EASTERN SAMAR STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
2ND SEMESTER SY 2019-2020

INSTRUCTIONS

1. This Questionnaire contains TWELVE (9) pages. Check the number of pages and
make sure it has the correct number of pages and their proper numbers.

2. Read each question very carefully and encode your answers in a MICROSOFT
WORD document, in the same order the questions are posed. In your answers, use
the numbering system in the questionnaire.

3. Insert a header in each of the pages of the document indicating your NAME,
SECTION and SUBJECT. Each page must contain page number (for example 1 out
3).

4. Answer the Essay questions legibly, clearly, and concisely. Use Times New
Roman Font 12. Start each number on a separate page. An answer to a sub-
question under the same number may be written continuously on the same page
and the immediately succeeding pages until completed. Maintiain a 1” margin for
the whole document.

5. Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts, apply the
pertinent laws and jurisprudence, and arrive at a sound or logical conclusion.
Always support your answer with the pertinent laws, rules, jurisprudence, and the
facts.

6. A mere "Yes" or "No" answer without any corresponding explanation or

discussion will not be given full credit. Thus, always briefly but fully explain your
answers although the question does not expressly ask for an explanation. Do not
re-write or repeat the question.

7. Save the file in a PDF Format with a File name : STATCON1920FIN_ (fullname)
for example “ STATCON1920FIN_CoreeneCular”. The file must be sent to this email
address: coreeneanncular@gmail.com no later than September 09, 2020 at
23:59.

8. If you have questions, you may send an SMS to this number 0999-8899-606.

I.

F.E. Zuellig (M), Inc., (hereinafter referred to as Zuellig) filed with the
Department of Labor (Regional Office No. 4) an application seeking clearance
to terminate the services of Jose Songco, Romeo Cipres, and Amancio Manuel
(hereinafter referred to as Songco et al.) allegedly on the ground of
retrenchment due to financial losses. This application was seasonably opposed
by Songco et al. alleging that the company is not suffering from any losses.

Page 1 of 12
They alleged further that they are being dismissed because of their
membership in the union. At the last hearing of the case, however, Songco et
al. manifested that they are no longer contesting their dismissal. The parties
then agreed that the sole issue to be resolved is the basis of the separation
pay due to petitioners. Songco et al. who were in the sales force of Zuellig
received monthly salaries of at least P40,000. In addition, they received
commissions for every sale they made.
The collective Bargaining Agreement entered into between Zuellig and F.E.
Zuellig Employees Association, of which Songco et al. are members, contains
the following provision:

ARTICLE XIV — Retirement Gratuity

Section l(a)-Any employee, who is separated from employment due to old
age, sickness, death or permanent lay-off not due to the fault of said employee
shall receive from the company a retirement gratuity in an amount equivalent
to one (1) month's salary per year of service. One month of salary as used in
this paragraph shall be deemed equivalent to the salary at date of retirement;
years of service shall be deemed equivalent to total service credits, a fraction
of at least six months being considered one year, including probationary
employment.

On the other hand, Article 284 of the Labor Code then prevailing provides:

Art. 284. Reduction of personnel. — The termination of employment of any

employee due to the installation of labor saving-devices, redundancy,
retrenchment to prevent losses, and other similar causes, shall entitle the
employee affected thereby to separation pay. In case of termination due to
the installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the separation pay shall
be equivalent to one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every
year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses
and other similar causes, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1)
month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service,
whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered
one (1) whole year.

In addition, Sections 9(b) and 10, Rule 1, Book VI of the Rules Implementing
the Labor Code provide:

xxx

Sec. 9(b). Where the termination of employment is due to retrenchment

initiated by the employer to prevent losses or other similar causes, or where
the employee suffers from a disease and his continued employment is
prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health or to the health of his co-
employees, the employee shall be entitled to termination pay equivalent at
least to his one month salary, or to one-half month pay for every year of
service, whichever is higher, a fraction of at least six (6) months being
considered as one whole year.
xxx

Sec. 10. Basis of termination pay. — The computation of the termination pay
of an employee as provided herein shall be based on his latest salary rate,
unless the same was reduced by the employer to defeat the intention of the

Page 2 of 12
Code, in which case the basis of computation shall be the rate before its
deduction.

