STATCON  CASES  TRIGGER  NOTES  Part  5  and  6  

TITLE   Topic   FACTS  (Summary)   ISSUE   RULING  (Summary)   N.B.  

           
    This  case  is  a  petition  for  review  for  the  denial  of  the  petitioner’s     Yes.  The  lower  court  should  have  granted  the  petition.  Lower  court  invoked  Art.  364.   The   following   may   be   considered,   among  
    prayer   to   change   name.   Petitioner,   Maria   Estrella   Veronica     But   here   the   word   ‘principally   ‘as   used   in   the   provision   is   NOT   equivalent   to   others,  as  proper  or  reasonable  causes  that  
    Primitiva  Duterte  wanted  to  change  her  name  to  Estrella  Alfon   Whether  the   ‘exclusively’.  There  is  no  legal  obstacle  to  choose  to  use  the  surname  of  the  mother.     may   warrant   the   grant   of   a   petitioner   for  
Alfon  vs.   “EXCLUSIVE”     lower  court     change  of  name;    
Republic   Petitioner  mainly  contended  she  used  the  name  since  childhood   erred  in   As  held  in  previous  cases,  there  are  reasons  that  may  warrant  a  grant  for  a  change  of    
and  that  she  is  known  by  the  name  Estrella  Alfon.   denying  the   name:  One  is  when  change  is  necessary  to  avoid  confusion.  In  the  case  at  bar,  petitioner   (1)  when  the  name  is  ridiculous,  tainted  with  
  petition   had  an  ample  justificiation  and  that  her  petition  to  change  name  is  reasonable  and  not   dishonor,  or  is  extremely  difficult  to  write  or  
Lower   Court   denied   the   petition.   Accordingly,   to   allow   her   to   arbitrary.   pronounce;  (2)  when  the  request  for  change  
change   her   surname   from   Duterte   to   Alfon   is   equivalent   to     is  a  consequence  of  a  change  of'  status,  such  
allowing  her  to  use  her  Mother’s  Surname.  Art.  364:  “Legitimate   as   when   a   natural   child   is   acknowledged   or  
and  legitimated  children  shall  principally  use  the  surname  of  the   legitimated;   and   (3)   when   the   change   is  
father.   necessary  to  avoid  confusion  
   
           
    Habeas  corpus  on  custody  of  minors.  Since  the  petitioner  cannot   Whether  CA   Petition  granted.  The  CA  should  take  cognizance  of  the  case  since  nothing  in  the  words  
Settled   is   the   rule   in   statutory   construction  
    locate  the  whereabouts  of  her  wife  and  daughter.  He  directly  filed   has  jurisdiction   of  RA  8369  (TFA)  that  repeals  the  previous  law.  The  CA  erroneously  construed  the  word  
that  implied  repeals  are  not  favored.  The  two  
    a   petition   for   HC   in   the   Court   of   Appeals   which   could   be   to  issue  HC   “exclusively”.  SC  deemed  it  to  be  iniquitous  if  given  such  construction.  
laws  must  be  absolutely  incompatible,  and  a  
Thornton  vs.   “EXCLUSIVE”   enforceable  in  the  entire  country.   over  custody  of    
clear   finding   thereof   must   surface,   before  
Thornton     Minors   One  who  seeks  HC  will  be  left  without  remedy  if  the  one  he  is  filing  it  against  transfers  
the   inference   of   implied   repeal   may   be  
Petition   was   DENIED   on   the   ground   that   it   did   not   have   location  everytime.  The  primordial  consideration  is  the  welfare  of  the  child.  RA  8369  did  
drawn  
jurisdiction.   Since   The   Family   Courts   Act   gave   FC   exclusive   not  divest  CA  and  SC  of  their  jurisdiction  over  habeas  corpus  cases  involving  custody  of  
 
original   jurisdiction   over   petition   for   HC,   and   that   said   law   minors.  
Hence,   all   doubts   must   be   resolved   against  
impliedly  repealed  the  law  granting  jurisdiction  to  CA.    
any  implied  repeal,  and  all  efforts  should  be  
  In  the  Case  at  bar,  a  literal  interpretation  of  the  word  will  result  in  grave  injustice  and  
exerted   in   order   to   harmonize   and   give  
negate  the  policy  of  protecting  the  rights  and  welfare  of  the  children  
effect  to  all  laws  on  the  subject.  
 
