STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION DOCTRINES
Construction, defined
Caltex v. Palomar
Construction is the art or process of discovering and expounding the
meaning and the 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.
Legislative Intent/Ratio Legis Dura Lex Sed Lex when the law is clear and
unambiguous, there is no room for interpretation/Plain Meaning Rule/Spirit
and Purpose of Law
RCBC v. IAC
When the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no
room for construction or interpretation. Only when the law is ambiguous
or of doubtful meaning may the court interpret or construe its true
intent. A statute is ambiguous if it is admissible of two or more possible
meanings, in which case, the Court is called upon to exercise one of its
judicial functions, which is to interpret the law according to its true
intent.
Regalado v. Yulo
The intent of the Legislature is to be ascertained and enforced is the
intent expressed in the words of the statute. The courts cannot assume
some purpose in no way expressed and then construe the statute to
accomplish this supposed intention.
Matabuena v. Cervantes
The principle of statutory construction that what is within the spirit of
the law is as much a part of it as what is written; whatever omission may
be apparent in an interpretation purely literal of the language used must
be remedial by an adherence to its avowed objective.
Del Mar v. Pagcor
In the interpretation of statutes, it is not proper or permissible to inquire
into the motives which influenced the legislative body, except insofar as
such motives are disclosed by the statute itself.
Cecilleville Realty and Service Corp. v. Court of Appeals
Where the law is unambiguous and clear, it must be applied according to
its plain and obvious meaning, according to its express terms.
Ursua v. Court of Appeals
There exists a valid presumption that undesirable consequences were
never intended by a legislative measure and that a construction of which
the statute is fairly susceptible is favored which will avoid all
objectionable, mischievous, indefensible, wrongful, evil and injurious
consequences.
Garcia v. Social Security Commission Legal and Collection
The spirit, rather than the letter of a law determines construction of a
provision of law it is a cardinal rule in statutory construction that in
interpreting the meaning and scope of a term used in the law, a careful
review of the whole law involved, as well as the intendment of the law,
must be made.
Francisco, Jr. v. Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang
Pilipino, Inc.
If the plain meaning of the word is not found to be clear, resort to other
aids is available. The proper interpretation of a constitutional provision
depends more on how it was understood by the people adopting it than
the framers understanding thereof.
Ut res magis valeat quam pereat
JMM Promotions and Management Inc., v. NLRC
In interpreting a statute, care should be taken that every part be given
effect. Construction that would render a provision inoperative should be
avoided and inconsistent provisions should be reconciled whenever
possible as parts of the harmonious whole.
Wisdom/Practicality of Law
RCBC v. IAC
The holding that suspension of actions for claims against a corporation
under rehabilitation takes effect as soon as the application or a petition
for rehabilitation is filed with the SEC may, to some, be more logical
and wise but unfortunately, such is incongruent with the clear language
of the law. To insist on such ruling, no matter how practical and noble,
would be to encroach upon legislative prerogative to define the wisdom
of the law plainly judicial legislation.
Lacson v. Roque, et al.
Mere silence of the statute with respect to notice and hearing will not
justify the removal of such an officer without knowledge of the charges
and an opportunity to be heard.
Quintos v. Lacson, et al.
As long as laws do not violate any Constitutional provision, it is the duty
of the courts to interpret and apply them regardless of whether or not
they are wise and salutary. If the law is deemed unwise and detrimental
to the discipline and efficiency of public officers, proper representations
and requests may be made to the Legislature.
Executive/Administrative Interpretation
UP v. Court of Appeals
The previous uncontested acts of the Civil Service authorities in
endorsing to the University for action the administrative cases of
Hospital employees Fernandez and Gorospe, and declaring that the
Bureau had no disciplinary jurisdiction over said employees in view of
the provisions of the University charter, constitutes contemporary
interpretation of highly persuasive character.
Enrique v. Court of Appeals
Great weight accorded to interpretation or construction of a statute by
the government agency called upon to implement the same.
Literal Interpretation
Bello v. CA
This Court has cautioned against narrowly interpreting a statute as to
defeat the purpose of the legislator and stressed that it is of the essence
of judicial duty to construe statutes so as to avoid such deplorable result
(of injustice or absurdity) and that therefore a literal interpretation is to
be rejected if it would be unjust or lead to absurd results. In the
construction of its own Rules of Court, this Court is all the more so
bound to liberally construe them to avoid injustice, discrimination and
unfairness and to supply the void that is certainly within the spirit and
purpose of the Rule to eliminate repugnancy and inconsistency.
