StatConDigest - Colgate-Palmolive Philippines, Inc.

Vs Pedro Jimenez, GR L-14787 (January 28, 1961)

Statutory Rule: General terms may be restricted by specific word, with the result that the general
language will be limited by specific language which indicates the statute’s object and purpose. The
rule is applicable only to cases wherein, except for one general term, all the items in an
enumeration belong to or fall under one specific class.

Facts:
Petitioner corporation engages in manufacturing toilet preparations and household remedies. They
import materials including “stabilizers and flavors” is among those petitioner imports. For every
importation, petitioner pays 17% special excise tax on the foreign exchange used for the payment
of the cost, transportation and other charges pursuant to RA 601, the Exchange Tax Law. However
the same law also provides that “foreign exchanged used for xxx importation to the Philippines of
xxx stabilizers and flavors xxx shall be refunded to any importer making application therefore.”
Petitioner now seeks a refund of the 17% special excise tax they paid in the total sum of
P113,343.99.

Issue:
Whether or not, the foreign exchange used by petitioner in the importation of dental cream
stabilizers and flavors is exempt from the 17% special excise tax imposed by the Exchange Tax Law
so as to entitle it to a refund.

Held:
Yes. The refusal to deny refund was based on the argument that all the items enumerated for the
tax exemption fall under one specific class, namely: food products, book supplies/materials and
medical supplies and that for petitioners to be exempt, the “stabilizers and flavors” they use must
fall under the category of food products. Respondent contends that since petitioners use these as
toothpaste, the same is not a food product. Court ruled that although “stabilizers and flavors” are
preceded by items that might fall under food products, the following which were also included are
hardly such: fertilizer, poultry feed, industrial starch and more. Therefore, the law must be seen in
its entirety. The rule of construction that general and unlimited terms are restrained and limited
by a particular recital does not require the rejection of general terms entirely. It is intended merely
as an aid in ascertaining the intention of the legislature and is to be taken in connection with other
rules of construction.

Page 1 of 1