Case No. 1: MAPALAD AISPORNA v.

COURT OF APPEALS
Chapter 6: Intent ascertained from statute as whole

Facts: since 7 March and on 21 June 1969, erla
Compania de !e"uros, issued a ersonal #ccident olic$
throu"h its authori%ed a"ent &odolfo #isporna, for a
period of 12 months with the 'eneficiar$ desi"nated as #na
M. Isidro. (he insured died '$ )iolence durin" lifetime of
polic$. Mapalad #isporna participated acti)el$ with the
aforementioned polic$. *or reason une+plained, an
information was filed a"ainst Mapalad #isporna,
&odolfo,s wife, with the Cit$ Court of Ca'anatuan for
)iolation of !ection 1-9 of the Insurance #ct on 21
No)em'er 197., or actin" as an a"ent in the solicitin"
insurance without securin" the certificate of authorit$ from
the office of the Insurance Commissioner. Mapalad
/e"islati)e intent must 'e ascertained from a consideration
of the statute as a whole. (he particular words, clauses and
phrases should not 'e studied as detached and isolated
e+pressions, 'ut the whole and e)er$ part of the statute
must 'e considered in fi+in" the meanin" of an$ of its parts
and in order to produce harmonious whole.In the present
case, the first para"raph of !ection 1-9 prohi'its a person
from actin" as a"ent, su'a"ent or 'ro0er in the solicitation
or procurement of applications for insurance without first
procurin" a certificate of authorit$ so to
act from the Insurance Commissioner1 while the second
para"raph defines who is an insurance a"ent within the
intent of the section1 while the third para"raph prescri'es
the penalt$ to 'e imposed for its )iolation. (he appellate
court,s rulin" that the petitioner is prosecuted not under the
second para"raph of !ection 1-9 'ut under its first
para"raph is a re)ersi'le error, as the definition of
insurance a"ent in para"raph 2 applies to the para"raph 1
and 2 of !ection 1-9, which is 2an$ person contends that
'ein" the wife of true a"ent, &odolfo, she naturall$ helped
him in his wor0, as cler0, and that polic$ was merel$ a
renewal and was issued 'ecause Isidro had called '$
telephone to renew, and at that time, her hus'and, &odolfo,
was a'sent and so she left a note on top of her hus'and,s
des0 to renew. 3n 2 #u"ust 1971, the trial court found
Mapalad "uilt$ and sentenced her to pa$ a fine of 4.....
with su'sidiar$ imprisonment in case of insol)enc$ and to
pa$ the costs. 3n appeal and on 15 #u"ust 1975, the trial
court,s decision was affirmed '$ the appellate court 6C#78&
192597C&:. ;ence, the present recourse was filed on 22
3cto'er 1975.3n 2. <ecem'er 1975, the 3ffice of the
!olicitor 8eneral, representin" the Court of #ppeals,
su'mitted that #isporna
Capuchino = !tatutor$ Construction 1
Case No. 1: MAPALAD AISPORNA v. COURT OF APPEALS
Chapter 6: Intent ascertained from statute as whole

ma$ not 'e considered as ha)in" )iolated !ection 1-9 of
the Insurance #ct.
Issues: >hether Mapalad #isporna is an insurance a"ent
within the scope or intent of the Insurance #ct
Held/Ratio/Relevance to Statutory Construction:
/e"islati)e intent must 'e ascertained from a consideration
of the statute as a whole. (he particular words, clauses and
phrases should not 'e studied as detached and isolated
e+pressions, 'ut the whole and e)er$ part of the statute
must 'e considered in fi+in" the meanin" of an$ of its parts
and in order to produce harmonious whole. IN the present
case, the first para"raph of !ection 1-9 prohi'its a person
from actin" as a"ent, su'a"ent or 'ro0er in the solicitation
or procurement of applications for insurance without first
procurin" a certificate of authorit$ so to act from the
Insurance Commissioner1 while the second para"raph
defines who is an insurance a"ent within the intent of the
section1 while the third para"raph prescri'es the penalt$ to
'e imposed for its )iolation. (he appellate court,s rulin"
that the petitioner is prosecuted not under the second
para"raph of !ection 1-9 'ut under its first para"raph is a
re)ersi'le error, as the definition of insurance a"ent in
para"raph 2 applies to the para"raph 1 and 2 of !ection
1-9, which is 2an$ person who for compensation shall 'e an
insurance a"ent within the intent of this section.?
>ithout proof of compensation, directl$ or indirectl$,
recei)ed from the insurance polic$ or contract, Mapalad
#isporna ma$ not 'e held to ha)e )iolated !ection 1-9
of the Insurance #ct. (he !upreme Court re)ersed the
appealed @ud"ment and acAuitted the accused of the crime
char"ed, with costs de oficio.

Capuchino = !tatutor$ Construction 2