Manila Railroad Digests

Manila Railroad Company v. Insular Collector of Customs Case No. 167 G.R. No. 30264 (March 12, 1929) Chapter VII, Page 301, oot!ote No. "4 #C$%& Appellee Manila Railroad Company used dust shields made of wool on all of its railway wagons to cover the axle box which protects from dust the oil deposited therein which serves as lubricant of the bearings of the wheel. Under par. 11 of !ec. " of the #ari$ %aw of 1&'&( manufactures manufactures of wool( not otherwise provided for are sub)ect to '* ad valorem. +n the other hand( under par. par. 1&, of same law( vehicles for use on railways and tramways( and detached parts thereof are sub)ect to 1'* ad valorem. Appellant Insular Collector of Customs classi-ed dust shields as manufactures of wool( not otherwise provided for./ Upon appeal( however( the C0I overruled the decision and classi-ed dust shields as detached parts/ of vehicles for use on railways. I%%'& hether dust shields should be classi-ed as manufactures of wool or as detached parts of vehicles for use on railways. *+& 2ust shields are classi-ed for the purposes of tari$ as detached parts of vehicles under par. par. 1&,. It is a general rule in the interpretation interpretation of  statutes levying taxes not to extend their provisions beyond the clear import of the language used. In case of doubt( they should be construed strictly against the government and in favor of the citi3en. And when there is in the same statute a particular enactment and a general one which in its comprehensive sense would include what is embraced in the former( the particular enactment must be operative( and the general one must be ta4en to a$ect only such cases within its general language as are not within the provisions of the particular enactment.

Almeda v. 0lorentino Case No. 10 G.R. No.*23"00 (+ece-er 21, 196/) Chapter VI, Page 26/, oot!ote No. 67 #C$%& RA1"5( the charter of 6asay City 7enacted 8une 91( 1&,:( provides in its !ec. 1 that the ;oard shall have a secretary who shall be appointed by it to serve during the term of o9 of the Administrative Code E prohibition against bringing of animals from infected foreign country A6+!#+%F! 2G0G!GD !ec. 1,,' of the Administrative Code E ;ringing of diseased animal into islands forbidden %ICBAUC+F! 2G0G!GD !ec. 1,>9 of the Administrative Code as amended by Act o. 5'H9 E asote a! !restrcte ;ringing of animals imported from foreign countries into the 6hilippine Islands I%%'&  !ec. 1,>9 of the Administrative Code( as amended by Act o. 5'H9( has been repealed by the implication in !ec. 1,,'. *+& o. !ec. 1,>9( as amended( is of a general nature( while !ec. 1,,' deals with a particular contingency not made the sub)ect of legislation in !ec. 1,>9. !ec. 1,,' therefore is not considered as inconsistent with !ec. 1,>9 and it must be considered as a special Juali-cation of !ec. 1,>9. !ec. 1,,' of the Administrative Code remains in full force and e$ect( being a special law having special contingency not dealt within !ec. 1,>9( which extends merely to the importation of draft animals for purposes of manufacturing serum.

!itchon( et al. v. AJuino Case No. 147 G.R. No. *"/00 (erar 27, 19/6) #C$%& Respondent AJuino( the City Gngineer of Manila( demolished the houses of the six petitioners in this class suit( because their houses were public nuisances/ built on public streets and river beds. 6etitioners contend that under the Civil Code( Art. ,'1 and ,'9( it is the district health o>,&( should be the one followed. R.A. >>,& provides that barangay elections should be held every H years. Be also contends that there is a violation of Art. 1'( !ec. " of the Constitution. I%%'%& 1. hat the term of o