UA&P Statutory Construction Assignment 4

5. Interpretation of Words and Phrases (Agpalo 5.01-5.16)

General and Particular Use of Words
 Matugina Integrated Wood Products, Inc. v. CA 263 SCRA 490 (1996)
 Tan v. People 290 SCRA 117 (1998)
 Bernardo v. Bernardo, 96 Phil 202 (1954)
 Malanyaon v. Lising, 106 SCRA 237 (1981)
Associated Words
(a) Noscitur a sociis (Agpalo 5.17-5.18)
 Dai-Ichi Electronics Manufacturing Corporation v. Villarama, 238 SCRA 267
(1994)
(b) Ejusdem generis (Agpalo 5.19-5.21)
 Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corporation, Inc. (1994)
 PBA v. CA, 337 SCRA 358 (2000)
(c) Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (Agpalo 5.22-5.25)
 Centeno v. Villaton-Pornillos, 236 SCRA 197 (1994)
 Malinias v. COMELEC, 390 SCRA 480 (2002)
(d) Dissimulum dissimilis est ratio
 Garvida v. Sales, 271 SCRA 767 (1997)
(e) Casus omissus (Agpalo, 5.26)
 COA of Province of Cebu v. Province of Cebu, 371 SCRA 196 (2001)
(f) Last antecedent rule (Agpalo 5.27-5.29)
 PLDT Co. v. The Public Service Commission, G.R. No. L-26762 August 29, 1975
(g) Reddendo singula singulis (Agpalo 5.30)
 Amadora v. CA, 160 SCRA 315 (1988)
 City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr., G.R. No. 118127 April 12, 2005
(h) Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debmos
 Ramirez v. CA, 248 SCRA 590 (1995)
 Cebu Institute of Medicine v. CIMEU-NFL, 360 SCRA 515 (2001)
 Amores v. HRET, G.R. No. 189600, June 29, 2010
(i) Doctrine of necessary implication
 National Association of Trade Union- Republic Planters Bank Supervisors v.
Torres, 239 SCRA 546 (1994)