14 Super Amazing Digests of Cases in STATCON, for private use only V 2.

1. Matabuena v. Cervantes

Memory Tags: MATAbuena – yung sister niya, MATA-kaw... Matakaw. When

Felix died, gustong agawin ng kapatid niya ang lupa na ibinigay ni Matabuena kay
respondent Cervantes. MATAkaw siya.

G.R. No. L-28771 (March 31, 1971)

Chapter IV, Page 143, Footnote No.69
FACTS:

1. Felix Matabuena cohabitated with Respondent.

2. During this period, Felix Matabuena donated to Respondent a parcel of land.
Later the two were married.
3. After the death of Felix Matabuena, his sister, Petitioner, sought the
nullification of the donation citing:
a. Art.133 of the Civil Code “Every donation between the spouses during
the marriage shall be void.”
4. The trial court ruled that this case was not covered by the prohibition because
the donation was made at the time the deceased and Respondent were not yet
married and were simply cohabitating.

ISSUE:

W/N the prohibition applies to donations between live-in partners.

HELD:

Yes.

1. STATCON: It is a fundamental principle in statutory construction that

what is within the spirit of the law is as much a part of the law as what is
written.
2. Since the reason for the ban on donations between spouses during the marriage
is to prevent the possibility of undue influence and improper pressure being
exerted by one spouse on the other, there is no reason why this prohibition
shall not apply also to common-law relationships.
3. The court, however, said that the lack of the donation made by the deceased to
Respondent does not necessarily mean that the Petitioner will have exclusive
rights to the disputed property because the relationship between Felix and
Respondent were legitimated by marriage. There is lack of validity of said
donation.

Dispositive: As provided for in the Civil Code, she is entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the
plaintiff, as the surviving sister, to the other half.

WHEREFORE, the lower court decision of November 23, 1965 dismissing the complaint with costs is
reversed. The questioned donation is declared void, with the rights of plaintiff and defendant as pro
indiviso heirs to the property in question recognized. The case is remanded to the lower court for its
appropriate disposition in accordance with the above opinion.”

LATIN MAXIM:

“Ne mutuato amore invicem spoliarentur” [Pandects (Bk. 24, Tit. 1, De donat, inter virum
et uxorem)- there is every reason to apply the same prohibitive policy to persons living
together as husband and wife without the benefit of nuptials.

*So long as marriage remains the cornerstone of our family law, reason and morality
alike demand that the disabilities attached to marriage should likewise attach to
concubinage."

6c, 9a, 9c

2. People of the Philippines v. MAPA

Memory tags: MAPA-patay ka kapag maraming nagdadala ng baril na walang

permit, or uncontrolled by Govt. Baka MAPA-patay ka, so the law makes it illegal to
bring unlicensed firearm.

G.R. No. L-22301 (August 30, 1967)

Chapter II, Page 69, Footnote No.89
FACTS:

1. Defendant was accused of illegal possession of firearms. He invokes in his

defense that he was an appointed Secret Agent of the provincial Governor of
Batangas.

2. He sought to be acquitted as the case of People v. Macarandang used

the same defense providing evidences of his appointment.

ISSUE:
W/N a Secret Agent falls among those authorized to possess firearms.

HELD:

No.

1. The court held that the law cannot be any clearer. The law does not contain any
exception for secret agent therefore holding this position would not constitute a
sufficient defense to a prosecution for a crime of illegal possession of firearm and
ammunitions. Wherefore the conviction of the accused must stand.

a. SC: It is not within the power of this Court to set aside the clear and explicit mandate of a
statutory provision.
2. The Court’s ruling overturned that of People v. Macarandang. (This is one of the
examples when the SC overturns its previous rulings, or simply put, abandoning a
doctrine).

LATIN MAXIM:

*Applicable

Absoluta sententia expositore non indigent.

Absoluta (complete, absolute) Sententia (law, decision) Expositore (explanation) non

indigent (not needed)

- When the language of the law is clear, no explanation is required.

Relate to:

Verba legis
(Verba – word; legis – law)
– Literal interpretation of the law.

“The law cannot be any clearer. No provision is made for a secret agent. As such he is
not exempt. Our task is equally clear. The first and fundamental duty of courts is to
apply the law. "Construction and interpretation come only after it has been
demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them."7 The
conviction of the accused must stand. It cannot be set aside.

*legis interpretatio legis vim obtinet - The interpretation placed upon the written
law by a competent court has the force of law (Discuss this if asked on what footing
of a Court’s decision is.)