           
    What  is  the   Sec   10   of   PD   1529   states   that,   “It   shall   be   the   duty   of   the   Register   of   Deeds   to   The   Court   emphasized   the   meaning   of   the  
Both  parties  claim  that  they  own  a  parcel    of  land,  Lot  No.    4517.    
Baranda  vs.   “SHALL”   nature  of  the   immediately  register  an  instrument  presented  for  registration  ....  If  the  instrument   word   SHALL   –   the   word   means   “ought   to,  
The   Court,   after   discovering   that   private   respondent’s   TCT   was  
Gustillo   duty  of  the   cannot   be   registered,   he   shall   forthwith   deny   registration   thereof   and   inform   the   must,   it   is   used   to   express   a   command   or  
fraudulently  acquired,  ordered  a  writ  of  possession  against  them  
Register  of   presenter  of  such  denial  in  writing,  stating  the  ground  therefore,  and  advising  him  of  his   exhortation,   used   in   laws,   regulations   or  
and   issued   a   resolution   denying   with   finality   a   motion   for  
Deeds  to   rights  to  appeal  by  consulta.”     directives  which  express  what  is  mandatory.  
reconsideration  filed  by  Private  Respondents.  Another  group  filed  
annotate  or    
a  separate  civil  case  against  Petitioners  and  applied  for  lis  pendens  
annul  the  
on  the  TCT  of  said  lot,  which  the  court  found    out    to    be    privies    of    
notice  of  lis  
the    Private    Respondents    tasked    to    delay    the  implementation  
pendens  in  a  
of  the  final  decisions  of  the  Court.  
Torrens  
  Certificate  of  
Title?  
 
           
    Abistado  filed  a  petition  for  original  registration  of  a  land  title.   Whether  the   Yes.  It  is  mandatory.  The  law  used  the  term  "shall"  in  prescribing  the  work  to  be  done   It   should   be   noted   further   that   land  
Director  of   “SHALL”   During  the  pendency,  he  died  and  his  heirs  were  represented  by   requirement  of   by  the  Commissioner  of  Land  Registration  upon  the  latter's  receipt  of  the  court  order   registration  is  a  proceeding  in  rem.  Being  in  
Land  vs.  CA   Josefa   Abistado   as   guardian   ad   litem   in   order   to   continue   the   newspaper   setting   the   time   for   initial   hearing.   The   said   word   denotes   an   imperative   and   thus   rem,   such   proceeding   requires   constructive  
petition.   The   trial   court   dismissed   the   petition   “for   want   of   publication  of   indicates  the  mandatory  character  of  a  statute.   seizure   of   the   land   as   against   all   persons,  
jurisdiction”.   The   reason   for   the   dismissal   is   that   the   applicant   the  notice  of     including   the   state,   who   have   rights   to   or  
failed  to  publish  the  notice  of  Initial  Hearing  in  a  newspaper  of   initial  hearing   Section  23  of  P.D.  No.  1529  shall  be  followed  requiring  a  publication  once  both  in  the   interests   in   the   property.   An   in  
general  circulation  pursuant  to  a  law,  it  was  only  published  in  the   on  a  land   Official  Gazette  and  newspaper  of  general  circulation.  The  Land  Registration  Case  is  an   rem   proceeding   is   validated   essentially  
Official  Gazette.  The  CA  set  aside  the  decision  of  the  trial  court.   registration   in  Rem  proceeding,  meaning  the  applicant  must  prove  his  title  over  the  land  against  all   through   publication.   This   being   so,   the  
CA  ruled  that  the  publication  in  the  newspaper  of  gen.  circulation,   case   persons   concerned,   who   might   have   interest   to   right   in   the   property   and   should   process  must  strictly  be  complied  with.  
need  not  be  done.   mandatory  or   effectively  be  invited  in  the  court  to  prove  why  the  title  should  not  be  granted.    
directory.      
 
            
    Petitioner   filed   two   administrative   cases   against   Respondent  
  Sec.  530(f),  RA  7160  did  not  expressly  repeal  Sec.  6,  A.O.  No.  18  because  it  failed  to   The   term   "shall"   may   be   read   either   as  
Berces  vs.   “SHALL”   mayor   of   Tiwi;   Respondent   mayor   was   convicted,   and  
identify  or  designate  the  laws  on  executive  orders  that  are  intended  to  be  repealed.   mandatory   or   directory   depending   upon   a  
Guingona;   accordingly,  suspended.  Respondent  mayor  appealed  to  the  OP   Whether  the  
  consideration   of   the   entire   provisions   in  
Mayor  Corral   and  prayed  for  stay  of  execution  under  Sec.  67(b)  of  the  LGC.  The   contention  of  
A  subsequent  law  cannot  be  construed  as  repealing  a  prior  law  unless  an  irreconcilable   which   it   is   found,   its   object   and   the  
Office  of  the  President  stayed  execution   the  petitioner  is  
inconsistency  and  repugnancy  exists  between  the  two.  There  is  none  in  this  case.   consequences   that   would   follow   from  
  tenable  
  construing   it   one   way   or   the   other.   In   the  
According   to   Petitioner,   the   governing   law   is   RA   7160,   which  
The  first  sentence  of  Sec.  68  provides  that  “an  appeal  shall  not  prevent  a  decision  from   case  at  bench,  there  is  no  basis  to  justify  the  
contains  a  mandatory  provision  that  an  appeal  shall  not  prevent  
becoming  final  or  executory.”  It  gives  discretion  to  reviewing  appeals  to  stay  execution   construction  of  the  word  as  mandatory.  
a  decision  from  becoming  final  and  executory.  Petitioner  further  
contends  that  A.O.  No.  18  (allows  the  president  to  stay  the  exec)    
was  repealed  by  RA  7160.    
 
