18
Statutory Construction PART 1: BASIC PRINCIPLES l. What is Statutory Gonstruction? o Caltex vs. Palomar,G.R. No. L-19650, September 29, 1966 Construction is the art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning and intention of the authors of the law with respect to its application to a given case, where that intention is rendered doubtful, amongst others, by reason of the fact that the given case is not explicitly provided for in the law. ll. When Do You Appl, the Principles of Statutory Construction? o Daoang vs. Municipal Judge of San Nicolas, G.R. /Vo. L-34568 , March 28,1988 o People vs. Mapa, G.R. No. L-22301, August 30, 1967 o United Christian Missionary Society vs. Socra/ Security Commission, G.R. Nos. L-26712-16, December2T, 1969 o Republic Flour Mills, lnc. vs. Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. L- 28463, May 31, 1971 o National Federation of Labor vs. Eisma, G.R. No. L-61236, January 31, 1984 o Kapisanan re mga Manggawa sa Manila Railroad Company Credit Union vs. Manila Railroad Company, February 28, 1979

StatCon Syllabus

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

StatCon Syllabus

Citation preview

Page 1: StatCon Syllabus

Statutory Construction

PART 1:

BASIC PRINCIPLES

l. What is Statutory Gonstruction?

o Caltex vs. Palomar,G.R. No. L-19650, September 29, 1966

Construction is the art or process of discovering and expounding themeaning and intention of the authors of the law with respect to its applicationto a given case, where that intention is rendered doubtful, amongst others, by

reason of the fact that the given case is not explicitly provided for in the law.

ll. When Do You Appl, the Principles of Statutory Construction?

o Daoang vs. Municipal Judge of San Nicolas, G.R. /Vo. L-34568 , March28,1988

o People vs. Mapa, G.R. No. L-22301, August 30, 1967

o United Christian Missionary Society vs. Socra/ Security Commission,G.R. Nos. L-26712-16, December2T, 1969

o Republic Flour Mills, lnc. vs. Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. L-28463, May 31, 1971

o National Federation of Labor vs. Eisma, G.R. No. L-61236, January 31,

1984

o Kapisanan re mga Manggawa sa Manila Railroad Company CreditUnion vs. Manila Railroad Company, February 28, 1979

Page 2: StatCon Syllabus

. Radio Communications of the Phil. vs. NfC, G.R. rVo. L-68729, May 29,

1987

o Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 53766, October 30, 1981

o Republic vs. Toledano, G.R. No. 94147, June 8, 1994

lll. Statutory Construction Should Give Life to the Law

o People vs Que, G.R. No. 120365, December 17, 1996

lV. Which Branch of Government lnterprets the Law?

o Endencia vs. David, G.R. tVo. L-6355, August 31, 1953

V. Requirement of Pul- lication of Statutes

o Tanada vs. Tuvera (Resolution), G.R. rVo. L-63915, December 29, 1986

Vl. Can the Courts Legislate?

o Endencia vs. David, G.R. No. L-6355, August 31, 1953

Part2:

INTRINSIC INTERPRETATION

l. ln accordance with wordings of the specific provisions itself

Page 3: StatCon Syllabus

. Espino vs. Cleofe, G.R. No. L-33410, July 13, 1973

o Tanada vs. Yulo, G.R. No. 43575, May 31, 1935

ll. Giving effect to every word or sentence of a statute

o Manila Lodge vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-41AU, September 30,

1976

o Javellana vs. Kintanar, G.R. No. L-33169, July 30, 1982

Exception: when a particularword may not have any meaning

c Demafiles vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-28396 December 29, 1967

lll. Gonsideration of the statute as a whole

o Commlssloner of Internal Revenue vs. TMX Sa/es /nc., G.R. A/o. 83736,January 15,1992

o Alpha lnvestigation and Security Agency vs. NLRC, G.R. A/o. 111722,

May 27, 1997

o People vs. Eugenio Garcia, G.R. No. L-2873, February 28, 1950

c People vs. Palmon, G.R. rVo. L-2860, May 11, 1950

o Radiola-Toshiba Philippines vs. lntermediate Appellate Court, G.R. rVo.