1, 6c, 7a, 30a, 35, 46c

3. People v. SANTAYANA

Memory Tags: Unlike the case of MAPA, the Case of Santayana, nakalusot siya dahil
sa Macarandang doctrine. Sino bang mga SANTA- ang dinasalan niya at swerte siya
kesa kay MAPA? Baka si SANTA clause! Yan-ah! SANTAYANA.

No. L-22291 (November 15, 1976)

FACTS:

1. Accused was found guilty of the crime of illegal possession of firearms and
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty from one year and one day to two years,
and to pay the costs.

ISSUE:
W/N the appointment of the Appellant as a special agent of the CIS, which apparently
authorizes him to carry and possess firearms, exempts him from securing a license or
permit corresponding thereto.

HELD:

Yes.

1. At the time of appellant’s apprehension, the doctrine then prevailing was enunciated
in the case of People vs. Macarandang wherein it was held that the appointment of a
civilian assecret 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”.

LATIN MAXIM USED:

None.

*Applicable:

*legis interpretatio legis vim obtinet - The interpretation (construction) placed upon
the written law by a competent court has the force of law (Discuss this if asked on
what footing of a Court’s decision is.)

46a.

4. Republic. v. Estenzo

Memory Tags: ESTENZO... Anong sounds like nito na isa ring publicly owned
land/area? Clue... Meron nito tabi ng Beda... Mabaho... ESTERO! ESTERO (Sounds
like ESTENZO) is publicly owned. Ang baho ‘no? Estenzo is about an issue on LAND
WHICH ARE DECLARED PUBLICLY OWNED. Sounds like lang mahal, for easy
recall. Go to the facts!

G.R. No. L – 35376 (September 11, 1980)

FACTS:

1. Private Respondents filed a petition to reopen a decision by the Cadastral Court to

declare Lot No. 4273 of the Ormoc Cadastre as public land.

2. Petitioners filed an instant petition alleging that the trial court erred in assuming
jurisdiction over the petition for reopening the cadastral proceedings.

ISSUE:

W/N RA 6236 applies to the reopening of cadastral proceedings on certain

lands which were declared public lands.
HELD:

No.

1. RA 6236 does not apply to the reopening of cadastral proceedings on certain

lands which were declared public lands.
2. The Respondent judge was wrong in interpreting that RA 6236 is applicable;
the job of the judiciary is to apply laws, not interpret it.

LATIN MAXIM USED:

1. res judicata - The doctrine of res judicata precludes parties from relitigating issues
actually litigated and determined by a prior and final judgment. It must be
remembered that generally, the fundamental principle of res judicata applies to all
cases and proceedings, including land registration or cadastral proceedings.

2. expressio unius est exclusio alterius

Language: (expressio – express; unius – uno, one, included, with; exclusio –

excluded; alterius – alternative) lit. expressly included, excludes the alternative or not
included.

- Express Mention is Implied Exclusion of those not included.

Rep. Act 6236 makes no reference to reopening of cadastral cases as the earlier law, Rep. Act 2061,
expressly did. Under the legal maxim of statutory construction, expressio unius est exclusio
alterius (Express Mention is Implied Exclusion), the express mention of one thing in a law, as a
general rule, means the exclusion of others not expressly mentioned. This rule, as a guide to
probable legislative intent, is based upon the rules of logic and the natural workings of the human
mind.

6d, 7a, 30, 32

5. AMELITO R. MUTUC vs. COMELEC

Memory tags: MUTUC, candidate siya. Gumawa ng jingle at pinatutugtog niya sa

kanyang kotse, bawal daw. He refused to be bound by COMELEC’s prohibition
stating to COMELEC, “hey comelec, MYOU TOOK away my Constitutional Rights
to FREE SPEECH! Haha! Kbye. Corny ‘no? Myoo took away my rights!!!

G.R. No. L-32717 November 26, 1970

FACTS:
1. Petitioner Mutuc was a candidate for delegate to the Constitutional
Convention.
2. He filed a special civil action against the respondent COMELEC when the
latter informed him through a telegram that his certificate of candidacy was
given due course but he was prohibited from using jingles in his mobile
units equipped with sound systems and loud speakers.
 3. The petitioner accorded the order to be violative of his constitutional right to
freedom of speech. COMELEC justified its prohibition on the premise that the
Constitutional Convention act provided that it is unlawful for the candidates
“to purchase, produce, request or distribute sample ballots, or electoral
propaganda gadgets such as pens, lighters, fans (of whatever nature),
flashlights, athletic goods or materials, wallets, bandanas, shirts, hats, matches,
cigarettes, and the like, whether of domestic or foreign origin.”
4. COMELEC contended that the jingle or the recorded or taped voice of the
singer used by petitioner was a tangible propaganda material and was, under
the above statute, subject to confiscation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the usage of the jingle by the petitioner form part of the prohibition
invoked by the COMELEC.