Songco et al.’s position was that in arriving at the correct and legal amount of
separation pay due them, whether under the Labor Code or the CBA, their
basic salary, earned sales commissions and allowances should be added
together. They cited Article 97(f) of the Labor Code which includes commission
as part on one's salary, to wit;

(f) 'Wage' paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration or earnings,
however designated, capable of being expressed in terms of money, whether
fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission basis, or other
method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to an
employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work done
or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered, and includes the fair
and reasonable value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, of board,
lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by the employer to the
employee. 'Fair reasonable value' shall not include any profit to the employer
or to any person affiliated with the employer.

Zuellig argues that if it were really the intention of the Labor Code as well as
its implementing rules to include commission in the computation of separation
pay, it could have explicitly said so in clear and unequivocal terms.
Furthermore, in the definition of the term "wage", "commission" is used only
as one of the features or designations attached to the word remuneration or
earnings.

A. Resolve the issue using pertinent laws, rules and principles.

B. Explain when do we apply the law, interpret the law and construe the law.
C. What are the three (3) cardinal legal maxim in construing the constitution.
Explain each.

II.

Daisy filed a petition for the issuance of a protection order under RA 9262,
against her husband, S/Sgt. Charles, an enlisted personnel of the
PhilippinesArmy who retired in January 2006. Daisy and Charles were married
in 2003, despite Daisy having a daughter from another man.

The RTC issued a Temporary Protection Order , directing Charles, among

others to provide financial support to Daisy, his legal wife. Eventually, othe
RT issued a Permanent Protection Order , ordering Charles to give Daisy FOUR
THOUSAND PESOS (Php 4,000.00) by way of spousal support. The said court
also ordered Charles to give Daisy 50% of whatever retirement benefits and
other claims that may be due or released to him from the Government and
said share of the petitioner shall be automatically deducted from the
respondent’s benefits and claims and be given directly to Daisy. A copy of the
said order was furnished to the Armed Forces of the Philippines Finance Center
(AFPFC), pursuant to Paragraph (g) of Section 8 of RA 9262, to cite:

(g) Directing the respondent to provide support to the woman and/or

her child if entitled to legal support. Notwithstanding other laws to
the contrary, the court shall order an appropriate percentage of the
income or salary of the respondent to be withheld regularly by the

Page 3 of 12
 respondent's employer for the same to be automatically remitted
directly to the woman. Failure to remit and/or withhold or any delay
in the remittance of support to the woman and/or her child without
justifiable cause shall render the respondent or his employer liable
for indirect contempt of court;

AFPFC manifested and contended that the said directive under the TPO/PPO
was illegal because said moenys remain as public funds , citing the case of
Pacific vs Ong. In that case, the SC sustained the CA when it held that the
garnishment of the amount Php 10,500 payable to BML Trading and Supply
while it is still in the possession of the Bureau of Telecommunications was
illegal and therefore, knull and void. The CA therein relied on the previous
rulings on Director of Commerce and Industry vs Conception wherein the SC
declared null and void the garnishment of the salaries of government
employees.

a. Resolve the issue citing pertinent law, rules and jurisprudence.

b. Define vested rights.
c. To what extent are procedural laws retroactive in application?

III.

On January 27, 1958, at about 8:00 p.m., Genaro Luna was at the corner of the Old
Luneta and P. Burgos Avenue, Manila, within a "loading and unloading" zone, waiting
for a jeepney to take him down town. After waiting for about five minutes, he
managed to hail a jeepney that came along to a stop. As he stepped down from the
curb to board the jeepney, and took a few steps, he fell inside an uncovered and
unlighted catch basin or manhole on P. Burgos Avenue. Due to the fall, his head hit
the rim of the manhole breaking his eyeglasses and causing broken pieces thereof
to pierce his left eyelid. As blood flowed therefrom, impairing his vision, several
persons came to his assistance and pulled him out of the manhole. One of them
brought Luna to the Philippine General Hospital, where his injuries were treated,
after which he was taken home. In addition to the lacerated wound in his left upper
eyelid, Luna suffered contusions on the left thigh, the left upper arm, the right leg
and the upper lip apart from an abrasion on the right infra-patella region. These
injuries and the allergic eruption caused by anti-tetanus injections administered to
him in the hospital, required further medical treatment by a private practitioner who
charged therefor P1,400.00.

