Manila Jockey Club v Games and Amusement Board 107 Phil 151

Facts:
Republic Act No. 1502 increased the sweepstakes draw and races for PCSO
from six to twelve, without specifying the days on which they are to be run.
To accommodate the additional races GAB resolved to reduce the number of
Sundays assign to private entities by six.
Petitioner protested that the additional 6 races be held on the 12 Saturdays
not reserved for any private entity or particular charitable institution or any
other day of the week besides Sunday, Saturday and legal holiday
Issue:
Does the petitioner have vested rights on the unreserved Sundays
Whether or not the additional races must be inserted in club races

Held:
The appellant has no vested right to the unreserved Sundays, the wordings
of Sec 4 RA 309 as amended by RA 983 are merely permissive since the GAB
reserves the right to determine the holding of any event
In the interpretation of a legal document, especially a statute, unlike in the
interpretation of an ordinary written document, it is not enough to obtain
information to the intention or meaning of the author or authors, but also to
see whether the intention or meaning has been expressed in such a way as to
give it legal effect and validity. The purpose of the inquiry, is not only to know
what the author meant by the language he used, but also to see that the
language used sufficiently expresses that meaning.
The language of Republic Act No. 1502 in authorizing the increase, clearly
speaks of regular sweepstakes draws and races. If the intention were to
authorize additional sweepstakes draws only in which could be inserted in
the club races, the law would not have included regular races; and since
regular sweepstakes races were specifically authorized, and it would be
confusing, inconvenient, if not impossible to mix these sweepstakes races
with the regular club races all on the same day (and it has never been done
before), the conclusion seems inevitable that the additional sweepstakes
draws and races were intended to be held on a whole day, separate and
apart from the club races.

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Social Security Commission

Facts:
The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila filed a request with Social Security
Commission to exempt from compulsory coverage of RA 1161 (Social
Security Law of 1954) the catholic charities and all religious and charitable
institutions and organizations which are directly or indirectly run and
operated by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila.
The request was based on the claim that the act pertains to a labor act which
does not cover religious and charitable institution hence confined to business
and proprietary activities.
They contends that the term "employer" as defined in the law should
following the principle of ejusdem generis be limited to those who carry on
"undertakings or activities which have the element of profit or gain, or which
are pursued for profit or gain,
SSC in its Resolution no. 572 series of 1958 denied the request
Issue:
Is the rule of ejusdem generis can be applied in this case.
Held:
The rule of ejusdem generis applies only where there is uncertainty. It is not
controlling where the plain purpose and intent of the Legislature would
thereby be hindered and defeated.
section 8 of Social Security Laws enumerates exceptions to the law such as
employment under the Government, or any of its political subdivisions,
branches or instrumentalities including corporations owned and controlled by
the Government, domestic service in a private home, employment purely
casual, etc. in which the petitioner is not included.

It is to be noted that when Republic Act No. 1161 was enacted, services
performed in the employ of institutions organized for religious or charitable
purposes were by express provisions of said Act excluded from coverage
thereof (sec. 8, par. [j] subpars. 7 and 8). That portion of the law, however,
has been deleted by express provision of Republic Act No. 1792, which took
effect in 1957. This is clear indication that the Legislature intended to include
charitable and religious institutions within the scope of the law.

David Vs. Commission on elections

Facts:
David the barangay chairman and president of Liga ng Barangay sa Pilipinas
filed a petition to prohibit the holding of barangay elections scheduled on the
second Monday of May 1997.
Liga ng mga Barangay QC Chapter sought judicial review to declare as
unconstitutional certain laws including Sec 43 of the LGC, COMELEC
resolutions 2880 and 2887, and budget appropriations for elections, which all
essentially limited the term of barangay officials to three (3) years.
Petitioners contend that under RA 6679 term of barangay officials is for five
years , although the local government unit reduce the term of all local
elective officials to three years in which such reduction does not apply to
barangay
Issue:
Which law governs the term of office of barangay RA 6679 or RA 7160
Held:
There is a clear legislative intent and design to limit the term to three years
RA 7160 was enacted later than RA 6679 thus in case of conflict the later
enactment prevails
Law is repealed by subsequent ones
It is clear and express statements of congress that barangay officials shall be
elected on May of 1997, with their appropriation of 400million to cover the
expense of the said election and of a general registration of voters shall be
held following the barangay election.
Judicial decision form parts of legal system of the Philippines, Paras vs.
Comelec expressed that elections shall be on May 1997.
Casco Phil Chemical Co vs. Gimenez
Fact:

 In pursuant to Republic Act No. 2609 (Foreign Exchange margin Fee Law), the
Central Bank of the Philippines fixed a uniform margin fee of 25% foreign
exchange transactions on July 1, 1959,
Petitioner Casco Philippine Chemical Co., Inc., a manufacturer of resin glues,
had bought foreign exchange for the importation of urea and formaldehyde
raw materials for the said glues and paid for the required margin fees.
Relying upon Resolution No. 1529 dated November 3, 1959 declaring that
separate importation of urea and formaldehyde is exempt from fee.
The petitioner sought for a refund of the margin fees that had been paid
which was denied by the Auditor of the said Bank stating that the claim was
not in accordance with the provisions of section 2, paragraph XVIII of R.A.
2609.
Issue:
Whether urea and formaldehyde are exempt by law from the payment of
the aforesaid margin fee

Held:
Ureaformaldehyde is not exempt from law. For it is different from urea and
formaldehyde the former being the finished product and not the main raw
materials in the production of the said glue.
The pertinent portion of Section 2 of Republic Act No. 2609 reads:
The margin established by the Monetary Board pursuant to the provision of
section one hereof shall not be imposed upon the sale of foreign exchange for
the importation of the following:
XVIII. Urea formaldehyde for the manufacture of plywood and hardboard
when imported by and for the exclusive use of end-users.
It is well settled that the enrolled bill which uses the term urea
formaldehyde instead of urea and formaldehyde is conclusive upon the
courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by Congress and approved
by the President. The courts cannot speculate that there had been an error or
mistake in the printing of the bill as this shall violate the principle of
separation of powers. Shall there have been any error in the printing, the
remedy is by amendment or curative legislation, not by judicial decree.