HELD:

1. The Court held that “the general words following any enumeration being
applicable only to things of the same kind or class as those specifically
referred to”.
2. The COMELEC’s contention that a candidate’s jingle form part of the
prohibition, categorized under the phrase “and the like”, could not merit the
court’s approval by principle of Ejusdem Generis.
3. It is quite apparent that what was contemplated in the Act was the distribution
of gadgets of the kind referred to as a means of inducement to obtain a
favorable vote for the candidate responsible for its distribution.
4. Furthermore, the COMELEC failed to observe construction of the statute
which should be in consonance to the express terms of the constitution. The
intent of the COMELEC for the prohibition may be laudable but it
should not be sought at the cost of the candidate’s constitutional rights to
free speech.
5. STATCON: "construction ... should be more in harmony with the tenets of the
fundamental law."
a. A statute should be interpreted to assure its being in consonance with, rather than
repugnant to, any constitutional command or prescription
b. Thus, certain Administrative Code provisions were given a "construction which
should be more in harmony with the tenets of the fundamental law."

Latin Maxim:

6. People vs. Guillermo MANANTAN

FACTS:

1. Defendant Guillermo Manantan was charged with a violation Section 54 of the

Revised Election Code in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan.
 Section 54 of the said Code reads:

“No justice, judge, fiscal, treasurer, or assessor of any province, no officer or employee of the
Army, no member of the national, provincial, city, municipal or rural police force and no
classified civil service officer or employee shall aid any candidate, or exert any influence in
any manner in a election or take part therein, except to vote, if entitled thereto, or to preserve
public peace, if he is a peace officer.”

2. The defense moved to dismiss the information on the ground that as justice of
the peace the defendant is one of the officers enumerated in Section 54 of the
Revised Election Code.
3. The lower court denied the said motion. A second motion was filed by defense
counsel who cited in support thereof the decision of the Court of Appeals in
People vs. Macaraeg applying the rule of “expressio unius, est exclusion
alterius”. The lower court dismissed the information against the accused upon
the authority of the ruling in the case cited by the defense. The issue was
raised to the Supreme Court.

Relax lang, ito ibig sabihin niyan: “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” a
principle in statutory construction: when one or more things of a class are expressly
mentioned others of the same class are excluded.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a justice of the peace was included in the prohibition of Section 54 of
the Revised Election Code.

HELD:

YES. The order of dismissal entered by the trial court should be set aside and this
case was remanded for trial on the merits.

RATIO:

1. The application of the rule of casus omissus does not proceed from the mere
fact that a case is criminal in nature, but rather from a reasonable certainty that
a particular person, object or thing has been omitted from a legislative
enumeration.
2. In the present case, and for reasons already mentioned, there has been no such
omission. There has only been a substitution of terms. On law reason and
public policy, defendant-appellee’s contention that justices of the peace are not
covered by the injunction of Section 54 must be rejected.
3. To accept it is to render ineffective a policy so clearly and emphatically laid
down by the legislature.
4. Although it was observed that both the Court of Appeals and the trial court
applied the rule of “expressio unius, est exclusion alterius” in arriving at the
conclusion that justices of the peace are not covered by Section 54, the rule
has no application.
 5. If the legislature had intended to exclude a justice of the peace from the
purview of Section 54, neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeals has
given the reason for the exclusion.
6. Indeed, there appears no reason for the alleged change. Hence, the rule of
expressio unius est exclusion alterius has been erroneously applied.

LATIN MAXIM:

“expressio unius est exclusio alterius” a principle in statutory construction: when

one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned others of the same class are
excluded.

7. Lopez & Sons, Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals

Memory tags: Madali lang ito, clerical error. The Law is not in the letter but in the
Spirit.

G.R. No. L-9274 (February 1, 1957)

Chapter IV, Page 144, Footnote No.76

FACTS:

1. Petitioner imported wire nettings from Germany. The Manila Customs

Collector assessed the customs duties on the basis of the suppliers invoice.