As a consequence of the foregoing occurrence, Luna filed, with the Court of First
Instance of Manila, a complaint — which was, subsequently, amended — for
damages against the City of Manila, its mayor, city engineer, city health officer, city
treasurer and chief of police. As stated in the decision of the trial court, and quoted
with approval by the Court of Appeals,

At the time of the incident, plaintiff was a practicing public accountant, a

businessman and a professor at the University of the East. He held responsible
positions in various business firms like the Philippine Merchandising Co., the
A.U. Valencia and Co., the Silver Swan Manufacturing Company and the
Sincere Packing Corporation. He was also associated with several civic
organizations such as the Wack Wack Golf Club, the Chamber of Commerce
of the Philippines, Y's Men Club of Manila and the Knights of Rizal. As a result
of the incident, plaintiff was prevented from engaging in his customary

Page 4 of 12
 occupation for twenty days. Plaintiff has lost a daily income of about P50.00
during his incapacity to work. Because of the incident, he was subjected to
humiliation and ridicule by his business associates and friends. During the
period of his treatment, plaintiff was under constant fear and anxiety for the
welfare of his minor children since he was their only support. Due to the filing
of this case, plaintiff has obligated himself to pay his counsel the sum of
P2,000.00.

On the other hand, the defense presented evidence, oral and documentary,
to prove that the Storm Drain Section, Office of the City Engineer of Manila,
received a report of the uncovered condition of a catchbasin at the corner of
P. Burgos and Old Luneta Streets, Manila, on January 24, 1958, but the same
was covered on the same day ; that again the iron cover of the same catch
basin was reported missing on January 30, 1958, but the said cover was
replaced the next day ; that the Office of the City Engineer never received any
report to the effect that the catch basin in question was not covered between
January 25 and 29, 1968; that it has always been a policy of the said office,
which is charged with the duty of installation, repair and care of storm drains
in the City of Manila, that whenever a report is received from whatever source
of the loss of a catchbasin cover, the matter is immediately attended to, either
by immediately replacing the missing cover or covering the catchbasin with
steel matting that because of the lucrative scrap iron business then prevailing,
stealing of iron catchbasin covers was rampant; that the Office of the City
Engineer has filed complaints in court resulting from theft of said iron covers;
that in order to prevent such thefts, the city government has changed the
position and layout of catchbasins in the City by constructing them under the
sidewalks with concrete cement covers and openings on the side of the gutter;
and that these changes had been undertaken by the city from time to time
whenever funds were available.

After appropriate proceedings the RTC of Manila rendered the aforementioned

decision sustaining the theory of the defendants and dismissing the amended
complaint, without costs.

On appeal taken by plaintiff, this decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals,
except insofar as the City of Manila is concerned, which was sentenced to pay
damages in the aggregate sum of P6,750.00. the City of Manila appealed.

The first issue raised by the latter is whether the present case is governed by Section
4 of Republic Act No. 409 (Charter of the City of Manila) reading:

The city shall not be liable or held for damages or injuries to persons or
property arising from the failure of the Mayor, the Municipal Board, or any
other city officer, to enforce the provisions of this chapter, or any other law or
ordinance, or from negligence of said Mayor, Municipal Board, or other officers
while enforcing or attempting to enforce said provisions.

or by Article 2189 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which provides:

Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death
of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of defective conditions of
road, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their
control or supervision.

Page 5 of 12
 a. Resolve the issue citing pertinent law, jurisprudence and rules.
b. Define the Doctrine of Implied Exception.
c. Can the Legislative Department enact an irrepealable statute? Explain.

