Statutory Construction

PART 1:
BASIC PRINCIPLES

I. What is Statutory Construction?

 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.

II. When Do You Apply the Principles of Statutory Construction?

 Daoang vs. Municipal Judge of San Nicolas, G.R. No. L-34568 ,

March 28, 1988
 Amores vs. HRET, G.R. No. 189600, June 29, 2010
 Republic Flour Mills, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. L-
28463, May 31, 1971
 Kapisanan ng mga Manggawa sa Manila Railroad Company Credit
Union vs. Manila Railroad Company, February 28, 1979
 Radio Communications of the Phil. vs. NTC, G.R. No. L-68729, May
29, 1987
 Republic vs. Toledano, G.R. No. 94147, June 8, 1994

III. Which Branch of Government Interprets the Law?

IV. Requirement of Publication of Statutes

 Tanada vs. Tuvera (Resolution), G.R. No. L-63915, December 29,

1986

V. Judicial Legislation

 Floresca vs. Philex Mining, G.R. No. L-30642 April 30, 1985
 Republic vs. CA and Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997

VI. Spirit over Letter of the Law (Ratio Legis Est Anima Legis)

 Paras vs COMELEC, G.R. No. 123169, November 4, 1994

 China Bank vs Ortega, G.R. No. L-34964, January 31, 1973

VII. The construction of the law obtains the force of law (Legis
interpretatio legis vim obtinet)

 People vs Jabinal, G.R. No. L-30061, February 27, 1974

PART 2:

1
 EXECUTIVE CONSTRUCTION

I. Executive Construction Given Great Weight

 Adasa vs Abalos, G.R. No. 168617, February 19, 2007

II. When Executive Construction Not Given Weight

 IBAA Employees’ Union vs Inciong, G.R. No. L-52415, October 23,

1984

III. Administrative Rule vs. Administrative Opinion

 Victorias Milling Co. Inc. vs. Social Security Commission, G.R. No. L-
16704, March 17, 1962

PART 3:
CONSTRUCTION OF SPECIFIC TYPES OF LEGISLATION

I. Constitution

 Francisco vs. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261,

November 10, 2003
 Sarmiento vs Mison, G.R. No. 79974, December 17, 1987
 Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997
 Oposa vs Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993

II. Labor Laws

 Manahan vs Employees Compensation Commission, G.R. No. L-

44899, April 22, 1981

Retirement Laws
 Tantuico, Jr. vs Domingo, G.R. No. 96422, February 28, 1994

Note: Relate with Article 4, Labor Code

III. Tax Laws

Tax Burdens
 Philacor Credit Corporation Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R.
No. 169899, February 6, 2013

Tax Exemptions
 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs Guerrero, G.R. No. L-20942,
September 22, 1967

Tax Refunds
 Applied Food Ingredients vs Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
G.R. No. 184266, November 11, 2013

2
IV. Penal Laws

 People vs Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008

Conflict between Spanish text and English text

 People vs Manaba, G.R. No. 38725, October 31, 1933

Note: Relate with Article 22, Revised Penal Code

V. Election Laws

 Hipe vs COMELEC. G.R. No. 181528, October 2, 2009

 Amora, jr. vs COMELEC, G.R. No. 192280, January 25, 2011

VI. Insurance

 De La Cruz vs Capital Insurance & Safety Co, Inc. , G.R. No. L-

21574, June 30, 1966
 Qua Chee Gan vs. Law Union & Rock Insurance, G.R. No. L-4611,
December 17, 1955

VII. Naturalization Laws

 Benjamin Co vs Republic, G.R. No. L-12150, May 26, 1960

 Velasco vs Republic, G.R. No. L-14214, May 25, 1960
 Co Y Quing Reyes Vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-10761, November 29,
1958

VIII. Expropriation Laws

 Heirs of Jugalbot vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 170346, March 12,

2007

IX. Wills

 Tampoy vs Alberastine, G.R. No. L-14322. February 25, 1960

 Rodriguez vs Alcala, G.R. No. 32672, November 5, 1930

X. Rules of Court

 Anama vs Court of appeals, G.R. No. 187021, January 25, 2012

Note: See Section 6, Rule 1, 1997 Rules of Court

PART 4:
LATIN RULES

3
I. Verba Legis Non Est Recedendum (From the words of the
statute, there should be no departure)

 Victoria vs. COMELEC, G.R. 109005, January 10, 1994

 Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) vs
Philippine Gaming Jurisdiction Inc. (PEJI), G.R. No. 177333, April 24,
2009

II. Ratio Legis Est Anima Legis (The reason of the law is the soul
of the law)

 Matabuena vs Cervantes, G.R. No. L-28771, March 31, 1971

III. Dura Lex Sed Lex (The law is harsh but that is the law)

 Ysidoro vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192330, November

14, 2012

When not applied:

 Duncan vs. CFI of Rizal, G.R. No. L-30576, February 10, 1976
 Alonzo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-72873, May 28,
1987

IV. Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius (The express mention of

one thing in a law means the exclusion of others not expressly
mentioned)

 Lerum vs. Cruz, G.R. No. L-2783, November 29, 1950

 Centeno vs. Villalon-Pornillos, G.R. No. 113092, September 1, 1994

When not applied:

a. When adherence to the rule will lead to incongruities and in a

violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution

 Chua vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 88979,

February 7, 1992

b. When enumeration not intended to be exclusive

 Manabat vs. de Aquino, G.R. No. L-5558, April 29, 1953

 Escribano vs. Avila, G.R. No. L-30375, September 12, 1978

c. When no reason exists why a person or thing is excluded

 People vs. Manantan, G.R. No. L-14129, July 31, 1962

 Primero vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-48468-69,
November 22, 1989

V. Ejusdem Generis

4
  Liwag vs Happy Glen Loop Homeowners Association, G.R. No.
189755, July 4, 2012
 Mutuc vs. COMELEC , G.R. No. L-32717, November 26, 1970

When not applied:

 United States vs. Victor Santo Nino, G.R. No. 5000, March 11, 1909
 City of Manila vs. Lyric Music House, G.R. No. 42236, September 24,
1935
 Roman Catholic Archbishop vs. Social Security Commission G.R. No.
L-15045, January 20, 1961
 Colgate vs. Gimenez, G.R. No. L-14787, January 28, 1961

VI. Casus Omissus Pro Omiso Habendus Est (A Thing Omitted Must
have Been Ommitted Intentionally)

 Spouses Delfino vs. St. James Hospital, G.R. No. 166735, November
23, 2007

VII. Noscitur A Sociis

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

 Aisporna vs. Court of Appeals, April 12, 1982, G.R. No. L-39419

VIII. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos (Where the
law does not distinguish, the courts should not distinguish)

 Philippine British Assurance vs. IAC, G.R. No. 72005, May 29, 1987
 Banco de Oro vs. Equitable Bank, G.R. No. 74917, January 20, 1988
 Spouses Salenillas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 78687, January
31, 1989
 Demafiles vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-28396, December 29, 1967