Salaria v. Buenviaje
Construction by Executive Branch of government of a particular law
although not binding upon courts must be given weight as the
construction comes from that branch of government called upon to
implement the law.
Valid in part, void in part
Barrameda v. Moir
The general rule is that where part of a statute is void as repugnant to
the Organic Law, while another part is valid, the valid portion, if
separable from the invalid, may stand and be enforced.
Tatad v. Secretary of the Department of Energy
A separability clause states that if for any reason, any section or
provision of the statute is held to be unconstitutional or (invalid), the
other section(s) or provision(s) of the law shall not be affected thereby.
It is a legislative expression of intent that the nullity of one provision
shall not invalidate the other provisions of the act. Such a clause is not,
however, controlling and the courts may, in spite of it, invalidate the
whole statute where what is left, after the void part, is complete and
workable.
Ambiguity, construed against party who caused it
Reyes v. dela Cruz
 If there is any ambiguity or obscurity in the interpretation and meaning
of a contract, the same shall not favour the party who cause such
ambiguity or obscurity.
Ildefonso v. Sibal
Agreements must be construed according to the intention of the parties.
Qua Chee Gan v. Law Union and Rock Insurance Company Ltd.
The contract of insurance is one of perfect good faith not for the insured
alone, but equally so for the insurer; in fact, it is more so for the latter,
since its dominant bargaining position carries with it stricter
responsibility, By reason of the exclusive control of the insurance
company over the terms and phraseology of the insurance contract, the
ambiguity must be strictly interpreted against the insurer and liberally in
favour of the injured, especially to avoid a forfeiture.
Baylon v. Court of Appeals
If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt as to the
intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation
shall control.
Law does not distinguish, Courts should not distinguish
Colgate Palmolive Phil., Inc. v. Gimenez
General terms may be restricted by specific words, with the result that
the general language will be limited by specific language which indicates
the statutes object and purpose. The rule is applicable only to cases
where, except for one general term, all the items in an enumeration
belong to or fall under one specific class.
Where the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish.
The rule of construction, that general and unlimited terms are restrained
and limited by particular recitals, when used in connection with them,
does not require the rejection of the general term entirely. It is intended
merely as an aid in ascertaining the legislative intent and is to be
considered in connection with other rules of construction.
Phil. British Assurance Co. v. IAC
There should be no distinction in the application of a statute where none
is indicated. For courts are not authorized to distinguish where the law
makes no distinction. They should instead administer the law not as they
think it ought to be but as they find it and without regard to
consequences.
A corollary of the principle is the rule that where the law does not make
any exception, courts may not except something therefrom, unless there
is compelling reason apparent in the law to justify it.
Mandatory and Directory
Pimentel, Jr. v. Aguirre
The provision in the Local Government Code providing for such release
uses the word shall and as a rule, the term shall is a word of
command that must be given compulsory meaning.
Marcelino v. Cruz
Constitutional provisions are directory, and not mandatory, where they
refer to matters merely procedural.
Brehm v. Republic
Mandatory provisions prevail over directory ones.
Expressio unius est exclusion alterius
City Government of San Pablo, Laguna v. Reyes
It is a basic precept in statutory construction that the express mention of
one person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all others.
People v. Moro Macarandang
Peace officers are exempted from the requirements relating to the
issuance of license to possess firearms.
Peope v. Mapa
The fact that a person, found in possession of an unlicensed firearm, is a
secret agent of a provincial governor does not exempt him from criminal
liability. The law does not contain any exception for a secret agent.
People v. Santayama
At the accuseds apprehension, the doctrine then prevailing is
enunciated in the case of People v. Macarandang, holding that the
appointment of a civilian as secret agent to assist in the maintenance of
peace and order campaigns and detection of crimes sufficiently puts him
within the category of a peace officer equivalent even to a member of
the municipal police expressly covered by Section 879. The case of
People v. Mapa revoked the doctrine in Macarandang case only on
August 30, 1967. Under the Macarandang rule therefore obtaining at
the time of the accuseds appointment as secret agent, he incurred no
criminal liability for possession of the pistol.
Ejusdem Generis
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. SSS
The rule of ejusdem generis applies only when there is uncertainty. It is
not controlling where the plain purpose and intent of the lawmaking
body would thereby hindered and defeated.
Mutuc v. COMELEC
Under the well-known principle of ejusdem generis, the general words
following any enumeration being applicable only to things of the same
kind or class as those specificially referred to.