75222, July 18, 1991

lV. Preamble

o Eugenio vs. Drilon, G.R. rVo. 109404, January 22, 1996

o PNB vs. Office of the Presidenf, G.R. No. 104528, January 18, 1996

o Aglipay vs. Ruiz, G.R. No. 45459, May 13, 1937

Page 4: StatCon Syllabus

. People vs. Purisima, G.R. Nos. L-42050-66, November 20, 1978

o People vs. Echaves, G.R. Nos. L-47757-61, January 28, 1980

o B.E. San Diego vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80223, February 5, 1993

V. Ordinary Meaning Rule

o Manila Herald Publishing vs. Ramos January 18, 1951 G.R. No. L-4268

o Javellana vs. Kintanar July 30, 1982 G.R. no. L-33169

o Victorias Milling Company vs. Socta/ Security Commission G.R. No. L-16704 March 17,1962

o Espino vs. Cleofe, G.R. No. L-33410, July 13, 1973

Vl. Meaning not reflected in the language of the Statute should not beconsidered

o Manikad vs. Tanodbayan February 20, 1984 (+) G.R. No. L-65097

Vll. Doctrine of Necessary lmplication

o Chua vs. Civil Service Commission February 7,1992 (+) G.R. No. 88979

Vlll.Adherence to the letter must not lead to injustice or absurdity

o Pobre vs. Mendietta June 23, 1993 (+) G.R. No. 106677 / G.R. No.106677

o Melchor vs. Commission on Audit August 16, 1991 (+) G.R. No. 95398

o Gommissioner of lnternal Revenue vs. Esso Standard Eastern lnc.April 18, 1989 (+) G.R. No. L-28502-03

Page 5: StatCon Syllabus

. Morales vs. Paredes December29, 1930 (+)G.R. No. 34428

o Lopez and Sons vs. Court of Tax Appeals February 1, 1957 (+)G.R. No.

L-9274

PART 3:

EXTRINSIC INTERPRETATION

ln relation to other laws/rules or the Constitution

o Floresca vs. Philex Mining April 30, 1985(+; G.R. No. L-3A642

o Vda. De Macabenta vs. Davao Stevedore Terminal Company April 30,

1970(+) G.R. No. L-L1489

o G)obeMackay vs- NI-RC June29,19BB{+S G-R- No- 74156

il_ When There are Two Conflicting Theories

Vda. De Macabenta vs. Davao

ilt. Use of Extrinsic Aids/History

o San Miguel Corporation1996(+)G. R. No. 111262

Employees Union vs Confesor September 19,

tv. Legislative debates

Stevedore Terminal Company April 30,

o Gen. Espino vs. Col. Cleofe July 13, 1973(+) G.R. No. L-33410

Page 6: StatCon Syllabus

V. Doctrine of Gontemporaneous Construction

r Philippine Global Communication vs. Hon. Relova October 2, 1980(-)G.R. No. L-52819,

o Alvarez vs. Guingona January 31, 1996 (+) G.R. No. 1 18303.

o Philippine Duplicators, lnc. vs. NLRC November 11, '1993 (+)G.R. No. 110068

Exception:

Power limited to what is provided for in the leqislative enactment

o Teoxon vs. Members of the Board of Administrators June 30, 1970 (+)G.R. No. L-25619

o Boie-Takeda Chemicals, lnc. vs. de la Serna December 10, 1993 (+)G.R. No.92174

ln consonance with conscience and equity

o Casela vs. Crurt of Appeals October 16, 1970(+) G. R. No. L-26754

According to legislative intent or "spirit" of the statute

o Paras vs. COMELEC November4, 1996(+)[G.R. No. 123169

o Eugenio vs. Drilon January 22,1996(+) G.R. No. 109404

r People vs. Conception November29,1922(+) G.R. No. L-19190

o Alonzo vs..lAC May 28,1987(+) G.R. No. 72873

o Matabuena vs. Cervantes March 31,1971(+) G.R. no. L-2877

o Melchor vs. rommission on Audit August 16, 1991 (+) G.R. No. 95398

Page 7: StatCon Syllabus

PART 4:

