Ejusdem generis (or the same kind or species)

General rule: where a general word or phrase follows an enumeration of particular

and specific words of the same class or where the latter follow the former, the
general word or phrase is to be construed to include, or to be restricted to, persons,
things or cases akin to, resembling, or of the same kind or class as those specifically
mentioned.
Purpose: give effect to both particular or general words, by treating the particular
words as indicating the class and the general words as indicating all that is embraced
in said class, although not specifically named by the particular words.
Principle: based on proposition that had the legislature intended the general words
to be used in their generic and unrestricted sense, it would have not enumerated the
specific words.
Presumption: legislators addressed specifically to the particularization
Colgate-Palmolive Phils. Vs Gimenez
G.R. L-14787
Facts:
The petitioner Colgate-Palmolive Philippines imported from abroad various materials
such as irish moss extract, sodium benzoate, sodium saccharinate precipitated
calcium carbonate and dicalcium phosphate, for use as stabilizers and flavoring of
the dental cream it manufactures. In every importation made by said company, it has
to pay a special excise tax for foreign exchange used for the importation activities
pursuant to RA 601 (Exchange Tax Law). Colgate filed 3 times with the Central Bank
for 17% of special taxes it paid. The Central Bank auditors refused to pass tax refund
claims due to Section 2 of RA 601 which does not exempt toothpaste stabilizers and
flavoring to taxation.
Aforementioned petitioner filed an appeal with the Auditor General, but the latter
reaffirmed ruling made by the Central Bank on the issue of Section 2 of RA 601 which
refers only to those used in the preparation or manufacture of food or food
products. Thus, this current petition with the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the foreign exchange used by petitioner in the importation of
toothpaste stabilizers and flavoring is exempt from the Special Excise Tax (RA 601)
Held:
Prior rulings with regards to this case were reversed accordingly by the Supreme
Court.
The ruling of the Auditor General that the term stabilizer and flavors as used in the
law refers only to those materials actually used in the preparation or manufacture of
food and food products is based, apparently, on the principle of statutory
construction that general terms may be restricted by specific words, with the
result that the general language will be limited by the specific language which
indicates the statutes object and purpose. The rule, however, is applicable only to

cases where, except for one general term, all the items in an enumeration belong to
or fall under one specific class (ejusdem generis). In the case at bar, it is true that the
term stabilizer and flavors is preceded by a number of articles that may
beclassified as food or food products, but it is likewise true that the other items
immediately following it do not belong to the same classification.

Cagayan Valley Enterprise Vs Court of Appeals

G.R. 78413
Facts:
La Tondea Inc. is registered with the Philippine Patent Office pursuant to RA 623. La
Tondea Inc. is known for its iconic white flint bottle which is used to serve it flag
beverage Ginebra San Miguel. LTI filed a Civil Suit for injuction and damages
against Cagayan Valley Enterprises for using the bottles of Ginebra San Miguel for
their own product Sonny Boy for commercial sale and distribution without the prior
consent of LTI. Cagayan in turn alleged that LTI did not have cause of action as the
latter cannot claim protection under Section 2 of RA 623 (as amended by RA 5700) as
it failed to satisfy the trademark requirements. Trial Court found in favor of Cagayan
Valley Enterprises. LTI later appealed to the Court of Appeals with which the CA ruled
in favor of the appellant . The petitioner Cagayan seeks nullification of the decision
made by the CA, thus this case.
Issue:
Whether or not Cagayan Valley Enterprises violated Section 2 of RA 623 (as
amended by RA 5700) in its conduct of reusing, repackaging and rebranding of bottle
of LTI?
Held:
SC affirmed decision laid down by CA which was in favor La Tondea Inc. while
denying Cagayan Valley Enterprises petition. Petitioner also is declared in contempt
of court and is ordered to pay Php 1000 with costs.

Parayno vs Jovellanos
G.R. 148408
Facts:
Petitioner owns a gasoline filling station in Calasiao, Pangasinan. In 1989, some of the
residents in the town petitioned to have the Sangguniang Bayan closure and transfer
of the gasoline filling station. The said matter was referred to the Municipal
Engineer,Municipal Health Officer, the Town Police and Fire Department for
investigation of the complaint. Upon receipt of the results of the investigation, the
Sagguniang Bayan advised the Mayor for the closure and transfer of the said gasoline
filling station. In Sangguniang Bayan Resolution no. 50, it was said that the gasoline
filling station was in direct violation of the Official Zoning Code of Calasiao Art.6
Sections 44, that said gasoline filling station is located at a densely populated and

commercial area which can endanger the lives and properties of the residents, and it
hampers the flow of traffic in the vicinity of the site. With this the petitioner filed for
reconsideration of the motion carried out by the Sangguniang Bayan but the latters
appeal was denied. Petitioner filed a case before the Regional Trail Court saying that
her gasoline filling station is not covered under Sec. 44 of the said law but instead
Section 22, the RTC denied her case. Petitioner filed another suit before the Court of
the Appeals but was also denied. Thus, this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the closure and transfer of the petitioners gasoline filling station by
the Municipality of Calasiao is an invalid exercise of the towns police power.
Held:
Petition granted. Prior decisions are reversed and set aside. Respondent Municipality
of Calasiao is ordered to cease and desist from enforcing Resolution no. 50 against
petitioner.