SEC. 5. Rules of Interpretation.

- In the interpretation of the

provisions of this Code, the following rules shall
apply:chanrobles virtual law library
(a)Any provision on a power of a local government unit shall
be liberally interpreted in its favor, and in case of doubt, any
question thereon shall be resolved in favor of devolution of
powers and of the lower local government unit. Any fair and
reasonable doubt as to the existence of the power shall be
interpreted in favor of the local government unit concerned;|
(b) In case of doubt, any tax ordinance or revenue measure
shall be construed strictly against the local government unit
enacting it, and liberally in favor of the taxpayer. Any tax
exemption, incentive or relief granted by any local
government unit pursuant to the provisions of this Code shall
be construed strictly against the person claiming it.cralaw
(c) The general welfare provisions in this Code shall be
liberally interpreted to give more powers to local government
units in accelerating economic development and upgrading
the quality of life for the people in the community;
(d) Rights and obligations existing on the date of effectivity
of this Code and arising out of contracts or any other source
of prestation involving a local government unit shall be
governed by the original terms and conditions of said
contracts or the law in force at the time such rights were
vested; and cralaw
(e)In the resolution of controversies arising under this
Code where no legal provision or jurisprudence
applies, resort may be had to the customs and
traditions in the place where the controversies take
place.

Yamada vs. Manila Railroad & Bachrach Garage

Facts: In January 1913, Yamada et al hired a taxi owned and

operated by Bachrach Garage so that they may travel to
Cavite Viejo. The trip was safe going to said place but when
they were going back from said place the taxi was hit by a
train owned by Manila Railroad. Yamada et al sued the driver,
Bachrach, and Manila Railroad. They claimed that the driver
was negligent as he did not slow down while he was
approaching the railroad tracks. The driver said there was no
way for him to see the train coming because of the tall
growing bushes and trees. Bachrach said that it is not liable
as an employer because prior to hiring the driver, the driver
has been of good record for 5 years and had had no traffic
infractions prior to the collision; and that the negligence of
the driver is also imputable to Yamada et al they being the
ones in control of the vehicle; that Yamada et al should have
controlled the driver and instructed him to slow down. Manila
Railroad said that it is not liable as well because its engineers
provided proper warning signals on their approach and that
there were no tall trees or bushes at the time of the accident.
Yamadas counsel presented the president of Bachrach who
alleged that all their drivers habitually drove their taxis over
railroad crossings without slowing down or investigating
whether a train is coming such practice being allowed and
tolerated by Bachrach.
ISSUE: Whether or not Bachrach Garage Manila railroad
should be liable.

HELD: It was established that the driver was negligent. A

prudent driver should have slowed down approaching a
railroad crossing regardless if he could see a train or not
regardless of the presence of tall bushes.
Manila Railroad and its employees are not negligent as
showed by the evidence which were uncontroverted hence
no liability can be had against them.

Bachrach Garage however is liable for damages as an

employer. Although they did establish that they have done
their diligence in properly selecting their driver and in
providing said driver with a good car, they have failed to
provide proper supervision and control over their employee.
Bachrach Garage did not perform its full duty when it
furnished a safe and proper car and a driver with a long and
satisfactory record. It failed to comply with one of the
essential requirements of the law of negligence in this
jurisdiction, that of supervision and instruction, including the
promulgation of proper rules and regulations and the
formulation and publication of proper instructions for their
guidance in cases where such rules and regulations and
instructions are necessary.
Bachrachs contention that Yamada et al were also negligent
because they failed to properly instruct the driver is
untenable. Those on a cab do not become responsible for the
negligence of the driver if they exercise no control over him
further than to indicate the route they wish to travel or the
places to which they wish to go. Note that in order to impute
negligence to a passenger, at least one of these two things
must exist:
That the driver is actually the passengers agent in all
respect
The passengers have cooperated in producing the injury
complained of.

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR

Natural Resources and Environmental Law;
Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine

Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for

prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers,
assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of
Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules
and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail certain
provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these
amount to an unlawful deprivation of the States ownership
over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other
natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine
embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.
ISSUE: Whether or not the IPRA law is unconstitutional
HELD: No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the
Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there is nothing in the law
that grants to the ICCs/IPs ownership over the natural
resources within their ancestral domain. Ownership over the
natural resources in the ancestral domains remains with the
State and the rights granted by the IPRA to the ICCs/IPs over
the natural resources in their ancestral domains merely gives
them, as owners and occupants of the land on which the
resources are found, the right to the small scale utilization of
these resources, and at the same time, a priority in their
large scale development and exploitation.
Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not
part of the lands of the public domain. They are private lands
and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title, which is a concept
of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal
grant from the State. However, the right of ownership and
possession by the ICCs/IPs of their ancestral domains is a
limited form of ownership and does not include the right to
alienate the same.

GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

FACTS:

Chung Fu Industries (Phils) v. Courtof Appeals

FACTS:
-May 17, 1989: petitioner Chung Fu Industries and private
respondents Roblecor Philippines forged a construction
agreement where in Roblecor committed to construct and
finish on Dec. 31, 1989, ChungFus industrial/factory complex
in Tanawan, Cavite in consideration of P42M
-It was stipulated also that in the event of disputes, the
parties will be subjected to an arbitration resolution, wherein
the arbitrator will be chosen by both parties
-Apart from the construction agreement, the parties also
entered into ancillary contracts for the construction of a
dormitory and support facilities with a contract price of 3,
875, 285.00 to be completed on or before October 31,1989
and the other dated Aug. 12,1989 for the installation of
electrical, water and hydrant systems at the plant site, priced
at12.1M and requiring completion thereof one month after
civil work shave been finished
-However, Roblecor failed to complete the work despite the
extension allowed by Chung Fu-Subsequently, Chung Fu had
to take over the construction when it had become evident
that Roblecor was not in a position to fulfill the obligationClaiming an unsatisfied account of P10, 500, 000 and unpaid
progress billings of P 2, 370, 179.23,Roblecor filed a petition
for Compulsory Arbitration with prayer for TRO before
respondent RTC ,pursuant to the arbitration clause in the
construction agreement
-Chung Fu moved to dismiss the petition and further prayed
for the quashing of the restraining order
-Subsequent negotiations between the parties eventually led
to the formulation of an arbitration agreement which includes
that the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and
unappealable, therefore,there shall be no further judicial
recourse if either party disagrees with the whole or any part
of the arbitrators award
-RTC approved the arbitration agreement and Asuncion was
appointed as the sole arbitrator-Arbitrator ruled in favor of

the contractor Roblecor

-Chung Fu moved to remand the case for further hearing and
asked for a reconsideration of the judgment award claiming
that Asuncion committed 12 instances of grave error by
disregarding the provisions of the parties contract
-RTC denied Chung Fus Motion to Remand and approved
Roblecors Motion for Confirmation of Award
-Chung Fu elevated the case to CA which denied the petitionHence, this petition to the SupremeCourt
ISSUES:
1.WON the subject arbitration award is beyond the ambit of
the courts power of judicial review
2.WON respondent court committed grave abuse of
discretion
HELD/RATIO:
-No
-Its stated explicitly under Art. 2044 of the Civil Code that
the finality of the arbitrators award is not absolute and
without exceptions
-Where the conditions described in Arts. 2038,2039 and 2040
applicable to both compromises and arbitrations are
obtaining, the arbitrators award maybe annulled or
rescinded.
-Additionally, Sections 24and 25 of the Arbitration Law
provide grounds for vacating, Modifying or rescinding an
arbitrators award
G.R. No. L-14078 March 7, 1919 RUBI, ET AL.
(manguianes), plaintiffs, vs. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD
OF MINDORO, defendant. D. R. Williams & Filemon
Sotto for plaintiff. Office of the Solicitor-General
Paredes for defendant.

Rubi Vs Prob Brd of Mindoro.

FACTS : February 1, 1917, the provincial board of Mindoro

adopted resolution No. 25. That said resolution No. 25 (series
1917) of the provincial board of Mindoro was approved by the
Secretary of the Interior of February 21, 1917. December 4,
1917, the provincial governor of Mindoro issued executive
order No. 2. Rubi and those living in his rancheria have not
fixed their dwelling within the reservation of Tigbao and are
liable to be punished in accordance with section 2759 of Act
No. 2711. That Rubi and those living in his rancheria have not
fixed their dwelling within the reservation of Tigbao and are
liable to be punished in accordance with section 2759 of Act
No. 2711. That the undersigned has not information that
Doroteo Dabalos is being detained by the sheriff of Mindoro
but if he is so detained it must be by virtue of the provisions
of articles Nos. 2145 and 2759 of Act No. 2711. It thus
appears that the provincial governor of Mindoro and the
provincial board thereof directed the Manguianes in question
to take up their habitation in Tigbao, a site on the shore of
Lake Naujan, selected by the provincial governor and
approved by the provincial board. The action was taken in
accordance with section 2145 of the Administrative Code of
1917, and was duly approved by the Secretary of the Interior
as required by said action. Petitioners, however, challenge
the validity of this section of the Administrative Code. This,
therefore, becomes the paramount question which the court
is called upon the decide.
ISSUE : WON Whether or not the said law is constitutional
HELD : By a vote of five to four, the Supreme Court
sustained the constitutionality of this section of the
Administrative Code. Among other things, it was held that
the term non-Christian should not be given a literal

meaning or a religious signification, but that it was intended

to relate to degrees of civilization. The term non-Christian it
was said, refers not to religious belief, but in a way to
geographical area, and more directly to natives of the
Philippine Islands of a low grade of civilization. On the other
hand, none of the provisions of the Philippine Organic Law
could have had the effect of denying to the Government of
the Philippine Islands, acting through its Legislature, the right
to exercise that most essential, insistent, and illimitable of
powers, the sovereign police power, in the promotion of the
general welfare and the public interest. when to advance the
public welfare, the law was found to be a legitimate exertion
of the police power, And it is unnecessary to add that the
prompt registration of titles to land in the Philippines
constitutes an advancement of the public interests, for,
besides promoting peace and good order among landowners
in particular and the people in general, it helps increase the
industries of the country, and makes for the development of
the natural resources, with the consequent progress of the
general prosperity. And these ends are pursued in a special
manner by the State through the exercise of its police power.
The Supreme Court held that the resolution of the provincial
board of Mindoro was neither discriminatory nor class
legislation, and stated among other things: . . . one cannot
hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered with
when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is
considered. They are restrained for their own good and the
general good of the Philippines. Nor can one say that due
process of law has not been followed. To go back to our
definition of due process of law and equal protection of the
laws, there exists a law; the law seems to be reasonable; it is
enforced according to the regular methods of procedure
prescribed; and it applies alike to all of a class.