PARTICULAR STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES (LATINI

l. Verba Legis non est recedendum

o Victoria vs. COMELEC January 10, 1994(+; G.R. 109005; 229 SCRA

269

ll. lnterpretation talis in ambiguis semper frienda est, ut evitatur

inconveniens et absurdum

o commissioner of lnternal Revenue vs. TMX Sales lnc. January 15,

1992(+) G.R. No. 83736

lll. Dura Lex Sed Lex

o Pascualvs. Pascual-Bautista March 25,1992(+) G.R. No. 84240

r People vs. Sarmiento y Largo January 12,1987(-) G.R. No. 72141

EXCEPTION/s:

o Duncan vs. CFI of Rizal February 10, 1976(+) G.R. NO. L-30576

o Alonzo vs. h.'J May 28, 1987(+; G.R. No. L-72873

lV. Ejusdem Generis

Page 8: StatCon Syllabus

Exceptions:

o National Power Corporation vs. Lanao del Sur May 8, 1992(+) G.R. Nos.

60225-26

a

o Mutuc vs. COMELEC November 26, 1970 (+) G R No. L-32717

o Vera vs. Cuevas May 31 , 1979 (+1 G.R. A/o. L-33693-94

o Pilipinas She// vs. Oil lndustry of the Philippines November 13, 19BO (-)

G.R. /Vo. L-41315

o Republic vs. Migrino August 30, 1990 (+) G.R. No. 89483

o Ollada vs. Court of tax Appeals July 24, 1956(-) G.R. No. L-8878

o National Power Corporation vs. Angas May 8, 1992 (+) G.R. Nos.

60225-26

a. When the law expresslv provides for thinqs or persons not to be includedin the enumeration and the person(s) or thinq(s) seeking to be excluded are notincluded in the exception.

o United Sfafes vs. Victor Santo Nino March 11, 1909 (+) G. R.

No. 5000

c Roman Catholic Archbishop vs. Socra/ Security CommissionJanuary 20, 1961 (+) G.R. No. L-l5045

b. Applicable onlv to cases where, except for one qeneral term, all theitems in an enumeration belong to or fall under one specific class.

o Colgate vs. Gimenez January 28, 1961 (+) G R. No. L-14787

o Commission of Cusfoms vs. Court of Tax Appeals January 31,

1972 (+1G.R. No. L-33471

Page 9: StatCon Syllabus

c. The rule that qeneral and unlimited terms are restrained and limited bv

particular recitals when used in connection with them, does nof reguire fhe

reiection of qeneral terms entirelv.

o Cotgate vs. Gimenez January 28, 1961 (+) G R. No. L-l4787

d. Leqislature intended that qeneral words go bevond the class specificallv

designated

o City of Manila vs. Lyric Music House September 24, 1935 (+)

G.R. A/o. 42236 062 Phil 125

V. Noscitur a sociis

o Caltex vs. Palomar 18 SCRA 247 September 29, 1966(+) Caltex v

Palomar GR L-19650

o Aisporna vs. Court of Appeals(+) G R No. L-39419 April 12, 1982

o San Miguelvs. NLRC May 31, 19BB (+) G.R. No. 80774

o Magtajas vs. Pryce Propefties July 20, 1994 (-) G.R. No. 111097

Vl. Expresio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius/lnclusion Unius Est Exclusio Alterius

o Republic vs. Estenzo September 11, 1980(+) G.R. No. L-35376

o Manila Herald Publishing vs. Ramos January 18, 1951(+) G.R. No. L-

4268

o Lerum vs. Cruz November 29, 1950 (+) G.r. No. L-2783

o Vera vs. Fernandez March 30, 1979 (+) G.R. NO. L-31364

o Empire lnsu'rnce Co. Rufino May 31 ,1979 (-) G R. No. L-38268

Page 10: StatCon Syllabus

. Centeno vs. Villalon-Pornillos September 1, 1994 (+) G.R. No. 1 13092

o Torres vs. Ribo May 21, 1948 (+) G.R. No. L-2051

o Hernaez Jr. Vs. lntermediate Appellate Court May 7,1992 (-)G.R. No.