IV

The Philippines created the INTER-AGENCY TASK FORCE for the management
of emerging infectious diseases in the Philippines. Due to the pandemic caused by
COVID-19, the IATF has placed some LGUs under Enhanced Community Quarantine
(ECQ) and for LGUs with lesser cases of COVID-19, they have placed them under
General Community Quarantine (GCQ) or Modified general Community Quarantine
(MGCQ). Each quarantine protocols must follow the guideline laid out by the IATF in
their various issuances.

The City of Ormoc, were one of the LGUs placed under MGCQ. However the
Mayor felt that it was his duty to really protect his constiytuents against the evils of
COVID-19 and instead of following IATF mandates to follow the MGCQ protocols, he
issued an EO No. 10 of 2020, overriding the sangguniang panglungsod, laying out
the health protocols for Ormoc City, adapting the ECQ protocols by the IATF.

Is the EO valid?

a. Argue for the validity of the EO.

b. Argue for the invalidity of the EO.
c. Argue for Constituionality of RA 11479 or The Anti-Terror Law of 2020

Arman was a known drug seller in Brgy. Manggahan in Sagkahan Tacloban City.
After an entrapment operation by the CIDG, an inventory of the seized items from
Arman was conducted in the nearest police station. An inquest proceeding was
conducted, an information was filed against him for violation of Section 5 RA 9165,
for selling .065 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. Arman, through counsel,
moved for the quashal of the information on the ground that what was inventoried
were not genuine Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, but were alum powder,
therefore no crime was committed by Arman. The information was quashed. The
Office of the City Prosecutor of Tacloban subsequently filed a case for estafa against
Arman, on the ground that the latter defrauded the government in selling a fake
drug during an entrapment by CIDG.

a. Resolve the issue using pertinent law, jurisprudence and rules.

b. When does a bill become a law?
c. What is statutory construction?

VI.

Henson, being the Intramuros Administrator, was dismissed from the service by the
Office of the President upon recommendation of the Presidential Commission Against
Graft and Corruption (PGAC) which found that the contracts were entered into, with
a certain Brand Asia Ltd. was without the required public bidding and in violation of
Section 3 (a) and (e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.

Page 6 of 12
The Fact-Finding Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) filed criminal and administrative
charges against Henson, along with others, for violation of Section 3 (a) and (c) of
R.A. No. 3019 in relation to Section 1 of Executive Order No. 302 and grave
misconduct, conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service and gross
violation of Rules and Regulations pursuant to the Administrative Code of 1987,
docketed as OMB-0-00-1411 and OMB-ADM-0-00-0721, respectively. OMB-0-00-
1411 was dismissed on February 27, 2002 for lack of probable cause.

In his proposed Decision dated June 19, 2002, Graft Investigation Officer II Joselito
P. Fangon recommended the dismissal of OMB-ADM-0-00-0721.

However, then Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo disapproved the recommendation.

In an Order dated March 10, 2003, he held that there was substantial evidence to
hold respondents administratively liable since the contracts awarded to Brand Asia,
Ltd. failed to go through the required procedure for public bidding under Executive
Order No. 301 dated July 26, 1987. Henson was found guilty of grave misconduct
and dismissed from service.

On March 17, 2003, Henson, filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On June 24,
2003, Ombudsman Marcelo issued an Order partially granting the motion for
reconsideration. He was found guilty of the lesser offense of simple misconduct and
suspended for six months without pay.

Dissatisfied, Henson filed a Petition for Reviewwith the CA assailing the Orders dated
March 10, 2003 and June 24, 2003 of the Ombudsman.

On April 28, 2005, the CA rendered a Decision setting aside the Orders dated March
10, 2003 and June 24, 2003 of the Ombudsman. The CA held that respondents may
no longer be prosecuted since the complaint was filed more than seven years after
the imputed acts were committed which was beyond the one year period provided
for by Section 20 (5) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6770, otherwise known as "The
Ombudsman Act of 1989"; and that the nature of the function of
the Ombudsman was purely recommendatory and it did not have the power to
penalize erring government officials and employees. The CA relied on the following
statement made by the Court in Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman, to wit:

x x x Besides, assuming arguendo, that petitioner [Tapiador] was

administratively liable, the Ombudsman has no authority to directly
dismiss the petitioner from the government service, more particularly
from his position in the BID. Under Section 13, subparagraph 3, of Article XI
of the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman can only "recommend" the
removal of the public official or employee found to be at fault, to the
public official concerned. (Emphasis supplied)

