The petitioners  and appellants filed with the Court of First Instance of  La  Union  a  petition  for  mandamus against  respondent  and appellee,  Philippine National Bank,  to  compel it to accept  the backpay certificate of petitioner  Marcelino  B.  Florentino  issued  to him by the Republic of the Philippines,  to  pay an indebtedness to the Philippine National Bank in the sum of  P6,800  secured by a  real  estate mortgage on  certain properties.

The case  was  submitted  on  an agreed  statement of facts, which reads as follows:

"Parties herein represented by  counsel, have agreed on the following facts:

"1. That  the petitioners are indebted to the  respondent bank in the amount of P6,800 plus interest, the same having been incurred on January  2, 1953, which is due  on January 2,  1954;

"2. That  the said loan is secured by a mortgage of real  properties ;

"3. That  the petitioner Marcelino B. Florentino is  a  holder of Backpay Acknowledgment No- 1721  dated October  6, 1954, in the amount of P22,896.33  by virtue of  Republic Act No, 897 approved on June  20, 1953;  and

"4. That  on December 27,  1953, petitioners offered to pay  their loan  with the respondent bank with their backpay certificate, but the  respondent  bank,  on December  29,  1953, refused to accept petitioners'  offer to pay  the said  indebtedness with the  latter's backpay certificate;

The  legal  provision involved  is section  2  of Republic Act  No. 897, which provides:

"Sec.  2. Section  two of the said  Act  (Republic Act  304)  as amended  by  Republic  Act Numbered  Eight hundred,  is further amended  to read:

"Sec. 2. The Treasurer of the  Philippines shall,  upon application of all persons specified in section one hereof and  within one  year from the approval of this Act, and under such rules and regulations as may be promulgated by the Secretary  of Finance,  acknowledge " and  file requests for the recognition  of the right to  the salaries or wages  as  provided in section one  hereof,  and notice  of  such acknowledgment shall be issued to the applicant which shall" state the total amount of such salaries or wages due the applicant, and certify that it shall be redeemed by the Government  of the Philippines within ten  years from the date of their  issuance without interest; Provided,  That upon application and subject to such rules and regulations 'as  may be  approved  by the Secretary of Finance a certificate of indebtedness may be issued  by the^ Treasurer of the Philippines covering' the .whole or a part  of  the  total salaries  or wages  the  right to which has  been  duly acknowledged  and  recognized, provided that the face value of such certificate of indebtedness shall  not exceed the amount that  the applicant may need for the payment  of (1)  obligations subsisting at  the time of  the approval  of this  amendatory Act  for  which  the  applicant  may directly be  liable to the Government or to any of its  branches  or instrumentalities, ov the corporations  owned or  controlled by  the Government, or to  any citizen of the  Philippines, or to any association or  corporation organized under the  laws of the Philippines, who may be willing to accept the same for such settlement."

The question raised is whether the clause  "who may be willing to accept the, same for settlement" refers to  all antecedents  "the  Government, any of its branches or instrumentalities, the corporations owned  or  controlled  by the  Government,  etc.,"  or only the  last antecedent "any citizen of the Philippines,  or any association or corporation organized under  the laws of the Philippines"

The  contention of  the  respondent-appellee,  Philippine National  Bank is that said qualifying. clause  refers to all the antecedents, whereas the  appellants' contention ia that it refers only to  the last  antecedent.

Incidentally, it may be stated that one of the purposes of Republic Act  No. 897 was to  include veterans  of  the Philippine Army  and their wives, or orphans among  the beneficiaries  of the Backpay  Law, Republic Act No. 304, in recognition  of their great sacrifices in  the  resistance movement, as shown by the following quotation from  the Congressional Record:

"* * * This  particular  bill,  House  Bill  No.  1228,  has  been filed by this  public servant  for  three objectives:  First,  to serve as a source of financial aid to needy veterans, like crippled or disabled veterans, and to their wives or orphans.  Secondly, to give recognition to the sacrifices of those who joined the last war, and partioularly to those who have given their all for the  cause of the last war.  And thirdly, to eliminate  the discrimination that has been committed either through oversight, or on purpose, against the members  of the Philippine Army, the Philippine Scouts, and guerillas  or  the  so-called  civilian  volunteers,  who  joined  the resistance  movement".  (Congressional  Record  No. 61,  2nd  Congress, 4th Regular Session, May 6, 1958, page 74; quoted  in Appellants' brief, pages 13-14.)