Statement of Individual Legislator
Casco Phil. Chemical Co. v. Gimenez
Individual statements made by Senators on the floor of the Senate do
not necessarily reflect the view of the Senate. Much less do they
indicate the intent of the House of Representatives.
Manila Jockey Club Inc. v. Games and Amusement Board
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 as 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 legal
act, so to speak, is made up of two elements an internal and an
external one; it originates in intention and is perfected by expression.
Failure of the latter may defeat the former.
Noscitur a sociis
Nagtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp., Inc.
Under the rule of noscitur a sociis, a word or pharse should be
interpreted in relation to, or given the same meaning of, words with
which it is associated, and, since the word gambling is associated with
and other prohibited games of chance, under Sec. 458 of the Local
Government Code, the word should be read as referring only to illegal
gambling.
AND/OR
Romulo, Mabanta v. Home Development and Mutual Fund
The term and/or means that the effect shall be given to both the
conjunctive and and the disjunctive or; or that one word or the
other may be taken accordingly as one or the other will best effectuate
the purpose intended by the legislature as gathered from the whole
statute. The term is used to avoid a construction which by the use of the
disjunctive or alone will exclude the combination of several of the
alternatives or by the use of the conjunctive and will exclude the
efficacy of any one of the alternatives standing alone. It is accordingly
ordinarily held that the intention of the legislature in using the term
and/or is that the word and and the word or are to be used
interchangeably.
Retroactivity
Espiritu v. Cipriano
Statutes are not to be construed as intended to have a retroactive effect
so as to affect pending proceedings unless such intent is expressly
declared or clearly and necessarily implied from the language of
enactment.
Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est
People v. Manantan
 The rule of casus omissus pro omisso habendus est can operate and
apply only if and when the omission has been clearly established.
Computation of Time
Viray v. CA
The rule that excludes the last day of a period, should the same be a
holiday, refers to the performance of the act prescribed or required. But
it does not apply where at the end of the period no such act is to be
done.
Liberal or strict construction
- statement of a rule when there is ambiguity
- if procedural: liberal
Holographic wills: Ajero v. CA
Failure to strictly observe other formalities will not result in the
disallowance of a holographic will that is unquestionably handwritten by
the testator.
Naturalization Laws: Ong Chia v. Republic
It is settled that naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and
strictly construed in favor of the government and against the applicant.
Labor Statutes: A.L. Ammen v. Borja
Labor: liberal construction in favour of labor statutes.
Tax Exemptions: Esso Standard v. Acting Commissioner of Customs
Exemption from taxation is not favored. Exemptions in tax statutes are
never presumed. Exceptions from taxation are construed in strictissimi
juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favour of the taxing authority.
Taxation: Manila Railroad v. Collector of Customs
It is the general rule in the interpretation of statutes levying taxes or
duties not to extend their provisions beyond the clear import of the
language used. In every case of doubt, such statutes are construed most
strongly against the Government and in favour of the citizen, because
burdens are not to be imposed, nor presumed to be imposed, beyond
what the statutes expressly and clearly import.
Pleadings and Rules: Del Rosario v. Hamoy
Rules of Court mandates a liberal construction in favour of the rules and
pleadings to effect substantial justice.
Domalanta v. CA
On certain occasions, this Court has allowed liberality in the construction
of the rules. The present case, however, does not warrant such liberality
because the decision of respondent CA is satisfactorily supported by the
records.
Quibuyen v. CA
Pleadings, as well as remedial laws, should be construed liberally, in
order that the litigants may have ample opportunity to prove their
respective claims, and that a possible denial of substantial justice, due to
legal techincalities, may be avoided.
Contracts of Insurance: NPC v. CA
Contracts of insurance construed liberally in favor of the insured and
strictly against the insurer. Thus ambiguity in the words of an insurance
contract should be interpreted in favour of its beneficiary.
Corporation Law: Home Insurance Co. v. Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc.
The objective of the law was to subject the foreign corporation to the
jurisdiction of our courts. The Corporation Law must be given a
reasonable, not an unduly harsh, interpretation which does not hamper
the development of trade relations and which fosters friendly
commercial intercourse among countries.
Probation: Pablo v. Castillo
Probation law is not a penal statute and therefore, the principle of
liberal interpretation is inapplicable. The Court has pronounced that the
policy of liberality of probation statutes cannot prevail against the
categorical provisions of the law.

Retirement Laws: Request of Clerk of Court Tessie L. Gatmaitan
Retirement laws are liberally interpreted in favour of the retiree.