The Ombudsman appealed to Supreme Court arguing that it was discretionary upon
their office whether or not to conduct an investigation of a complaint even if it was
filed after one year from the occurrence of the act or omission complained of. On
the other hand, Henson insists that Section 20 (5) of R.A. No. 6770 proscribes the
investigation of any administrative act or omission if the complaint was filed after
one year from the occurrence of the complained act or omission, to wit:

Page 7 of 12
SEC. 20. Exceptions. – The Office of the Ombudsman may not conduct the
necessary investigation of any administrative act or omission complained of if it
believes that:

xxx

(5) The complaint was filed after one year from the occurrence of the act or omission
complained of.

a. Resolve the issue using pertinent law, jurisprudence and rules.

b. Differentiate Statutory Construction and Constitutional Construction.
c. Explain the legal maxim UT RES MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PAREAT.
d. Explain the legal maxim EX DOLO MALO NON ORITUR ACTIO or No man can
be allowed to found a claim upon his wrong doing or inequity.

VII.

Isabela Water District (ISAWAD) is a government owned controlled corporation

(GOCC) created pursuant to the provisions of PD No. 198, or the “Provincial Water
Utilities Act of 1973” (PWUA), as amended by RA 9286. Aleli is the General Manager
of ISAWAD

On January 2007, Genel, Audit Team Leader of ISAWAD, Isabel City, gave notice
that the payment of salary increase for GM, ISAWAD, from Php 20823 to Php 35,
574.oo per month, from August to December 2005, was without legal basis.

Aleli filed an appeal with the Regional Cluster Director, Cluster III-Public Utilitites,
Corporate Government Sector, which indorsed to the COA Regional Office. Aleli
insisted that the increase in her salary and her RATA was in accordance with RA
9286, or the law, which amended PWUA.

The COA Regional Office rendered a decision affirming the assailed NDs. It explained
that the compensation of GMs of local water districts (LWDs) was still subject to the
provisions of RA 6758, or the Salary Standardization Law (SSL). Thus, it found that
the increase in the Aleli’s salary was improper as it ran a foul with the provisions of
Section 4 of the said law, to quote:

Section 4. Coverage. - The Compensation and Position Classification System

herein provided shall apply to all positions, appointive or elective, on full or part-
time basis, now existing or hereafter created in the government, including
government-owned or controlled corporations and government financial
institutions.
The term "government" refers to the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial
Branches and the Constitutional Commissions and shall include all, but shall not be
limited to, departments, bureaus, offices, boards, commissions, courts, tribunals,
councils, authorities, administrations, centers, institutes, state colleges and
universities, local government units, and the armed forces. The term "government-
owned or controlled corporations and financial institutions" shall include all
corporations and financial institutions owned or controlled by the National
Government, whether such corporations and financial institutions perform
governmental or proprietary functions.

Page 8 of 12
According to Aleli, her salry increase was proper because LWDs were exempt from
the coverage of SSL, since Section 23 of PD 198 as amended by RA 9286, a later
law, empowered the board of directors of LWDs to fix the salary of its GM’s thereby
repealing RA No. 6758, to wit:

Sec. 2 Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 198, as amended, is hereby amended,

is hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 23. The General Manager. - At the first meeting of the Board, or as soon
thereafter as practicable, the Board shall appoint, by a majority vote, a general
manager and shall define his duties and fix his compensation. Said officer shall not
be removed from office, except for cause and after due process.

A. Resolve the issues using pertinent law, rules and jurisprudence.

B. Define a Constitution.
C. How is do we construe a constitution? Explain.
D. Argue for the Unconstituionality of RA 11479 or the Anti-Terror Law of 2020

VIII.

Petitioner Cesario Ursua was a Community Environment and Natural Resources

Officer assigned in Kidapawan, Cotabato. On 9 May 1989 the Provincial Governor of
Cotabato requested the Office of the Ombudsman in Manila to conduct an
Investigation on a complainant for bribery, dishonesty, abuse of authority and giving
of unwarranted benefits by petitioner and other officials of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. The complaint was initiated by the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cotabato through a resolution advising the Governor
to report the involvement of petitioner and others in the illegal cutting of mahogany
trees and hauling of illegally-cut logs in the area.

