COURSE OUTLINE IN

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
1st Semester, AY 2019-2020

A. Classroom Rules:
1. Attendance will be checked at the beginning of every meeting.
2. Recitation will be conducted every meeting. Students are expected, therefore, to come to class
prepared and to have read the materials scheduled to be covered during the meeting. When a student
is reciting, the rest of the class is expected to listen to him. Students are encouraged to participate in
the discussion by asking questions.
3. A student who is called to recite is expected to close his book during his recitation.
4. Electronic gadgets are not prohibited during class hours. A student is expected, however, to turn off
his mobile phone or to put it on silent mode as soon as he steps into the classroom. If the student
expects a call during the meeting, he can take the call by discretely leaving the classroom. Laptops,
tablets, and other similar electronic devices, are not, likewise, prohibited but the students who are
called to recite should close these electronic devices for the duration of their recitation. The same
rule applies to mobile phones that serve as data storage.
5. Any student may discretely leave the classroom if and when absolutely necessary. When a student
is not in the classroom when called for recitation, he will be given a grade of 5.0 or its equivalent.

B. Grading System:
Recitation - ___
Quiz - ___
Mid-Term Exam - ___
Final Exam - ___

C. Reference/s:
___________________
___________________

OUTLINE PROPER

Part 1: BASIC PRINCIPLES

I. Parts of a Statute

II. Kinds of Statute

III. How a bill becomes a law

IV. What is Statutory Construction/Interpretation?

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

V. 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. Comm. Of Customs, G.R. No. L-28463, May 31, 1971
 Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Manila Railroad Company Credit Union vs. Manila
Railroad Company, G.R. No. L- 25316, February 28, 1979
 Radio Communciations of the Phil. Vs. NTC, G.R. No. L-68729, May 29, 1987
 Republic vs. Toledano, G.R. No. 94147, June 8, 1994

VI. Which branch of the government interprets the Law?

VII. Requirement of Publication of Statutes

 Course Outline in Statutory Construction

 Tanada vs. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, December 29, 1986

VIII. Judicial Legislation

 Floresca vs. Philex Mining, G.R. No. L-30642 April 30, 1985
 Republic vs. CA and Molina, G.R. No. L-34964, January 31, 1973

IX. 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

X. The construction of the law obtains the force of law (Legis interpretation legis vim obtinet)

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



Part 2: 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

 IBBA Employees’ Union vs. Inciong, G.R. No. L-52415, October 23, 1984

III. Administrative Rule vs. Administrative Opinion

 Victoria 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

 Fransisco vs. House of Representative, 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

2
 Course Outline in Statutory Construction

 Philacor Credit Corporation vs CIR, G.R. No. 169899, February 6, 2013

Tax Exemptions
 Cir vs Guerrero, G.R. No. L-20942, September 22, 1967

Tax Refunds
 Applied Food Ingredients vs. CIR, G.R. No. 184266, November 11, 2013
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, 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 CA, 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 CA, G.R. No. 187021, January 25, 2012

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

PART 4: LATIN RULES

I. Verba legis non est recedendum (From the words of the statute, there should be no departure)

 Victoria vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 109005, January 10, 1994

 PAGCOR vs PEJI, G.R. No. 177333, April 24, 2009

3
 Course Outline in Statutory Construction

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

 Republic vs Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005
 Cesario Ursua vs CA, G.R. No. 112170, April 10, 1996

III. Dura lex sed lex (The law is harsh but that is the law)

 Ysidoro vs People, G.R. No. 192330, November 14, 2012

When not applied:

 Duncan vs CFI, G.R. No. L-30576, February 10, 1976

 Alonzo vs IAC, G.R. No. L-72873, May 28, 1987

IV. Expressio unius est exclusion 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. CSC, G.R. No. 88979, February 7, 1992

b. When enumeration not intend 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 Manatan, G.R. No. L-14129, July 31, 1962

 Primero vs CA, G.R. No. L-448468-69, November 22, 1989

V. Ejusdem Generis
 Liwag vs Happy Glen Loop Homeowners, 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 Hiuse, 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 omitted intentionally)

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

VII. Noscitur a sociies (Doctrine of associated words)

4
 Course Outline in Statutory Construction

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

 Aisporna vs CA, G.R. No. L-39419, April 12, 1982

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
 BDO vs Equitable Bank, G.R. No. 74917, January 20, 1988
 Spouses Salenillas vs. CA, G.R. No. 78687, January 31, 1989
 Demafiles vs COMELEC, G.R. No. L-28396, December 29, 1967
 Twin Ace Holdings vs Rufina, G.R. No. 160191, June 8, 2006

PART 5: INTERPRETATION OF WORDS

I. “Exclusive”

 Alfon vs Republic, G.R. No. L-51201, May 29, 1980

 Thornton vs Thornton, G.R. No. 154598, August 16, 2004

II. “Shall”

 Baranda vs Gustilo, G.R. No. 81163, September 26, 1988

 Director of Lands vs CA, G.R. No. 102858, July 28, 1997

When “shall” is construed as merely permissive:

 Diokno vs Rehabilitation and Finance, G.R. No. L-4712, July 11, 1952
 Berces vs Guingona, G.R. No. 112099, February 21, 1995
III. “May”

 Capati vs Ocampo, G.R. No. L-28742, April 30, 1982

 Philippine Consumer vs. NTC, G.R. No. L-63318, August 18, 1984

Interpretation depends upon the context

 People vs CA, G.R. No. 11623, March 13, 1995

 San Carlos Milling vs CIR, G.R. No. 103379, November 23, 1993

When “may” is construed as mandatory

 De Mesa vs Mecias, G.R. No. L-24583, October 29, 1966

 Llenares vs Valdeavella, G.R. No. L-21572, October 4, 1994

IV. “Every”

 National Housing Corp. vs Juco, G.R. No. L-64313, January 17, 1985

V. “Previously”

 Rura vs Lopena, G.R. No. L-69810-14, June 19, 1985

VI. “Term” vs “Tenure”

 Appari vs CA, G.R. No. L-30057, January 31, 1984

VII. “And” (Conjunctive)

5
 Course Outline in Statutory Construction

 Mapa vs Arroyo, G.R. No. 78585, July 5, 1989

VIII. “Or” (Disjunctive)

 People vs Martin, G.R. No. L-33487, May 31, 1971

When “or” means expository or interpretative of preceding term

 San Miguel vs Municipal Council, G.R. No. L-30761, July 11, 1973

IX. Surplasages

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

X. Punctuations

 United States vs Hart, G.R. No. 8848, November 21, 1913

PART 6: RULES OF PREFERENCE

I. Title vs Body

 People vs Yabut, G.R. No. 39085, September 27, 1933

II. General vs Special

Conflicting provisions of the same statute

 Manila Railroad vs Collector Customs, G.R. No. L-30264, March 12, 1929

Conflicting between special provision of a general law and a general provision of a special law

 Bagatsing vs Ramirez, G.R. No. L-41631, December 17, 1976

 City of Manila vs Tetico, G.R. No. L-23052, January 29, 1968

III. Earlier vs Later

Statues in Pari Materia

 People vs Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004

IV. Later General vs Earlier Special

 Moreno vs COMELEC, G.R. No. 168550, August 10, 2006

 Laxamana vs Baltazar, G.R. No. L-5955, September 19, 1952

V. English Text vs Spanish Text

 Employees’s Club vs Chinabank, G.R. No. L-40188, July 27, 1934

***NOTHING FOLLOWS***