2. The duties were paid and the shipment released. Thereafter, the Manila Customs
Collector reassessed the duties due on the basis of the dollar value of the importation
and imposed additional duties.

3. Petitioner appealed directly to Respondent Court but they dismissed it for lack
of jurisdiction citing Sec. 7 of RA 1125 creating said Tax Court. Provision says that
“the Court has jurisdiction to review decisions of Commissioner of Customs.

4. However, under Sec. 11 of same Act, the Court has jurisdiction to review rulings of
the Collector of Customs when brought by persons affected thereby.

ISSUE:
W/N Respondent Court has jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Collector
of Customs.

HELD:
1. Yes, there is indeed a disparity between Sec. 7 and 11 of same RA.
2. The Supreme Court concurred with the positions of the Solicitor General that a
clerical error was committed in Sec. 11 and the word Collector should read
Commissioner.
3. To support this, the Supreme Court cited that under the Customs Law as found
under Sec. 1137 to 1410 of the Revised Administrative Code, ‘the Collectors
 of Customs are mere Subordinates of the Commissioner of Customs over
whom he has supervision and control.
4. In this ruling, the court did not engage in judicial legislation. It merely
rectified an apparent clerical error in the wordings of the statute to carry out
the conspicuous intention of the Legislature.
5. Under the rule of statutory construction, it is not the letter, but the spirit
of the law and the intent of the legislature that is important.
a. Under the rules of statutory construction, it is not the letter but rather the spirit of
the law and intention of the Legislature that is important and which matters. When
the interpretation of a statute according to the exact and literal import of its words
would lead to absurd or mischievous results, or would contravene the clear purposes
of the Legislature, it should be construed according to its spirit and reason,
disregarding as far as necessary, the latter of the law.

LATIN MAXIM:

None used.

Applicable (Ateneo 2011)

9c – Verba intentioni, non e contra, debent inservice.

Words ought to be more subservient to the intent, and not the intent to the
words.

16a, 16c, 36a

8. Sanciangco v. Rono

Memory tags: Appointive official, upon filing certificate of candidacy, deemed

resigned. You cannot go back to your position anymore Sanciangco... Sanciangco:
“Ro no!! Ro no!! (oh no!) That’s not right... Hence this petition...

G. R. No. 68709 (July 19, 1985)

Chapter 5, Page 203 , Footnote No.106
FACTS:

1. Petitioner was elected as Barangay Captain. Later, he was elected President

of the Association of Barangay Councils (ABC) of Ozamiz City by the Board of
Directors of the said Association.

2. Petitioner then filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the May 14, 1984 elections for
Misamis Occidental under the banner of the Mindanao alliance. He was not successful
in the said elections.

ISSUE:
W/N an appointive member of the Sangguniang Panglungsod, who ran for the
position of Mambabatas Pambansa in the elections of May 14, 1984, should be
considered as resigned or on forced leave of absence upon filing of his certificate of
candidacy.
HELD:

1. The legislative intent of Sec. 13(2) of BP 697 is clear that even appointive
Barangay officials are deemed also covered by the said provision. Since he is
unquestionably an appointive member,
2. As such, he is deemed to have ipso facto ceased to be such member when he
filed his certificate of candidacy for the May 1984 Batasan elections.
3. REMEMBER: The Court went over the legislative debate regarding said
law and found out its intent over the removal of appointive official upon
filing his candidacy.
DISPOSITIVE:

It goes without saying that although petitioner, by filing his certificate of candidacy for the Batasan
Pambansa ceased, ipso facto, to be an appointive member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, he remains
an elective Barangay Captain from which position he may be considered as having been on "forced
leave of absence." He also continues as President of the Association of Barangay Councils but will
need a reappointment by the President, as member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Ozamiz City as
the law speaks of "members who may be appointed by the President."

LATIN MAXIM:

ipso facto- ‘by the fact itself", which means that a certain phenomenon is a direct
consequence, a resultant effect, of the action in question, (as a result of)

Applicable:
6c, 7a, 9c, 28, 36b

9. Caltex (Phil.), Inc. v. Palomar

Memory tags: This is classic. One of our first cases. Yung binawal ni Post Master
Palomar yung advertising ng Caltex kasi daw violative of postal law.

G.R. No. 19650 (September 29, 1966)

Chapter V, Page 137, Footnote No. 211
FACTS:

1. Petitioner conceived the “Caltex Hooded Pump Contest” where participants

have to estimate the actual number of liters a hooded gas pump can dispense
during a specific period of time.