           
    Plaintiff   (Pampanga   City)   entered   into   a   sub-­‐contract   with   the   Whether  the   No.  The  rule  on  venue  of  personal  actions  cognizable  by  the  CFI  is  found  in  Sec.  2(b),  
It   is   well   settled   that   the   word   "may"   is  
    Defendant   (Naga   City).   The   defendant   delayed   in   completing   a   dismissal  of  the   Rule  4  of  the  Rules  of  Court,  which  provides  that  such  "actions  may  be  commenced  and  
merely   permissive   and   operates   to   confer  
    construction  job  for  the  Plaintiff.  Hence,  Plaintiff  filed  in  the  CFI   case  is  proper   tried  where  the  Defendant  or  any  of  the  Defendants  resides  or  may  be  found,  or  where  
discretion   upon   a   party.   Under   ordinary  
Capati  vs.   “MAY”   of  Pampanga  an  action  for  recovery  of  consequential  damages   and  correct   the  Plaintiff  or  any  of  the  Plaintiffs  resides,  at  the  election  of  the  Plaintiff."  
circumstances,  the  term  "may  be"  connotes  
Ocampo   due  to  the  delay.    
possibility;   it   does   not   connote   certainty.  
  We  hold  that  the  stipulation  as  to  venue  in  the  contract  in  question  is  simply  permissive.  
"May"  is  an  auxillary  verb  indicating  liberty,  
Def-­‐   motion   to   dismiss   on   the   ground   of   improper   venue.   The   The  parties  did  not  agree  to  file  their  suits  solely  and  exclusively  with  the  Court  of  First  
opportunity,  permission  or  possibility.  
motion  was  premised  on  the  stipulation  printed  at  the  back  of  the   Instance  of  Naga.  They  merely  agreed  to  submit  their  disputes  to  the  said  court,  without  
contract  “may  be  instituted  in  the  CFI  of  NAGA”   waiving  their  right  under  Sec  2(b),  Rule  4  of  the  RoC.    
   

           
    Respondent   NTC   promulgated   a   decision   (NTC   decision)   dated   The   basic   canon   of   statutory   interpretation   is   that   the   word   used   in   the   law   must   be  
   
    November  22,  1982  which  approved  a  revised  schedule  of  rates   given  its  ordinary  meaning,  unless  a  contrary  intent  is  manifest  from  the  law  itself.  The  
Note  that  both  words  “shall”  and  “may  be”  
    (translation:   phone   bills   went   up)   which   was   within   the   limits     phrase  “may  be  promulgated”  cannot  be  construed  to  mean  “shall”  or  “must”.      
are   used   in   the   same   section   which  
    of   P.D.   No.   217,   the   law   which   regulated   the   telephone    
  demonstrates   that   the   ordinary,   usual   or  
    industry.    Petitioner,  Philippine  Consumer  Foundation  (PCF)  filed   Section   2   must   therefore   be   interpreted   in   its   ordinary   sense   as   permissive   or  
normal   distinction   between   these   words   is  
Philippine     this   petition   seeking   to   annul   this   decision.   On   November   25,   Whether  or  not   discretionary  and  not  mandatory  on  the  part  of  the  delegate,  NTC.  What  is  mandatory  
preserved.  
Consumer   “MAY”   1983,   the   Supreme   Court   promulgated   a   decision   annulling   the   Section  2  of   however,  is  the  immediate  implementation  of  the  policies  declared  in  P.D.  No.  217.  
vs.  NTC,   NTC  decision.       P.D.  No.  217  is      
PLDT     mandatory.   It  shall  be  interpreted  in  its  ordinary  sense  as  permissive  or  discretionary  on  the  part  of  
This  decision  interpreted  the  following  phraseology  of  Section  2     the  delegate  —  department  or  the  Board  6f  Communications  then,  now  the  National  
of  P.D.  No.  217  as  mandatory:  “The  Department  of  Public  Works,   Telecommunications  Commission  —  whether  or  not  to  promulgate  pertinent  rules  and  
Transportation   and   Communications,   through   its   Board   of   regulations.  There  is  nothing  in  P.D.  No.  217  which  commands  that  the  phrase  "may  be  
Communications   and/or   appropriate   agency   shall   see   to   it   that   promulgated"  should  be  construed  as  "shall  be  promulgated."  
the   herein   declared   policies   for   the   telephone   industry    
are  immediately  implemented  and  for  this  purpose,  pertinent  rules  
and  regulations  may  be  promulgated”  (italics  supplied).  
 
