Aisporna v CA 

(DIGEST)
Aisporna v Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines

G.R. No. L-39419

12 April 1982

TOPIC: Statutory Construction, Doctrine of Associated Words (Noscitur a

Sociis)

FACTS:

Petitioner Aisporna was charged for violation of Section 189 of the

Insurance Act.

Petitioner’s husband, Rodolfo S. Aisporna (Rodolfo) was duly licensed by

the Insurance Commission as agent to Perla Compania de Seguros. Thru
Rodolfo, a 12- month Personal Accident Policy was issued by Perla with
beneficiary to Ana M. Isidro for P50,000. The insured died by violence
during lifetime of policy.

Subsequently, petitioner was charged because the aforementioned policy

was issued with her active participation, which is not allowed because
she did not possess a certificate of authority to act as agent from the
office of the Insurance Commission.

Petitioner contended that being the wife of Rodolfo, she naturally helped
him in his work, and that the policy was merely a renewal and was
issued because her husband was not around when Isidro called by
telephone. Instead, appellant left a note on top of her husband’s desk.
The trial court found petitioner guilty as charged. On appeal, the trial
court’s decisions was affirmed by respondent appellate court, finding
petitioner guilty of a violation of the first paragraph of Sec 189 of the
insurance act.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a person can be convicted of having violated the first

paragraph of Section 189 of the Insurance Act without reference to the
second paragraph of the same section.

RULING:

The petition is meritorious. Petition appealed from is reversed, and

accused is acquitted of the crime charged.

A perusal of the provision in question shows that the first paragraph

thereof prohibits a person from acting as agent, sub-agent or broker in
the solicitation or procurement of applications for insurance without
first procuring a certificate of authority so to act from the Insurance
Commissioner, while its second paragraph defines who an insurance
agent is within the intent of this section and, finally, the third paragraph
thereof prescribes the penalty to be imposed for its violation.

The definition of an insurance agent as found in the second paragraph of

Section 189 is intended to define the word “agent” mentioned in the first
and second paragraphs of the aforesaid section. More significantly, in its
second paragraph, it is explicitly provided that the definition of an
insurance agent is within the intent of Section 189.

Applying the definition of an insurance agent in the second paragraph to

the agent mentioned in the first and second paragraphs would give
harmony to the aforesaid three paragraphs of Section 189. Legislative
intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute as a
whole. The particular words, clauses and phrases should not be studied
as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of the
statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and
in order to produce harmonious whole. A statute must be so construed as
to harmonize and give effect to all its provisions whenever possible. More
importantly the doctrine of associated words (Noscitur a
Sociis) provides that where a particular word or phrase in a statement is
ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various meanings, its true
meaning may be made clear and specific by considering the company in
which it is found or with which it is associated. 

Considering that the definition of an insurance agent as found in the

second paragraph is also applicable to the agent mentioned in the first
paragraph, to receive compensation by the agent is an essential element
for a violation of the first paragraph of the aforesaid section.

In the case at bar, the information does not allege that the negotiation of
an insurance contracts by the accused with Eugenio Isidro was one for
compensation. This allegation is essential, and having been omitted, a
conviction of the accused could not be sustained. It is well-settled in Our
jurisprudence that to warrant conviction, every element of the crime
must be alleged and proved.

The accused did not violate Section 189 of the Insurance Act.