a few provisions which were
adopted from the New York Law. x x x. The first Insurance Code took effect on
December 18, 1974 and besides incorporating most of the provisions of the
Insurance Act with a few changes, it contained

61

VOL. 504, OCTOBER 9, 2006 61

Republic vs. Del Monte Motors, Inc.
11
v. Pacific States Life Assurance Co. held that the money
required to be deposited by a mutual assessment insurance
company with the state treasurer was „a trust fund to be
ratably distributed amongst all the claimants entitled to
share in it. Such a distribution cannot be had except in an
action in the nature of a creditorsÊ bill, upon the hearing of
which, and with all the parties interested in the fund
before it, the court may make equitable distribution of the
fund, and
12
appoint a receiver to carry that distribution into
effect.‰
Basic is the statutory construction rule that provisions
of a statute should be construed 13in accordance with the
purpose for which it was enacted. That is, the securities
are held as a contingency fund to answer for the claims
against the insurance company by all its policy holders and
their beneficiaries. This step is taken in the event that the
company becomes

_______________
many new provisions mostly regulatory in nature. After a number of these new
provisions were rendered obsolete by subsequent amendments, the Insurance
Code of 1978 was promulgated by Presidential Decree No. 1460, incorporating
not only such amendments but also additional changes deemed necessary in
order to keep pace with the changing needs and demands of the insurance
industry. However, the substantive provisions governing the contract of
insurance itself remain for the most part as they were under the Insurance
Act.‰ (Campos, INSURANCE, [1983], pp. 8-9.)

The Court has held that rulings and general principles on insurance
recognized in the state of California have persuasive authority in the
Philippines. (Ang Giok Chip v. Springfield Fire and Marine Insurance
Co., 56 Phil. 375, December 31, 1931 and Gercio v. Sun Life Assurance
Co. of Canada, 48 Phil. 53, September 28, 1925).
11 153 Cal. 183, March 9, 1908, per curiam (citing San Francisco
Savings Union v. Long, 123 Cal. 107, December 20, 1898, per Temple, J.).
12 Id.
13 The United Harbor PilotsÊ Association of the Philippines v.
Association of International Shipping Lines, Inc., 440 Phil. 188; 391
SCRA 522, November 13, 2002.

62

62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Del Monte Motors, Inc.

insolvent or otherwise unable to satisfy the claims against

it. Thus, a single claimant may not lay stake on the
securities to the exclusion of all others. The other parties
may have their own claims against the insurance company
under other insurance contracts it has entered into.

RespondentÊs Inchoate Right

The right to lay claim on the fund is dependent on the
solvency of the insurer and is subject to all other
obligations of the company arising from its insurance
contracts. Thus, respondentÊs interest is merely inchoate.
Being a mere expectancy, it has no attribute of property.
14
At
this time, it is nonexistent and may never exist. Hence, it
would be premature to make the security deposit
answerable for CISCOÊS present obligation to Del Monte
Motors.
Moreover, since insolvency proceedings against CISCO
have yet to be conducted, it would be impossible to
establish at this time which claimants are entitled to the
security deposit and in what pro-rated amounts. Only after
all other claimants under subsisting policies issued by
CISCO have been heard can respondentÊs share be
determined.

Powers of the Commissioner

The Insurance Code has vested the Office of the Insurance
Commission with both regulatory 15
and adjudicatory
authority over insurance matters.
The general regulatory authority of the insurance
commissioner is described in Section 414 of the Code as
follows:

_______________

14 See J.L.T. Agro, Inc. v. Balansag, 453 SCRA 211, March 11, 2005.
15 Go v. Office of the Ombudsman, 413 SCRA 608, October 17, 2003;
Almendras Mining Corporation v. Office of the Insurance Commission,
160 SCRA 656, April 15, 1988.

63

VOL. 504, OCTOBER 9, 2006 63

Republic vs. Del Monte Motors, Inc.

„Sec. 414. The Insurance Commissioner shall have the duty to see
that all laws relating to insurance, insurance companies and other
insurance matters, mutual benefit associations, and trusts for
charitable uses are faithfully executed and to perform the duties
imposed upon him by this Code, and shall, notwithstanding any
existing laws to the contrary, have sole and exclusive authority to
regulate the issuance and sale of variable contracts as defined in
section two hundred thirty-two and to provide for the licensing of
persons selling such contracts, and to issue such reasonable rules
and regulations governing the same.
„The Commissioner may issue such rulings, instructions,
circulars, orders and decisions as he may deem necessary to secure
the enforcement of the provisions of this Code, subject to the
approval of the Secretary of Finance. Except as otherwise specified,
decisions made by the Commissioner shall be appealable to the
Secretary of Finance.‰ (Emphasis supplied)

Pursuant to these regulatory powers, the commissioner is

authorized to (1) issue (or to refuse to issue) certificates of
authority to persons or entities desiring to engage in
 16
insurance business in the Philippines; (2) revoke or
suspend these certificates of authority 17
upon finding
grounds for the revocation or suspension; (3) impose upon
insurance companies, their directors and/or officers and/or
agents appropriate pen-alties·fines, suspension or
removal from office·for failing to comply with the Code or
with any of the commissionerÊs orders, instructions,
regulations or rulings, or for otherwise
18
conducting business
in an unsafe or unsound manner.
Included in the above regulatory responsibilities is
19
the
duty to hold the security deposits under Sections 191 and
203 of

_______________

16 INSURANCE CODE, Secs. 186-187; see Almendras Mining

Corporation v. Office of the Insurance Commission, supra.
17 Id., Secs. 241 and 247.
18 Id., Sec. 415.
19 „Sec. 191. No insurance company organized or existing under the
government or laws other than those of the Philippines shall engage in
business in the Philippines unless possessed of paid-up unimpaired
capital or assets and reserve not less than that herein