2. There was no fee or consideration required to be paid, nor any purchase of any
Caltex products to be made in order to join the contest.

3. Foreseeing the extensive use of mail for advertising and communications, Caltex
requested clearance for Respondent Postmaster General but was denied citing said
contest is a “gift enterprise” deemed as a non-mailable matter under the anti-lottery
provisions of the Postal Law. Hence, Petitioner filed a petition for declaratory relief.

ISSUE:
W/N the “Caltex Hooded Pump Contest” falls under the term “gift enterprise”
which is banned by the Postal Law.

HELD:

1. No, said contest is not a gift enterprise. The word “lottery” is defined as a
game of chance where the elements of which are (1) consideration, (2) chance,
and (3) prize.

2. The term “gift enterprise” and “scheme” in the provision of the Postal Law making
unmailable “any lottery, gift, enterprise, or scheme for the distribution of money or
any real or personal property by lot, chance, or drawing of any kind” means such
enterprise as will require consideration as an element.

3. The intent of the prohibition is to suppress the tendency to inflame the gambling
spirit and to corrupt public morals. There being no element of consideration in said
contest, the spirit of the law is preserved.

LATIN MAXIM:

Noscitur a sociis.
-A thing is known by its associates.

9a, 28

CASES ON CONSTRUCTION OF WORDS AND PHRASES

10. Capati v. Ocampo

Memory tags/quick fact: Jurisdiction. The usage of word “may” means pwede,
hindi must.

Case No. 46
G.R. No. L-28742 (April 30, 1982)
Chapter VIII, Page 330, Footnote No. 8
FACTS:

1. Plaintiff, a resident of Pampanga, entered into a sub-contract with the

Defendant, a resident of Naga City.

2. The Defendant completed a construction job for the Plaintiff. However, the
construction was completed on a date later than what was agreed in their contract.
Hence, Plaintiff filed in the CFI of Pampanga an action for recovery of consequential
damages due to the delay.

3. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that venue of
action was improperly laid. The CFI of Pampanga dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint
on ground of improper venue.
ISSUE:
W/N the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of improper venue was
correct.

HELD:

1. No. The rule on venue of personal actions cognizable by the CFI is found in
Sec. 2(b), Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, which provides that such "actions may be
commenced and tried where the Defendant or any of the Defendants resides or
may be found, or where the Plaintiff or any of the Plaintiffs resides, at the election of
the Plaintiff."

2. The word "may" is merely permissive and operates to confer discretion upon a
party. Under ordinary circumstances, the term "may be" connotes possibility; it does
not connote certainty. "May" is an auxillary verb indicating liberty, opportunity,
permission or possibility.

LATIN MAXIM:

*Applicable:

Verba legis non est recedendum.

From the words of the statute there should be no departure.

6c, 25a, b

11. GMCR v. Bell Telecommunications Inc.

Memory tags/Quick Facts: Commissioner Kintanar denied the application of Bell

Tel. Ang problema sole decision niya yan, hindi ng NTC which is a collegiat body. So
hindi pwede, the BELL therefore was rung out loud up to the Supreme Court to
review the matter. Hindi pwedeng isang commissioner lang ang magdedecide.
Collegiate body nga e. Ayan, nag ring ang kampana (BELL), nabuko ang kanyang
pambubully sa BELL by making a sole decision.

G.R. No. 126496 (April 30, 1997)

FACTS:
1. NTC Commissioner Kintanar denied the request of Bell Telecommunications for a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the installation of
telecommunications equipment pursuant to its congressional franchise to operate.

2. The denial was promulgated despite the approval of the CCAD of its feasibility and
the endorsement of Deputy Commissioners Fidelo Q. Dumlao and Consuelo Perez.

ISSUE:

Whether the NTC is a collegial body or under the direct and sole control of
Commissioner Kintanar.

HELD:
1. The NTC is a collegial body and its decisions should be reached by a majority
vote.

2. Executive Order 146 creating the NTC clearly shows that the NTC shall be
composed of a head commissioner and 2 deputy commissioners suggesting its
collegial nature.

3. Therefore the acts of Chairman Kintanar are void ab initio for being
unabashedly contrary to law.

LATIN MAXIM:

*Applicable:

Verba legis non est recedendum.

From the words of the statute there should be no departure.

6c, 7a, 15a, 24a

12. Alfon v. Republic

Memory tags: Interesting ito, she’s a DUTERTE by birth, kaso ayaw niya, gusto
niya, ALFON. Aba, aba. Pero pinayaga ng Supreme Court. Naghihinayan siguro ito
ngayon paano DUTERTE ang sikat, what is Alfon? Sipon?!

