Presumption on Repeals

Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas Vs. The Insular Collector of Customs

G.R No. L-21241, 7 April 1924

Avanceña, J.:

DOCTRINE:

The rule is that a general law does not repeal another special one unless it is so expressly provided, or
they are incompatible.

FACTS:

The appellant brought an action to recover from the Insular Collector Customs the sum he paid in
compliance with the provisions of Sec. 14 of the Act of the Congress entitled “An Act to raise revenue for
the Phil. Islands, and for other purposes.” He alleged that it was illegally collected. The appellant
contends that said law was repealed by Sec. 11 of the Jones Law.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Jones Law impliedly repealed Sec. 14 of the Act of Congress”

RULING:

No, Jones Law did not impliedly repeal Sec. 14 of the Act of Congress.

The rule is, an implied repeal results on the presumption of the intention to repeal, this presumption
arises only when the new and old laws are ABSOLUTELY INCOMPATIBLE. Moreover, a general law does
not repeal another special one unless it is so EXPRESSLY PROVIDED or incompatible.

In the case at bar, Jones Law (general provision) prohibits collection of Export Duties while Sec. 14 of the
Act of Congress (special provision) refers to Wharfage and not Export Duties.

Hence, no illegal collection happened as alleged by the appellant.