Interpretation of laws: Buenaseda v. Flavier
Penal statutes are strictly construed while procedural statutes are
liberally construed.
A statute granting powers to an agency created by the Constitution
should be liberally construed for the advancement of the purposes and
objectives which it was created.
Interpretation of Peanl Statutes Retroactivity
U.S. v. Cuna
Penal laws are to be given retroactive effect only in so far as they favour
the defendant charged with a crime or a misdemeanour, and that, when
a penal law is enacted repealing a prior law, such repeal does not have
the effect of relieving the offender in whole or in part of penalties
already incurred under the old law, unless the new law favors the
defendant by diminishing the penalty or doing away with it altogether,
and then only to the extent to which the new law is favourable to the
offender.
People v. Tamayo
The doctrine was clearly established that in the Philippines, repeal of a
criminal act by its re-enactment, even without a saving clause, would
not destroy criminal liability.
U.S. v. Go Chico
It is clear from the authorities cited in the Act under consideration that
the legislature did not intend that a criminal intent should be a
necessary element of the crime. The statutory definition of the offense
embraces no word implying that the prohibited act shall be done
knowingly. The Act means what it says. Nothing is left to interpretation.
U.S. v. Estapia
All the words of a statute should, when possible, be given some
meaning, and when the legislator makes use of words of limitation, he
must be presumed to have intended to limit and restrict, in some way,
the word or idea with reference to which such words of limitation are
applied.
State Prosecutors v. Muro
Judicial notice cannot be taken of a statute before it becomes effective.
A law which is not yet in force and hence, still inexistent, cannot be of
common knowledge capable of ready and unquestionable
demonstration.
Effects of Repeals and Amendments General and Special Laws Implied
Repeal
Manila Railroad Co. v. Rafferty
Special laws or charters may not be amended, altered, or repealed by a
general law, by mere implication.
Repeal of laws by implication is not favored. The mere repugnancy
between two statutes should be very clear in order to warrant the court
in holding that the later in time repeals the former, when it does not in
terms purport to do so.
It is well settled that a special and local statute is not repealed by a
subsequent statute unless the intent to repeal or alter it is manifest,
although the terms of the general act are broad enough to include the
cases in the special law.
Where there are two statutes, the earlier special and the later general
the terms of the general broad enough to include the matter provided
for in the special the fact that one is special and the other general
creates a presumption that the special is to be considered as remaining
an exception to the general one as a general law of the land, the other
as the law of a particular case.
Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association, Inc. v. Feliciano
A repealing clause in an Act which provides that all laws or parts
thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed
or modified accordingly is certainly not an express repealing clause
 because it fails to identify or designate the Act or Acts that are intended the existing laws on the subject and not to have enacted inconsistent or
to be repealed. Rather, it is a clause which predicates the intended conflicting statutes.
repeal upon the condition that a substantial conflict must be found in
existing and prior Acts. Such being the case, the presumption against City of Basilan v. Hechanova
implied repeals and the rule against strict construction regarding implied Whenever there is a conflict of an ordinance with a statute, the former
repeals apply ex proprio vigore. must give way.

Almeda v. Florentino Arenas v. City of San Carlos

Repeals by implication are not favored, unless it is manifest that the The primary purpose of a proviso is to limit the general language of a
legislature so intended and courts are duty bound to adopt a statute. When there is irreconcilable repugnancy between the proviso
construction that will give effect to every part of a statute, if at all and the body of the statute, the former is given precedence over the
possible. latter on the ground that it is the latest expression of the intent of the
legislature.
Sanchez v. Rigos
In construing different provisions of one and the same law or code, such
interpretation should be favored as will reconcile or harmonize said
provisions and avoid a conflict between the same.
Exceptions are not favored, unless the intention to the contrary is clear.

Mecano v. Commission on Audit

The failure to add a specific repealing clause indicates that the intent
was not to repeal any existing law, unless an irreconcilable inconsistency
and repugnancy exist in the terms of the new and old laws.
There are two categories of repeal by implication. The first is where
provisions in the two acts on the same subject matter are in an
irreconcilable conflict, the later act to the extent of the conflict
constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier one. The second is if the later
act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as
a substitute, it will operate to repeal the earlier law. Implied repeal by
irreconcilable inconsistency takes place when the two statutes cover the
same subject matter; and both cannot be given effect, that is, that one
law cannot be enforced without nullifying the other.
Lastly, it is a well-settled rule in statutory construction that repeals by
statute by implication are not favored. The presumption is against
inconsistency and repugnancy for the legislature is presumed to know