           
    Clearly,   under   the   law,   the   Rule   gives   the   accused   the   right   to   ask   for   preliminary   The  provi:  “If  the  case  has  been  filed  in  court  
Esam   Gadi   apprehended   in   MIA   for   possession   of   marijuana.   Whether  the  
    investigation;  but  it  does  not  give  him  the  right  to  do  so  after  the  lapse  of  the  required   without   a   preliminary   investigation   having  
Three   days   later   he   filed   a   petition   to   reduce   bail   which   was   reglementary  
    period.   been   conducted,   the   accused   may   within  
eventually   approved.   A   month   later,   Gadi   filed   a   motion   for   period  is  
People  vs.   “MAY”     five  (5)  days  from  the  time  he  learns  of  the  
“reinvestigation”.   Admitting   that   the   motion   was   filed   way   mandatory.  
CA  (Esam   Interpretation   The  rule  is  permissive  only  within  the  reglementary  period;  otherwise,  it  is  mandatory.     filing   of   the   information,   ask   for   a  
beyond  the  five-­‐day  period  prescribed  by  the  Rules  of  Court,  he  
Gadi  Case)   depends  upon  the     preliminary   investigation   with   the   same  
contended  that  the  reglementary  period  was  not  mandatory.  
context   An  accused  who  had  posted  bail  was  deemed  to  have  foregone  his  right  to  preliminary   right   to   adduce   evidence   in   his   favor   in   the  
 
investigation.   manner   prescribed   in   this   Rule.   (Emphasis  
CA  granted  the  petition.  CA  held  that  the  five-­‐day  reglementary  
  supplied)”  
period  was  only  permissive  because  of  the  word  ‘may’.  
 
 
Solgen:  contends  Esam  Gadi  had  waived  his  right  to  preliminary  
investigation  when  he  posted  bail.    
 
        
   
    Yes,  authority  of  the  CIR  is  a  requisite  before  a  corporate  taxpayer  can  credit  excess  taxes  paid   (“may”,   “may   be   credited”,   implying   the  
Petitioner   signified   its   intention   to   apply   the   total   creditable   Whether  prior  
San  Carlos   “MAY”   to   estimated   tax   liabilities.   Section   7   of   Revenue   Regulation   No.   10-­‐77   provides   that:   “any   availability  of  the  remedy  of  tax  credit  is  not  
amount   of   P785,863   against   its   1984   tax   dues   coupled   with   a   authority  from   excess  computed  and  shown  shall  either  (a)  be   refunded  to  the  corporation  or  (b)  may   be  
Milling  vs.   Interpretation   the  CIR  is   absolute  and  mandatory;  it  does  not  confer  
coupled  with  a  comforting  alternative  request  for  a  refund  or  tax   credited  against  the  estimated  quarterly  income  tax  liabilities”  Insofar  as  the  option  of  tax  
CIR   depends  upon  the   necessary  before   right  on  the  taxpayer  to  avail  of  the  tax  credit  
credit   of   the   same.   Respondent   disallowed   the   preferred   credit  is  concerned,  this  right  should  not  be  construed  as  an  absolute  right  which  is  available  
context   a  corp.  taxpayer   scheme  if  it  so  chooses…  
automatic  credit  scheme  but  treated  the  request  as  an  ordinary   to  the  taxpayer  at  his  sole  option.    
claim  for  refund/tax  credit   can  credit  excess  
estimated  
quarterly  income  
taxes  for  the  
succeeding  
taxable  year  
 
           
    Opponents  for  Mayoralty  –  De  Mesa  and  Argana;  de  Mesa  won;  
Whether  the   Judgment   of   the   Court   of   First   Instance   of   Rizal   in   election   case   7924   thereof,   dated   Where  the  statute  provides  for  the  doing  of  
De  Mesa  vs.   When  ‘may’  is   Loresca,  vice;  Argana  protested  the  election  of  De  Mesa.  Later  
requirement  is   August  10,  1964,  which  proclaimed  the  protestant  Maximino  A.  Argana  the  duly  elected   some   act   which   is   required   by   justice   or  
Mecias   construed  as   on,  the  latter  was  assassinated.  
couched  in  the   mayor   of   Muntinlupa,   Rizal   in   the   1963   elections,   for   having   been   rendered   without   public  duty,  or  where  it  vests  a  public  body,  
mandatory    
permissive   jurisdiction   over   the   person   of   the   legal   representative   of   the   deceased   protestee   municipality,   or   public   officer   with   power  
Loresca  was,  by  operation  of  law,  duly  installed  as  his  successor.  
term  “may”   Francisco  de  Mesa  and  all  other  proceedings  taken  by  said  court  in  said  election  case   and   authority   to   take   some   actions   which  
In   the   election   case,   the   protestant   Argana   moved   for   the  
instead  of  the   subsequent  to  the  death  of  the  said  protestee  is  declared  null  and  void.   concerns   the   public   interests   or   rights   of  
constitution  of  committees  on  revision  of  ballots.  
mandatory     individuals,  the  permissive  language  will  be  
 
character  of     construed  as  mandatory  and  the  execution  
On  June  23,  1964,  without  notice  of  the  protestee  and  /  or  his  
statutory   of  the  power  may  be  insisted  upon  as  duty.  
legal   representative,   the   trial   court   granted   the   motion  
provisions    
aforesaid.  The  trial  court  adjudged  the  protestant  Argana  as  the  
 
duly  elected  Mayor  
 
           
     