64

64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Del Monte Motors, Inc.

the Code, for the benefit and security of all policy holders.
In relation to these provisions, Section 192 of the Insurance
Code states:

„Sec. 192. The Commissioner shall hold the securities, deposited as

aforesaid, for the benefit and security of all the policyholders of the
company depositing the same, but shall as long as the company is
solvent, permit the company to collect the interest or dividends on
the securities so deposited, and, from time to time, with his assent,
to withdraw any of such securities, upon depositing with said
Commissioner other like securities, the market value of which shall
be equal to the market value of such as may be withdrawn. In the
event of any company ceasing to do business in the Philippines the
securities deposited as aforesaid shall be returned upon the
companyÊs making application therefor and proving to the
satisfaction of the Commissioner that it has no further liability
under any of its policies in the Philippines.‰ (Emphasis supplied)

Undeniably, the insurance commissioner has been given a

wide latitude of discretion to regulate the insurance
industry so as to protect the insuring public. The law
specifically confers custody over the securities upon the
commissioner, with whom these 20investments are required
to be deposited. An implied trust is created by the law for
the benefit of all

_______________

required of domestic insurance companies, nor until it shall have

deposited with the Commissioner for the benefit and security of the
policyholders and creditors of such company in the Philippines, securities
satisfactory to the Commissioner consisting of good securities of the
Philippines, including new issued of stock of Âregistered enterprises,Ê as
this term is defined in Republic Act No. 5186, otherwise known as the
Investment Incentives Act, as amended, to the actual market value of not
less than the minimum paid-up capital required of domestic insurance
companies: Provided, That at least fifty per centum of such securities
shall consist of bonds or other evidences of debt of the Government of the
Philippines, its political subdivisions and instrumentalities, or of
government-owned or controlled corporations and entities, including the
Central Bank. x x x.‰
20 Articles 1440 and 1441 of the Civil Code provide thus:

65

VOL. 504, OCTOBER 9, 2006 65

Republic vs. Del Monte Motors, Inc.

claimants under subsisting

21
insurance contracts issued by
the insurance company.
As the officer vested with custody of the security deposit,
the insurance commissioner is in the best position to
determine if and when it may be released without
prejudicing the rights of other policy holders. Before
allowing the withdrawal or the release of the deposit, the
commissioner must be satisfied that the conditions
contemplated by the law are met and all policy holders
protected.

CommissionerÊs Actions Entitled to Great Respect

In this case, Commissioner Malinis refused to release the
security deposit of CISCO. Believing that the funds were
exempt from execution as provided by law, he sought to
pro-

_______________

„Art. 1440. A person who establishes a trust is called a trustor; one in whom
confidence is reposed as regards property for the benefit of another person is
known as the trustee; and the person for whose benefit the trust has been
created is referred to as the beneficiary.
„Art. 1441. Trusts are either express or implied. Express trusts are created
by the intention of the trustor or of the parties. Implied trusts come into being
by operation of law.‰

21 Cesario P. Topiangco raises the issue of actual ownership and

discusses the effects of placing security deposits in the custody of the
Insurance Commissioner as follows:

„Doubt has arisen as to whether the government securities, particularly

Central Bank Certificates of Indebtedness, now in the possession of insurance
companies as part of their investment portfolio are really owned by such
companies. Placing these securities in the custody of the Insurance
Commissioner would minimize, if not entirely, erase such doubt. Besides, an
insurance company in the verge of insolvency would find it difficult to dispose
of such securities.‰ (Topiangco, COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE
ON THE INSURANCE CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, [1992], p. 167).

66

66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Del Monte Motors, Inc.

tect other policy holders. His interpretation of the

provisions of22 the law carries great weight and
consideration, as he is the head of a specialized body
tasked with the regulation of insurance matters and
primarily charged with the implementation of the
Insurance Code.
The emergence of the multifarious needs of modern
society necessitates the establishment of diverse
administrative agencies. In addressing these needs, the
administrative agencies charged with applying and
implementing particular statutes have accumulated
experience and specialized capabilities. Thus, in a long line
of cases, this Court has recognized that their construction
of a statute is entitled to great respect and should
ordinarily be controlling, unless clearly shown to be in
sharp conflict with the 23 governing statute or the
Constitution and other laws.
Clearly, then, the trial court erred in issuing the Writ of
Garnishment against the security deposit of CISCO. It
follows that without the issuance of a valid order, the
insurance24
commissioner, could not have been in contempt
of court.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the
assailed Order SET ASIDE. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr. and

Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

_______________

22 The United Harbor PilotsÊ Association of the Philippines v.

Association of International Shipping Lines, Inc., supra note 13 at p. 202;
p. 534.
23 Union Bank of the Philippines v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 411 Phil. 94; 358 SCRA 479, June 6, 2001; Nestlé Phil-
ippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 203 SCRA 504, November 13, 1991;
Asturias Sugar Central, Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs, 140 Phil. 20;
29 SCRA 617 (1969).
24 Factoran, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 378 Phil. 282; 320 SCRA 530,
December 13, 1999.

67

VOL. 504, OCTOBER 9, 2006 67

Estate of Edward Miller Grimm vs. Estate of Charles
Parsons and Patrick C. Parsons

Petition granted.

Note.·A meaning that does not appear nor is intended

or reflected in the very language of the statute cannot be
placed therein by construction. (Government Service
Insurance System vs. Commission on Audit, 441 SCRA 532
[2004])

··o0o··
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.