NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE ZAIN B.

ANGAS,

Facts:

1. National Power Corporation filed two complaints for eminent domain against private
respondents with the CFI of Lanao del Sur.
2. The complaint which sought to expropriate certain specified lots situated at Limogao,
Saguiaran, Lanao del Sur was for the purpose of the development of hydro-electric power
and production of electricity as well as the erection to such subsidiary works and
constructions as may be necessarily connected therewith.
3. decision was rendered by the lower court, declaring and confirming that the lots
mentioned in the complaints have entirely been lawfully condemned and expropriated
by NAPOCOR, and ordering the latter to pay the private respondents certain sums of
money as just compensation for their lands expropriated "with legal interest thereon . . .
until fully paid."
4. On February 10, 1981, one of the private respondents (Pangonatan Cosna Tagol) filed with
the trial court an ex-parte motion praying, for the first time, that the legal interest on the
just compensation awarded to her by the court be computed at 12% per annum as
allegedly "authorized under and by virtue of Circular No. 416 of the Central Bank issued
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 116 and in a decision of the Supreme Court that legal
interest allowed in the judgment of the courts, in the absence of express contract, shall be
computed at 12% per annum." The lower court granted the said motion allowing 12%
interest per annum.
5. The lower court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, stating that the rate of
interest at the time of the promulgation of the June 15, 1981 decision is that prescribed by
Central Bank Circular No. 416 which is 12% per annum, and that it did not modify or change
but merely amplified its order of August 28, 1981 in the determination of the legal interest.

Issue: Whether or not the term judgment in Central Bank Circular refers to any judgment directing
the payment of legal interest.

Held: Private respondents’ contention is bereft of merit.

1. The term "judgments" as used in Section 1 of the Usury Law, as well as in Central Bank
Circular No. 416, should be interpreted to mean only judgments involving loan or
forbearance of money, goods or credits, following the principle of ejusdem generis. Under
this doctrine, where general terms follow the designation of particular things or classes of
persons or subjects, the general term will be construed to comprehend those things or
persons of the same class or of the same nature as those specifically enumerated
2. The purpose of the rule on ejusdem generis is to give effect to both the particular and
general words, by treating the particular words as indicating the class and the general
words as including all that is embraced in said class, although not specifically named by
the particular words. This is justified on the ground that if the lawmaking body intended the
general terms to be used in their unrestricted sense, it would have not made an
enumeration of particular subjects but would have used only general terms
3. Applying the said rule on statutory construction to Central Bank Circular No. 416, the
general term "judgments" can refer only to judgments in cases involving loans or
forbearance of any money, goods or credits