This   is   an   action   in   ejectment.   Plaintiff   alleging   that   she   is   the     The   law   states   that   property   "may   be  
Llenares  vs.   When  ‘may’  is   In   the   present   case   it   is   admitted   by   the   plaintiff   that   notice   of   attachment   for   the  
owner  of  the  two  parcels  of  land.  She  acquired  said  parcels   by   attached   on   execution   in   like   manner   as  
Valdeavella   construed  as   Whether  the   execution  was  not  filed  with  the  registrar  of  deeds  and  that  there  was  no  copy  thereof  
purchase  at  a  sheriff’s  sale  under  a  writ  of  execution.  The  court   upon   writs   of   attachment."   This   provision  
mandatory   sale  on   served  on  the  defendants.  It  is  therefore  clear  that  the  attempted  levy  was  not  made  in  
below   ruled   in   favor   of   the   defendants   holding   that   Irineo   while  permissive  in  form  must,  nevertheless,  
execution  is   accordance   with   the   provisions   of   the   statute,   and,   according   to   the   great   weight   of  
Valdeavella   was   the   owner   of   the   parcels   of   land.   Also   that   the   be   regarded   as   mandatory.   No   other  
valid   authority,   a   proper   levy   is   indispensable   to   a   valid   sale   on   execution.   A   sale   unless  
sheriff’s   sale   was   irregular   and   void   inasmuch   as   there   had   not   method   of   effecting   the   levy   is   prescribed  
preceded  by  a  valid  levy,  is  void,  and  the  purchaser  acquires  no  title.  
been  a  sufficient  levy  on  the  lands,  nor  a  sufficient  notice  of  the   and  it  is  an  old  rule  that  powers  through  the  
sale.  From  this  judgment,  plaintiff  appeals.   exercise  of  which  a  person  may  be  divested  
  of  his  property  are  always  strictly  construed  
and   that   the   provisions   regulating   the  
procedure   in   their   exercise   are   mandatory  
as  to  the  essence  of  the  thing  to  be  done.  
 
           
    Juco,  project  engineer  for  the  NHC;  implicated  in  a  case  of  theft   NLRC  has  no  jurisdiction.  Civil  Service  law  governs  all  matters  pertaining  to  employees   “Every"  means  each  one  of  a  group,  without  
Are  employees  
    and/or  malversation  of  public  funds.  He  was  terminated.  He  filed   of   government-­‐owned   and   controlled   corporations,   regardless   of   whether   it   was   exception  It  means  all  possible  and  all  taken  
of  Government-­‐
    a   case   for   illegal   dismissal   against   the   NHC   before   the   DOLE,   created   by   special   charter   or   otherwise.   Indeed,   the   inclusion   of   GOCCs   within   the   one   by   one.   Of   course,   our   decision   in   this  
Owned  and  
NHC  vs.  Juco   “EVERY”   contending   that   the   criminal   charges   imputed   against   him   are   embrace   of   the   civil   service   shows   a   deliberate   intent   and   effort   to   plug   an   earlier   case   refers   to   a   corporation   created   as   a  
Controlled  
  merely  a  fabrication  made  to  harass  him.  NHC  contended  that  the   loophole   which   allowed   certain   government   instrumentalities   to   avoid   the   all-­‐ government-­‐owned   or   controlled   entity.   It  
Corporations  
tribunal  does  not  have  jurisdiction  over  the  case,  considering  that   encompassing   coverage   of   the   civil   service   system.   Simultaneously,   this   has   also   does  not  cover  cases  involving  private  firms  
covered  by  the  
the   former   is   a   GOCC.   The   NLRC   however   countered   that   the   prevented   crafty   government   employees   from   calling   to   their   defense   the   more   taken  over  by  the  government  in  foreclosure  
Labor  Code  or  
(then  1973)  constitution  contemplates  only  those  GOCCs  that  are   workforce-­‐friendly  provisions  of  the  Labor  Code.  With  the  creation  of  the  Civil  Service   or  similar  proceedings.  We  reserve  judgment  
the  Civil  Service  
created  by  special  charters,  which  is  not  the  case  for  NHC.  
Commission?  
Commission,  all  government  offices,  without  exemption,  fall  within  its  purview.   on   these   latter   cases   when   the   appropriate  
    controversy  is  brought  to  this  Court.  
  Section  I  of  Article  XII-­‐B,  Constitution  uses  the  word  "every"  to  modify  the  phrase  
 
"government-­‐owned  or  controlled  corporation."  
 