Grammatically,  the qualifying clause refers only to the last antecedent; that is, "any citizen of the Philippines or any association or corporation organized  under  the laws of the  Philippines."   It should be noted  that  there is a comma before the words or to any citizen, etc.," which separates  said  phrase from the preceding ones.

But  even  disregarding  the  grammatical  construction, as done by the appellee, still there are cogent and powerful reasons why the qualifying clause should be limited to the last antecedent.  In the first place,  to make the acceptance of the backpay certificates obligatory upon any citizen, association, or corporation, which are not government entities or owned or controlled by the  government,  would render section 2 of Republic Act No. 897 unconstitutional, for it would amount  to  an impairment of the obligation of  contracts by compelling private  creditors to  accept a sort of promissory note  payable within  ten years with interest at a rate very much lower than the  current or even the legal  one.

The other reason is found in the  Congressional Record, which says:

"Mr. Tible: On page  4, line  17, between the words 'this and 'act', insert the word 'amendatory'.

"Mr. Zosa: What is the purpose of the amendment?

"Mr.  TlBLE: The  purpose  of the amendment is to clarify the provision of section 2.  I believe, gentleman from Cebu, that section 2, as amended in this amendatory bill permits  the use of backpay certificates as payment for obligations  and. indebtedness in favor of the government".  (Congressional  Record No.  64, 2nd  Congress, 4th Regular Session, May 11, 1953, page 41; quoted in Appellants' brief, p. 15.) 

As there would  have been no need to permit by law the  use  of backpay certificates in payment of debts to private persons,  if  they are  willing to accept them, the permission necessarily  refers to the Government of the Philippines, its agencies  or other instrumentalities, etc.

Another reason is that it is  matter of general knowledge that many officials and employees of the Philippine  Government,  who had served during the  Japanese Occupation have already received their backpay certificates and used them for the  payment of obligations to the Government and its entities for debts incurred before the approval of Republic  Act No.  304.

The case of Diokno  vs. Rehabilitation  Finance Corporation, '91  Phil.,  608   (July   11,  1952),  is  different from the present one.  In  the1  Diokno. case, his debt to the Rehabilitation  Finance  Corporation was  incurred on January 27,  1950.   He brought the  action on November 10, 1950, under the  provisions  of Republic Act No. 304 (section  2),' which was approved on June 18, 1948; that is, one year  and almost eight months before Diokno incurred the debt.   Diokno could  not  avail himself of the provisions of section 2 of Act No. 304, because said section provides  that the application for recognition "of backpay, must have been filed within one year  after the  approval of said Act No. 304, and the debt must be subsisting at the  time of  said approval,  Diokno  having incurred the debt on January 27, 1950, and brought action on November  10,  1950.  It  was, therefore,  discretionary  in the Diokno ease  for  the Rehabilitation  Finance  Corporation to accept or not his backpay certificate  in  payment.

The  Secretary of Justice,  in his Opinion No. 228, series of 1948, held that the phrase  "who may be willing to accept the same for such settlement" qualifies only its immediate antecedent and does not apply to the Government or its  agencies.

The appellee  asserts in his brief that the Secretary of Justice, in his letter of June 19, 1953,  remarked that the clause "who may  be willing to accept such  settlement" refers to all the antecedents,  including the  Government . and its agencies. We  are not  impressed with this observation of the Secretary, for we believe that his Opinion No. 226, series of 1948, is correct for the reasons we have stated above.

In the  present case,  Marcelino B. Florentino incurred his debt to the Philippine National Bank on  January 2, 1953; hence, the  obligation  was  subsisting  when the Amendatory Act  No.  897  was approved.  Consequently, the  present case  falls squarely  under the provisions of section 2 of the Amendatory Act No. 897.

In view of the  foregoing, the decision  appealed  from is reversed, and  the  appellee is ordered  to  accept the backpay  certificate  above   mentioned  of  the  appellant, Marcelino B. Florentino, in payment of  his above  cited debt  to the appellee, without interest from December 27, 1953, he date when  he offered said  backpay certificate in payment.  Without  pronouncement   as to  costs.  It  is ordered.

Paras,  C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista, Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.