Article 10

September 11, 2016

By Francis Caparas

In case of doubt in the interpretation and application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking
body intended right and justice to prevail. (n)

DOUBTFUL STATUTES. Where the law is clear, it must be applied according to its unambiguous
provisions. It must be taken as it is devoid of judicial addition and subtraction ( Acting
Commissioner of Customs v. Manila Electric Company, 77 SCRA 469). The first and foremost
duty of the court is to apply the law. Construction and interpretation come only after it has been
demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them (Republic Flour Mills,
Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs, 39 SCRA 269).

If there is ambiguity in the law, interpretation of the law requires fidelity to the legislative
purpose. What Congress intended is not to be frustrated. Its objective must be carried out. Even
if there be doubt as to the meaning of the language employed, the interpretation should not be
at war with the end sought to be attained (Republic Flour Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner of
Customs, 39 SCRA 269).

The Supreme Court has time and again cautioned against narrowly interpreting a statute as to
defeat the purpose of the legislator and stressed that it is of the essence of judicial duty to
construe statutes so as to avoid such deplorable result (of injustice or absurdity) and that,
therefore, a literal interpretation is to be rejected if it would be unjust or lead to absurd results
(Bello v. Court of Appeals, 56 SCRA 509).

Explanation

From LAWPHIL.COM and Google.com

Para 1. Where the law is clear, it must be applied according to its unambiguous provisions. (Law
must be applied word for word basis to avoid doubt in deciding cases.)
Source of Article. – Taken from article 4 of the Swiss code, which provides: “Where the statute
refers the judge to his discretion or estimation of the circumstances, or to sufficient reasons,
there he must decide according to right and equity.”

The Court is always required to apply and demonstrate the content of a law first before
interpreting.

Para 2. If there is ambiguity in the law, interpretation of the law requires fidelity
(reliability/truth) to the legislative purpose. (Confusing terms can be found in law therefore it
should always be interpreted with fidelity and truth to avoid confusion). Some language or
words can be confusing but at the end of every debate adequate decision of equality should be
attained

A similar provision in the Colombia code (article 32) is as follows. “In cases where all rules of
interpretation fail, ambiguous (Confusing) and contradictory clauses shall be construed in a
manner most in conformity with the general spirit of legislation and natural equity.”

In justifying the inclusion of the present article in the Code, the Code Commission said: “Though
the foregoing is also an unquestionable rule, yet it is necessary to embody it in this Code, so that
it may tip the scales in favor of right and justice when the law is doubtful or obscure. It will
strengthen the determination of the courts to avoid and injustice which may apparently be
authorized by some way of interpreting the law” (Commission, p. 78).

Applicability of Article. – The rule stated in this article is to be applied only in case of doubt, and
when all other rules of interpretation fail (1 Tolentino 44, citing 1 Borja 375). When the law is
clear, and there is no doubt as to its meaning, the judge cannot go above the law but must apply
it, even if it does not conform to his concept of right and justice (1 Tolentino 44, citing 1 Von
Tuhr 64).

Equity in Application of Law. – Equity is an attribute of justice, and there can be no justice if the
application of the law is not made with equity. Equity may correct and modify the bare written
law, sometimes limiting its excessive generality, and at times extending it to supply deficiencies.
Its mission is to temper the rigor of positive law. As Justinian said, equity is justice sweetened
with mercy; its purpose, therefore is to seek and follow the intention of the legislator rather
than the barer legal provision, to adapt the rigid precept of law to the social life (1 Tolentino 45,
citing 1 Valverde 211
DIGEST of the Case

Republic Flour Mills vs Commissioner of Customs 39 SCRA 269

FACTS -The personalities involved: (1) Republic Flour Mills (petitioner) is a domestic corporation
engaged in the manufacture of wheat flour and in the process of milling said product, produces
pollard (darak) and bran (ipa); (2) Respondents are the Commisioner of Customs and the Court
of Tax Appeals.The complaint: Petitioner questions respondents’ decision to charge the
corporation P7,948 in wharf age dues on exported pollard and/or bran.Petitioner paid this
amount in protest. Petitioner sent the case to Court of Tax Appeals who decided in favour of
respondent (sustained the actions of the Commissioner of Customs). Petitioner elevated the
matter to the SC andrequested that the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals be reviewed.
Petitioner claims: Section 2802 of the Tariff Custom Code (which was respondent’s basis for the
collection of wharf age dues) is not applicable in the case at bar because the bran and pollard
are actually not “products of the Philippines” because they came from wheat grain which were
imported from abroad.

ISSUES- Is respondent liable for wharf age dues on its exportation of bran and pollard as they are
not “products of the Philippines”?

HELD- The SC denied the petition; It re-affirmed the Court of Tax Appeals’ decision. Rationale:
The petitioner erred in its construction of the Act. As per section 2802 of the Tariff and Custom
Code, “There shall be levied, collected and paid on all articles imported or brought into the
Philippines, and on products of the Philippines exported from the Philippines, a charge of two
pesos per gross metric ton as a fee for wharf age. The meaning and intent of the Act is precisely
to collect tariffs on anything imported and exported to and from the Philippines