            
    Petitioner  was  accused,  tried  and  convicted  of  five  (5)  counts  of      
Previous   conviction,   we   submit,  
    estafa   committed   on   different   dates.   The   counts   were   How  should  the   The  statute  relates  “previous  to  the  date  of  the  conviction,  not  to  the  date  of  the  
presupposes  that  there  is  a  prior  sentence  or  
    consolidated  and  tried  jointly.  Only  a  single  decision  was  rendered.   word   commission  of  the  crime.  The  word  “previously”  refers  to  the  date  of  the  conviction  and  
that   there   was   already   a   decision   rendered  
Rura  vs.   “PREVIOUSLY”   Petitioner  applied  for  probation  but  was  denied  by  the  fiscal  on   “previously”  be   not  to  the  dates  of  the  crimes  involved.  Although  he  was  guilty  of  five  counts  of  estafa,  
which  convicted  the  accused.  In  this  instant  
Lopena   the   ground   that   he   had   been   previously   convicted   by   final   construed?     they  were  tried  jointly  and  only  one  decision  was  handed  down.  Hence,  when  Petitioner  
cases,   however,   there   is   only   one   decision  
  judgment  of  an  offense.  The  fiscal  invoked  Sec.  9  of  the  Probation     applied  for  Probation  he  had  not  yet  had  a  final  judgment  of  conviction  on  his  record.  
rendered   on   the   five   (5)   counts   of   Estafa  
  Law,   which   disqualifies   persons   who   have   previously   been   He  is  eligible  for  probation  under  such  circumstances.  
which  was  promulgated  on  the  same  date.  In  
  convicted  by  final  judgment  from  applying  for  probation.  The  trial    
other   words,   the   effects   of   conviction   does  
  court   denied   his   application   on   the   belief   that   since   the   crimes   not  retract  to  the  date  of  the  commission  of  
  were  committed  on  different  dates,  he  was  guilty  on  each  of  those   the  offense  as  the  trial  court  held.  
dates.    
   
           
   
R.A.  1160  created  the  National  Resettlement  and  Rehabilitation   Whether   No,  Petitioner’s  term  of  office  is  deemed  expired.  R.A.  1160  expressly  gives  the  Board   The   word   "term"   in   a   legal   sense   means   a  
Appari  vs.   “TERM  VS.  
Administration   (NARRA).   Empowered   its   Board   of   Directors   to   Resolution  No.   the  power  to  appoint  and  fix  the  term  of  office  of  the  General  Manager.  The  word  ‘term’   fixed   and   definite   period   of   time   which   the  
CA   TENURE”  
appoint  and  fix  the  term  of  office  of  the  General  Manager  subject   24  constitutes   describes  the  period  that  an  office  may  hold  office  and  upon  expiration  of  such  term,  his   law   describes   that   an   officer   may   hold   an  
to  approval  of  the  President.   removal  of   rights,  duties,  and  authority  must  cease.  In  this  case,  the  term  of  office  is  not  fixed  by   office.    
  Petitioner   law,  but  by  the  Board.    
Eventually,   the   Board   approved   Resolution   No.   24   wherein   the   without  cause.  
President   expressed   his   desire   to   fix   the   term   of   office   of   the  
incumbent  General  Manager  
 
           
   
Mapa   bought   lots   from   LDC,   payable   in   ten   years.   Mapa   Clause  20  of  the   No.  Labrador  has  every  right  to  cancel  the  contracts  of  sale,  pursuant  to  Clause  7  of  the   Relative   words   refer   to   the   nearest  
Mapa  vs.   “AND”  Conjunctive  
defaulted.  The  latter  informed  Mapa  that  the  contracts  to  sell  the   said  contracts   said  contract  for  the  reason  of  the  lapse  of  five  years  of  default  payment  from  Mapa.   antecedent,   unless   it   be   prevented   by   the  
Joker  
lots   were   cancelled,   but   Mapa   invoked   Clause   20   of   the   four   include  and   P.D.  957  does  not  apply  because  it  was  enacted  long  after  the  execution  of  the  contracts   context.   In   the   present   case,   the  
Arroyo,  
contracts.   Said   clause   obligates   Labrador   to   complete   the   incorporate   involved,  and,  other  than  those  provided  in  Clause  20,  no  further  written  commitment   employment   of   the   word   "and"   between  
Labrador  
development  of  the  lots,  except  those  requiring  the  services  of  a   P.D.  957   was   made   by   the   developer.   The   words   “which   are   buffered   and   indicated   in   the   "facilities,   improvements,   infrastructures"  
public  utility  company  or  the  government,  within  3  years  from  the   through  the   subdivision  or  condominium  plans”  refer  not  only  to  “other  forms  of  development”  but   and  "other  forms  of  development,"  far  from  
date   of   the   contract.   Petitioner   contends   that   P.D.   957   requires   doctrine  of  last   also  to  “facilities,  improvements,  and  infrastructures”.  The  word  “and”  is  not  meant  to   supporting   petitioner's   theory,   enervates   it  
Labrador   to   provide   the   “facilities,   improvements,   and   antecedent,   separate  words,  but  is  a  conjunction  used  to  denote  a  joinder  or  a  union.   instead  since  it  is  basic  in  legal  hermeneutics  
infrastructures   for   the   lots,   and   other   forms   of   development”   if   making  the     that   "and"   is   not   meant   to   separate   words  
offered  and  indicated  in  the  approved  subdivision  plans.   cancellation  of   but  is  a  conjunction  used  to  denote  a  joinder  
  the  contracts  of   or  union.  
sale  incorrect.    
 