On 1 August 1989 Atty. Francis Palmones, counsel for petitioner, wrote the Office
of the Ombudsman in Davao City requesting that he be furnished copy of the
complaint against petitioner. Atty. Palmones then asked his client Ursua to take his
letter-request to the Office of the Ombudsman because his law firm’s messenger,
Oscar Perez, had to attend to some personal matters. Before proceeding to the
Office of the Ombudsman petitioner talked to Oscar Perez and told him that he was
reluctant to personally ask for the document since he was one of the respondents
before the Ombudsman. However, Perez advised him not to worry as he could just
sign his (Perez) name if ever he would be required to acknowledge receipt of the
complaint.

When petitioner arrived at the Office of the Ombudsman in Davao City he was
instructed by the security officer to register in the visitors’ logbook. Instead of
writing down his name petitioner wrote the name "Oscar Perez" after which he was
told to proceed to the Administrative Division for the copy of the complaint he
needed. He handed the letter of Atty. Palmones to the Chief of the Administrative
Division, Ms. Loida Kahulugan, who then gave him a copy of the complaint, receipt
of which he acknowledged by writing the name "Oscar Perez."

Page 9 of 12
Before petitioner could leave the premises he was greeted by an acquaintance,
Josefa Amparo, who also worked in the same office. They conversed for a while then
he left. When Loida learned that the person who introduced himself as "Oscar Perez"
was actually petitioner Cesario Ursua, a customer of Josefa Amparo in her gasoline
station, Loida reported the matter to the Deputy Ombudsman who recommended
that petitioner be accordingly charged.

On 18 December 1990, after the prosecution had completed the presentation of its
evidence, petitioner without leave of court filed a demurrer to evidence alleging that
the failure of the prosecution to prove that his supposed alias was different from his
registered name in the local civil registry was fatal to its cause. Petitioner argued
that no document from the local civil registry was presented to show the registered
name of accused which according to him was a condition sine qua non for the validity
of his conviction.

The trial court rejected his contentions and found him guilty of violating Sec. 1 of
C.A. No. 142 (An Act to Regulate the Use of Aliases) as amended by R. A. No. 6085,
to quote:

Section 1. Section one of Commonwealth Act Numbered One hundred forty-two is

hereby amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 1. Except as a pseudonym solely for literary, cinema, television, radio or other
entertainment purposes and in athletic events where the use of pseudonym is a
normally accepted practice, no person shall use any name different from the one
with which he was registered at birth in the office of the local civil registry, or with
which he was baptized for the first time, or, in case of an alien, with which he was
registered in the bureau of immigration upon entry; or such substitute name as may
have been authorized by a competent court: Provided, That persons, whose births
have not been registered in any local civil registry and who have not been baptized,
have one year from the approval of this act within which to register their names in
the civil registry of their residence. The name shall comprise the patronymic name
and one or two surnames."

Petitioner was sentenced to suffer a prison term of one (1) year and one (1) day of
prison correccional minimum as minimum, to four (4) years of prison correccional
medium as maximum, with all the accessory penalties provided for by law, and to
pay a fine of P4, 000.00 plus costs.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.

On 31 May 1993 the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of petitioner but
modified the penalty by imposing an indeterminate term of one (1) year as minimum
to three (3) years as maximum and a fine of P5,000.00.

Petitioner appealed before the SC his conviction as he reasserts his innocence. He

contends that he has not violated C.A. No. 142 as amended by R. A. No. 6085 as he
never used any alias name; neither is "Oscar Perez" his alias. An alias, according to
him, is a term which connotes the habitual use of another name by which a person
is also known. He claims that he has never been known as "Oscar Perez" and that
he only used such name on one occasion and it was with the express consent of
Oscar Perez himself. It is his position that an essential requirement for a conviction
under C.A. No. 142 as amended by R. A. No. 6085 has not been complied with when
the prosecution failed to prove that his supposed alias was different from his

Page 10 of 12
registered name in the Registry of Births. He further argues that the Court of Appeals
erred in not considering the defense theory that he was charged under the wrong
law.

