Vera vs.

Cuevas
GR No. L-33693-94
May 31, 1979
Petitioners: MISAEL VERA as Commisioner of Internal Revenue and the FAIR TRADE
BOARD vs.
Respondents: HON. SERAFIN CUEVAS as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila
Branch IV, INSTITUTE OF EVAPORATED FILLED MILK MANUFACTURERS OF THE
PHILIPPINES INC., CONSOLIDATED MILK COMPANY INC., and MILK INDUSTRIES
INC.
Ponente: Associate Justice Pacifico De Castro
RELATION TO STATCON: NASA AMBIGUITIES SYA PERO DI KO ALAM ANONG
SPECIFIC.
FACTS:
The respondent companies are engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of filled
milk products throughout the Philippines. The controversy arose from the order of the
Commisioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) dated September 28, 1961, requiring the respondent
companies to withdraw from the market all of their filled milk products, within 15 days from
the receipt of the order, those containers which do not bear the inscription "This milk is not
suitable for nourishment for infants less than one year of age" as required by Section 169 of
the Tax Code.
Pakibasa nalang ng Section 169
Two cases were then filed as a cause of action by the respondent companies. The cases
were docketed as Civil Case No. 52276 and Special Action No. 52383
Civil Case No. 52276 is an action seeking for preliminary injunction in relation to the
enforcement of Section 169 of the Tax Code.
On February 16, 1963, the lower court issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining
the Comissioner of Internal Revenue from requiring respondent companies to print the
required label in the containers of their filled milk products and from enforcing the provision
in said Section 169 pending the final determination of Civil Case No. 52276.
Special Action No. 52383, on the other hand, is another case involving the respondent
companies seeking to desist the Fair Trade Board from proceeding with the case against them.
The facts of this special civil action show that on December 2, 1962, Antonio R. De Joya and
Sufronio Carrasco, Public Relations Officer and President of the Philippine Association of
Nutrition, respectively, filed with the Fair Trade Board a case against the respondent
companies for misleading advertisement, mislabeling and/or misbranding also for failing to

state in their containers the required inscription of Section 169 and a statement identifying
their product as "imitation milk".
On March 19, 1963, a writ of preliminary injuction was also then issued by the Court of
First Instance. Upon agreement of the parties, the two cases were heard jointly they have
common facts and issues being solved.
On April 16, 1971, the Court of First Instance then decided with finality and perpetually
restrainined the CIR from requiring the companies to print the required inscription and the
Fair Trade Board from proceeding with its investigation filed by the Philippine Association of
Nutrition against the companies.
From the above decision the CIR and Fair Trade Board filed a petition to the Supreme
Court.
ISSUE: Whether Section 169 of the Tax Code apply to "filled milk".
HELD:
It is apparent that Section 169 of the Tax Code does not apply to filled milk. The use of the
qualifying terms "skimmed milk" in the headnote (title of the Section) and "condensed
skimmed milk" in the Section's text, restrict the scope of the general clause "all milk in
whatever form".
In other words, the general clause is restricted by the specific term "skimmed milk" under
the familiar rule of ejusdem generis (page 308 sa book) that general and unlimited terms are
restrained by the particular terms they follow in the statute.
(Di ko alam kung important pa to) The Board of Food Inspection rendered an opinion way
back in 1961 that skilled milk is different from filled milk in that the former the fatty part is
removed while in the latter the fatty part is also removed but substituted eith refined coconut
oil or corn oil or both. This opinion bolsters the Court's stand as to its interpretation of the
scope of Section 169.
(Di ko alam kung important pa to) There is selective enforcement of Section 169 as it is not
enforced upon other manufacturers or sellers of condensed skimmed milk thus violating the
equal protection of the laws and thus unconstitutional. Enforcing the inscription despite proof
that filled milk is safe for infants of all ages would constitute deprivation of property without
due process of law. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court Of First Instance
of Manila Branch IV
YUNG IBANG ISSUES IS ABOUT JURISDICTION NG CIR AND FAIR TRADE BOARD
TSAKA YUNG REPEAL2X DI KO NA SINALI SA FACTS. YUNG INTERPRETATION
LANG KASI ATA ANG RELATED SA STATCON.