           
      No.  They  are  two  separate  offenses.  C.A.  No.  613  clearly  provides  that  the  four  acts  are  
Whether  the   The  rule  is  too  well-­‐settled  to  require  any  
    Respondents  charged  with  violating  Sec.  46  of  C.A.  No.  613  or  the   in  fact  four  separate  acts.  Each  act  possesses  its  own  distinctive,  different,  and  disparate  
act  of  bringing   citation  of  authorities  that  the  word  "or"  is  
    Philippine  Immigration  Act  by  the  Court  of  First  Instance  of  La   meaning.   The   word   OR   in   C.A.   No.   613   cannot   be   given   a   non-­‐disjunctive   meaning  
in  and  landing   a  disjunctive  term  signifying  dissociation  
People  vs.   “OR”  Disjunctive   Union,  specifically  in  the  act  of  bringing  in  and  landing.  The  Court   signifying   the   separation   of   one   act   from   the   other.   The   words   in   the   information  
constitute  a   and  independence  of  one  thing  from  each  
Martin   dismissed   the   charges   on   the   ground   of   it   being   a   continuous   suggesting  conspiracy  are  considered  a  mere  surplusage.  
continuous   of  the  other  things  enumerated  unless  the  
  offense  with  Criminal  Case  6258-­‐M  filed  in  Bulacan  against  other    
offense  with   context  requires  a  different  interpretation.  
  Respondents   who   were   concealing   and   harboring   the   same  
concealing  and   While  in  the  interpretation  of  statutes,  'or'  
  Chinese  Immigrants  who  were  brought  in  therefore  they  had  no  
harboring.     may  read  'and'  and  vice  versa,  it  is  so  only  
  jurisdiction.  
  when  the  context  so  requires.  
 
   
 
 
            
     
This  case  is  about  an  ordinance  imposing  “a  graduated  quarterly   Whether  the   Section  2  of  the  aforecited  statute  provides:  
    Certainly  We  cannot  assume  that  the  phrase  
tax…”  Petitioner  is  engaged  in  manufacturing  of  beer,  with  a  plant   challenged   Provided,   that   municipalities   and   municipal   districts   shall,   in   no   case,   impose   any  
    "or   actual   market   value"   was   a   mere  
in  Mandaue,  Cebu.  Petitioner  claims  that  it  is  adversely  affected   ordinance  has   percentage  tax  on  sales  or  other  taxes  in  any  form  based  thereon  nor  impose  taxes  on  
    surplusage,  for  it  serves  to  clarify  and  explain  
by   the   ordinance.   In   its   view,   it   was   beyond   the   authority   and   transcended   articles  subject  to  specific  tax…  
    the   meaning   and   import   of   the   preceding  
power  of  the  municipality.  Petitioner  brought  an  action  to  the  CFI,   the  exceptions    
San  Miguel   When  “or”  means   phrase.   In   any   event,   it   is   the   duty   of   the  
Cebu.  Petitioner  sought  the  annulment  of  the  ordinance.     and  limitations   Considering  that  the  phrase  "gross  value  in  money"  is  followed  by  the  words  "or  actual  
vs.   expository  or   courts,  so  far  reasonably  practicable,  to  read  
  imposed  by   market  value"  in  the  ordinance,  it  is  evident  that  the  latter  was  intended  to  explain  and  
Municipal   interpretative  of   and   interpret   a   statute   as   to   give   life   and  
section  2  of   clarify  the  preceding  phrase.  For  the  word  "or"  may  be  used  as  the  equivalent  of  "that  is  
Council   preceding  term   Petitioner  contends  that  “gross  value  in  money  or  actual  market   effect   to   its   provisions,   so   as   to   render   it   a  
Republic  Act   to  say"  and  gives  that  which  precedes  it  the  same  significance  as  that  which  follows  it.  It  
  value”  employed  in  the  questioned  ordinance  clearly  referred  to   harmonious  whole.  
2264  “Local   is  not  always  disjunctive  and  is  sometimes  interpretative  or  expository  of  the  preceding  
  “sales   or   market   price”,   thus   there   is   an   intent   to   impose   a   tax    
Autonomy   word.  
  based  on  sales.  
Act”.    
   