G.R. No. L-51201 (May 29, 1980)

FACTS:

Petitioner files a petition to have her named changed from Maria Estrella Veronica
Primitiva Duterte to Estrella Alfon. The reasons she gave on why she was petitioning
to have her name changed are the following:

1. She has been using the name Estrella Alfon from infancy.
2. She has been enrolled from Grade school to College in the same name.
3. All acquaintances know her as Estrella Alfon.
4. She exercised her right to suffrage under the same name.

ISSUE:
W/N legitimate and legitimated children are required to use the
surname of their father.

HELD:
No. The word "principally" as used in Article 364 is not equivalent to
"exclusively" so that there is no legal obstacle if a legitimate or legitimated child
should choose to use the surname of its mother to which he or she is equally entitled.
Petitioner is therefore allowed to change her name from Maria Estrella Veronica
Primitiva Alfon Duterte to Estrella Alfon
LATIN MAXIM:

None used.

1, 17, 42a

13. Rura v. Lopena

Memory tags/quickie: How should the word “previously” be construed? Not on the
date of the crime was allegedly done, but on the decision of the court.

G. R. No. L-69810-14 (June 19, 1985)

Chapter 5, Page 189, Footnote No.53

FACTS:

1. Petitioner was accused, tried and convicted of five (5) counts of estafa
committed on different dates. The counts were consolidated and tried jointly.

2. Only a single decision was rendered. The Petitioner then applied for probation but
was denied by the fiscal on the ground that he had been previously convicted by final
judgment of an offense.

3. The fiscal invoked Sec. 9 of the Probation Law, which disqualifies persons who
have previously been convicted by final judgment from applying for probation. The
trial court denied his application on the belief that since the crimes were committed on
different dates, he was guilty on each of those dates.

4. Petitioner however contends that since there is only one decision, he has not yet
been previously convicted.

ISSUE:

How should the word“previously” be construed?

HELD:

1. The word “previously” refers to the date of the conviction and not to the dates of
the crimes involved.

a. In other words the effects of conviction does not retract to the date of the commission
of the offense as the trial court held.

2. Although he was guilty of five counts of estafa, they were tried jointly and only one
decision was handed down.

3. Hence, when Petitioner applied for Probation he had not yet had a final judgment of
conviction on his record.
4. He is eligible for probation under such circumstances.

LATIN MAXIM:

*Applicable:
Verba legis non est recedendum.
From the words of the statute there should be no departure.

6c, 7a, 48

14. National Housing Corporation v. Juco

Memory tags: Sabaw ng Buco. Sabaw ng Juco. Sabaw si Juco. hindi daw under the
Labor Code ang employees of the Government. He has sabaw ng juco arguments. The
SC said, the law is clear as it includes “government owned and controlled
corporations.”

G.R. No. L-64313 (January 17, 1985)

FACTS:

1. For being declared guilty of stealing scrap iron owned by Petitioner, Private
Respondent was terminated.

2. He filed a complaint with Respondent Court and Petitioner replied stating that the
Respondent Court is without jurisdiction as Petitioner Corporation is a government
owned corporation and the grounds for dismissal were for valid reasons.

3. Respondent Court however, despite past decisions, decided in favor of the Private
Respondent.

ISSUE:

W/N employees of Petitioner are covered by the Labor Code or by the laws
and regulations governing the civil service.

HELD:

1. Petitioner is government owned as it never had any private stockholders. The

1935 constitution’s section 1 article 12 states that “A civil service embracing all
branches and subdivisions of the government shall be provided by law.”

2. While the amendments in section 1 article 12b of the 1973 constitution states that
“The civil service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision and instrumentality of
the government, including every government owned or controlled corporation.”
Clearly, the inclusion of government owned or controlled corporation carries out
a message that the coverage is broad and all-embracing.

a. "Every" means each one of a group, without exception It means all possible and all
taken one by one. Of course, our decision in this case refers to a corporation created as a
government-owned or controlled entity.

3. Furthermore, P.D. 807 Sec. 56 implements the said provision. In addition to this,
the Labor Code states that the mentioned corporations shall be governed by the
Civil Service Law.

LATIN MAXIM:

*Applicable:
Absoluta sentential expositore non indigent.
When the language of the law is clear, no explanation is required.

6, 7, 24, 26, 38b