73864

Exceptions:

a. When adherence to such will lead to incongruities and in a violation of

the equal protection clause of the Constitution

o Chua vs. Civil Service Commission February 7, 1992 (+) G.R. No. 88979

b. When enumeration not intended to be exclusive

o Manabat vs. le Aquino April29, 1953 (+) G.R. No. L-5558

o Escribano vs. Avila September 12,1978 (+) G.R. NO. L-30375

c. No reason exists why a person or thing is excluded

o People vs. Manantan July 31 ,1962 (+) G.R. No. L-'14129

o Primero vs. Court of Appeals November 22, 1989 (+) G.R. No. L-48468-69

Vlt. Casus Omissus Pro Omiso Habendus Est

e. When adherence to such will lead to inconqruities and in a violation ofthe equal protection clause of the Constitution

Page 11: StatCon Syllabus

. Chua vs. Civil Service Commission February 7, 1992 (+) G.R. No. 88979

f. Omission has not been clearlv established

o People vs. Manantan July 31 ,1962 (+) G.R. No. L-14129

Vlll. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos

o Philippine British Assurance vs. IAC May 29, '1987(+) G.R. No. 72005

o Banco de Oir vs. Equitable Bank(+) G.R. No. 74917 January 20, 1988

o Spouses Salenillas vs. Court of Appeals January 31, 1989(+) G.R. No

78687

o Demafiles vs. COMELEC December29,1967 (+) G.R. No. L-28396

o Colgate vs. Gimenez January 28,1961(+) G.R. No. L-14787

lX. lndex animisermo est

oAla Mode Garments, lnc. vs. NLRC February 17, 1997(+) G.R. No.

122165

o Victoria vs. COMELEC January 10, 1994(+)c.R. NO. 109005

PART 5:

CONSTRUCTION OF SPECIFIC TYPES OF LEGISLATION

Page 12: StatCon Syllabus

l. Constitution

o Sarmiento vs. Mison December 17, 1987 (+) G.R. NO. 79974

o Gold Creek Mining Corporation vs. Rodriguez September 28, 1938 (+)

G.R. No.45859

ll. Labor laws

o Floresca vs. Philex Mining April 30, 1985(+) G.R. NO. L-30642

lll. Penal laws

o Enrile vs. Salazar June 5, 1990(+)G.R. No. 92163

o Ursua vs. Court of Appeals April 10, 1996(+) G.R. NO. 112170

o Centeno vs. Villalon-Pornillos September 1 , 1994 (+) G.R. No. 1 13092

o People vs. Garcia February 28,1950 (+) G.R. No.L-2873

r People vs. Purisima November 20, 1978 (+) G.R. No. L-42050-66

lV. Tax laws

o Commissioner of Customs vs. Philippine Acetylene Co. May 29, 1971(+)

G.R. No. L-22443

o Davao Light &Power Co. vs, Commissioner of Customs March 29,

1972(+) G.R. No. L-28739 and L-28902

V. Election laws

o Villanueva v- COMELEC December4, '1985 (+) G.R. NO. L-54718

Page 13: StatCon Syllabus

PART 6:

INTERPRETATION OF WORDS

l. "Exclusively" vs. "Principally"

o Alfon vs. Republic May 29, 1980 (+) G.R. No. L-51201

ll. "Shall"

o Ramos vs. Court of Appeals October 30, 1981(+) G.R. No. L-53766

o Baranda vs. Gustilo September 26, 1988 (+) G.R. No. 81163

o Bunye vs. Escareal September 10, 1993 (-) G.R. no. 110216

Exception:

When "shall" is construed as "mav" or merelv permissive

o Diokno vs. Rehabilitation and Finance Corporation July 11,1952 (+) G.R.

No. L-4712

o San Carlos Milling vs. Commissioner of lnternal Revenue November 23,

1993 (+)G.R. NO. 103379

o Berces vs. Guingona (+) G R. No. 112099 February 21,1995

lll. "May"

Page 14: StatCon Syllabus

. Federation of Free Workers vs. lnciong May 11, 1988(-) G.R. NO. L-

48848

o Capativs. C ampo April30, 1982 (+) G.R. No. L-28742

o Philippine Consumer's Foundation lnc. vs. NTC August 18, 1984 (+)

G.R. No. L-63318

o Yasin vs. Judge, Shariah District Court February 23, 1995 (-) G.R. NO.