We   therefore   hold   that   the   questioned   ordinance   imposed   tax   based   on   sales   and  
  The   grant   of   power   to   tax   to   chartered   cities   and   municipalities  
therefore   beyond   the   authority   of   the   municipality   to   enact.   The   ordinance   was  
  under   Section   2   of   the   Local   Autonomy   Act   is   subject   to   the  
declared  null  and  void.  
  exceptions  and  limitations  
 
 
 
 
 
           
         
The  last  portion  of  the  provision  —  "and  shall  
Demafiles   “SURPLASSAGES”   Respondent   Galido   won   over   Petitioner   due   to   the   Provincial   Whether  the   No,   the   contention   is   untenable.   RA   4970   reads   “the   first   mayor,   vice-­‐mayor   and  
have  qualified"  —  is  devoid  of  any  meaning,  
vs.   Board  voting  to  reject  returns.  In  re:  Galido  raised  the  notion  that   contention  of   councilors  of  the  municipality  of  Sebaste  shall  be  elected  in  the  next  general  elections  
is   unmitigated   jargon   in   or   out   of   context,  
COMELEC   the   case   should   be   moot   because   he   had   taken   his   oath   and   Galido  is   for  local  officials  and  shall  have  qualified.”  The  Supreme  Court  ruled  that  “and  shall  have  
and   does   not   warrant   the   respondent's  
assumed  office.   tenable   qualified”  is  devoid  of  meaning.  The  term  of  office  of  municipals  shall  begin  in  the  1st  
reading   that   the   term   of   office   of   the   first  
day  of  January  following  their  election,  despite  the  fact  that  Sebaste  was  a  newly  created  
municipal   officials   of   Sebaste   begins  
municipality.
immediately  after  their  proclamation.  
 
           
    The  appellants,  Hart,  Miller  and  Natividad,  were  found  guilty  on  a     An  argument  based  upon  punctuation  alone  
Considering  that  the  argument  of  the  Attorney-­‐General  would  suggest  a  lack  of  logical  
    charge  of  vagrancy  under  the  provisions  of  Act  no.  519.  All  three     is   not   conclusive,   what   is   necessary   is   that  
classification  on  the  part  of  the  legislature  of  the  various  classes  of  vagrants  and  since  it  
    appealed   and   showed   evidence   showed   that   each   of   the     the  intention  of  the  legislature  must  be  given  
was  proven  that  all  three  of  the  defendants  were  earning  a  living  by  legitimate  means  at  
    defendants   was   earning   a   living   at   a   lawful   trade   or   business     effect.    
a  level  of  comfort  higher  than  usual,  Hart,  Miller  and  Natividad  were  acquitted.  
    sufficient  enough  to  support  themselves.      
 
        The   offense   of   vagrancy   as   defined   in   Act  
A  further  thought  suggest  itself  in  connection  with  the  punctuation  of  the  paragraph  in  
    The   subject   provision,   Section   1   of   Act   No.   519   is   divided   into     No.   519   is   the   Anglo-­‐Saxon   method   of  
question.   The   section,   as   stated   above,   is   divided   into   seven   clauses,   separated   by  
    seven  clauses,  separated  by  semicolons.  Each  clause  enumerates   Whether  the   dealing  with  the  habitually  idle  and  harmful  
semicolons.  To  say  that  two  classes  of  vagrants  are  defined  in  paragraph  2,  as  to  one  of  
    a  certain  class  of  persons  who,  within  the  meaning  of  this  statute,   respondents   parasites  of  society.    
which  visible  means  of  support  or  a  lawful  calling  is  not  a  good  defense,  and  as  to  the  
United     are  to  be  considered  as  vagrants.   are  guilty  of    
other  of  which  such  a  defense  is  sufficient,  would  imply  a  lack  of  logical  classification  on  
States  vs.   “PUNCTUATIONS”     vagrancy    
the  part  of  the  legislature  of  the  various  classes  of  vagrants.  This  we  are  not  inclined  to  
Hart  et  al.,   Core  Issue:  (2)  every  person  found  loitering  about  saloons  or  dram  
do.  
shops   or   gambling   houses,   or   tramping   or   straying   through   the  
 
country  without  visible  means  of  support;  
 
The   Attorney-­‐General   argues   that  "visible   means   of   support"   as  
used  in  that  clause  does  not  apply  to  "every  person  found  loitering  
about  saloons  or  dram  shops  or  gambling  houses,"  but  is  confined  
entirely   to   "or   tramping   or   straying   through   the   country."   It   is  
insisted   that   had   it   been   intended   for   "without   visible   means   of  
support"  to  qualify  the  first  part  of  the  clause,  either  the  comma  
after  gambling  houses  would  have  been  omitted,  or  else  a  comma  
after  country  would  have  been  inserted.