A. Is Cesario Ursua liable for violating CA No. 142 as amended by RA 6085?

Defend your answer using pertinent law, jurisprudence and rules.
B. Explain the Doctrine of Casus Omisus.
C. Relate the Doctrine of Necessary Implication to the Expressio Unius Rule.

IX

Due to the rise of a Pandemic known as COVID-19, the DOH has implemented
quarantine protocols, one of the means to “flatten the curve” with the aim to lessen
the case and eliminate once and for all the pandemic. the Congress passed RA 11332
entitled “An Act Providing Policies and Prescribing Procedures on
Surveillance and Response to Notifiable Diseases, Epidemics, and Health
Events of Public Health Concern, and Appropriating Funds Therefor,
Repealing for the Purpose Act No. 3573, Otherwise Known as the "Law on
Reporting of Communicable Diseases".

On March 22, 2020 the City of Tacloban implememnted enchanced community

quarantine (ECQ), curfews were implemented as well liquor bans. Edwin Maria was
an employee of a business establishment that was greatly affected by the ECQ, he
was just informed, on the same date, that he will not be reporting to work during
the duration of the ECQ, he was a “no-work, no-pay” kind of laborer. Anxious, he
turned to alcohol to comfort himself. He was too intoxicated, he did not realize that
he was past the curfew hours of the city. He was picked up by the police for violating
RA 11332. Is he liable?

a. Argue for Edwin Maria. Cite pertinent laws, jurisprudence and principles.
b. Argue for the Prosecution. Cite pertinent laws, jurisprudence and principles.
c. What is a hodgepodge legislation?
d. Cite and explain 6 the constitutional limitations for Congress in enacting laws.

Carolino Go is a licensed coco lumber dealer in Tacloban City his coco lumbers are
delivered by Gaudencio Pedron who was issued by the Philippine Coconut Authority
with a permit to cut and other necessary permits under the law. Jessie Tan,
ordered some coco lumbers from Carolino Go via text. Carolino Go then hired the
service of LALAMOVE, an online delivery service, to deliver the same Jessie Tan.
Rudy Ferrera, a LALAMOVE delivery guy, was on his way to when by some chain of
unfortunate events, he was apprehended by PO3 Domingo for violation of
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8048, entitled “AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF
THE CUTTING OF COCONUT TREES, ITS REPLENISHMENT, PROVIDING PENALTIES
THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES" as amended by RA 10593 which
provides:

Page 11 of 12
 "SEC. 9. Penalties. – Those found guilty of violating this Act or any rules
and regulations issued pursuant hereto shall, upon conviction, be
punished by imprisonment of not less than two (2) years but not more
than six (6) years, or a fine of not less than One hundred thousand
pesos (P100,000.00) but not more than Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00), or both, at the discretion of the court.

"If the offender is a corporation or a juridical entity, the official who

ordered, or allowed the commission of the offense shall be punished
with the same penalty.

"If the offender is in the government service, he shall, in addition be

dismissed from office.

"Upon verification by the PCA that no replanting was done, the

barangay captain who issued the certification shall, upon conviction, be
penalized with imprisonment of not less than three (3) years but not
more than seven (7) years and a fine of not less than One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not more than One million pesos
(P1,000,000.00). Furthermore, the barangay captain concerned shall
be perpetually disqualified from holding any other public office."

The information was filed against Rudy Ferrera for violation of the above law, citing
Paragraph a of Section 45 of the Implementing Rules and Regulation of RA 10593,
which provides:

“SECTION 45. Confiscation

(a) Any felled coconut tree or lumber found to be without the required
Permit to Cut from the PCA is hereby deemed illegally cut.

XXXX”

Is Rudy Ferrera liable?

a. Rule in favor of the defense, citing pertinent laws, jurisprudence and

principles.

b. Rule in favor of the prosecution, citing pertinent laws, jurisprudence and

principles.

c. What is Statutory Construction based on Caltex Philippines vs Palomar.

***END***

Page 12 of 12