94986

o People vs. Court of Appeals March 23, 1995 (+) G. R. No. 1 16623

Exception:

lnterpretation depends upon the context

o San Carlos Milling vs. Commissioner of lnternal Revenue November 23,

1993 (+)G.R. NO. 103379

When it involves divestiture of propertv "may" construed as mandatory

o Llenares vs. Valdeavella October 4, 1994 (+) G.R. NO. L-21572

lV. "Every"

o National Housing Corporation vs. Juco January 17, 1985 (+) G.R. NO. L-

6431 3

V. "Previously"

o Rura vs. Lopena June 19, 1985 (+) G.R. Nos. L-69810-14

Page 15: StatCon Syllabus

Vl. "Term"

o Appari vs. Court of Appeals January 31, 1984 (+) G.R. No. L-30057

Vll. "And" (conjunctive)

o Mapa vs. Arroyo July 5, 1989 (+; G.R. No. 78585

Vlll. "Or" (disjunctive)

o People vs. Martin (+) May 23,1951G.R. No. L-3002

a

When the word "or" means expository or interpretative of precedinq term:

o San Miguel vs. Municipal CouncilJuly 11 ,1973 (+) G.R. No. L-30761

PART 7:

RULES OF PREFERENCE

L Title vs. Text

o Director of Lands vs. Abaja October 21, 1936(+) G.R. No. 42134 63 Phil

559

o People vs. Yabut September 27,1933 (+) G.R. No. 39085 September27, 1933

Page 16: StatCon Syllabus

ll. English Text vs. Spanish Text of the Law

o Employees' Club vs. ChinaBank July 27, 1934 (+) G.R. No. L-40188

lll. Doctrine of last ant-cedent

o Roldan vs. Villaroman October 18, '1939 (+) G.R. No.46825 069 Phil 12

o Mapa vs. Arroyo July 5, 1989 (+; G.R. No. 78585

lV. Generalvs. Special

o Manila Railroad vs. Collector of Customs March 12, 1929 (+) G.R. NO. L-

30264

V. lmplied repeals

o National Power Corporation vs. Lanao del Sur May 8, 1992(+) G.R. Nos.

60225-26

o National Power Corporation vs. Angas May 8, 1992 (+) G.R. Nos. 60225-26

o People vs. Garcia February 28, 1950 (+) G.R. No. L-2873

PART 8:

PRESUMPTIONS

l. Grammatical Reading of the Statute

Page 17: StatCon Syllabus

. Gen. Espino vs. Col. Cleofe July 13, 1973(+) G.R. No. L-33410

ll. Knowledge of the Meaning of the Words Adopted

o Aparri vs. Court of Appeals January 31 , 1984 (+) G.R. NO. L-30057

lll. Adopted Gonsistent with other Laws

o People vs. Quijada(+) G.R. Nos. 115008-09. July 24,1996

lV. Validity/Gonstitutio.rality

o National Housing Authority vs. Hon. Reyes June 29, 1983(+) G.R. No. L-

49439

o Gonzales vs. Katigbak July 22,1985(-) G.R. No. L-69500

r People vs. Nazario August 31, 1988(+) G.R. No. L-44143

o Araneta vs. Dinglasan August 26, 1949(+) G.R. No. L-2044

o Alvarez vs. Guingona January 31, 1996 (+) G.R. No. 1 18303

V. Ultimate Consideration: All Statutory Construction Principles ALWAYSyield to the manifest intent of the law

o Litex Employees Association vs. Eduvala September 22, 1977(+) G.R. No. L-

41106

o Roman Catholic Archbishop vs. Social Security Commission January 20, 1961(+)G.R. No. L-15045

o Genato Commercial Corporation vs. Court of Tax Appeals September 29, 1958

(+) G.R. No. L-11727

o Cagayan Valley vs. Court of Appeals November 8, '1989 (+) G.R. No. 78413

o Escribano vs. Avila September 12,1978 (+) G.R. No. L-30375

Page 18: StatCon Syllabus

. City of Manila vs. Lyric Music House September 24, 1935 (+) G.R. NO. 42236