Stat Con Case Digest for September 3, 2022

1. NOSCITUR A SOCIIS
(doctrine/ rule of construction) Meaning of unclear/ ambiguous word (As in a statute or
contract) should be determine by considering the words which it is associated in the
context)

People v Delantar G.R. No. 169143, February 2, 2007

FACTS:
In August 1996, the accused Simplicio Delantar was charged for the violation of RA
7610 for selling in prostitution his presumed daughter , xxx, to an Arab National for sex
and delivering xxx who was 11 year old to Congressman Jalosjos. He pleaded that he
was not guilty and trial proceeded eventually. The RTC found the accused guilty, for two
counts of Violating RA 7610. He Court of Appeals sustained the decision except that the
appellate court ruled that the accused should be convicted for one count only. The
case reached the Supreme Court where accused condemn the imposition of maximum
penalty when in fact there was no such qualifying circumstance of filial relationship
between xxx and the appellant.

ISSUE:
Whether the birth certificate of xxx which does not bear Delantar’s signature is enough
to prove filiation.

HELD:
No, while under the Family Code of the Philippines, the filiation can be recognized by
the Father through; A) the recognition of the Father of the child’s paternity through the
record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgement; b) when the admission
of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and
signed by parent concerned. After all, it is undoubted that accused is not xxx biological
Father. Further, according to maxim noscitur a sociis, ambiguous words should be
determine by considering the words which it is associated in the context of 87 section
31 © of RA 7610 which contains the list of circumstances of relationship between the
accused and the victim which can justify the imposition of maximum penalty, whether
the perpetrator is an ascendant, parent, guardian, stepparent or collateral relative within
the second degree of consanguinity or affinity. It should be reminded that
“guardian”denotes provisions in a legal relationship with a ward. After all, it is undoubted
that appellant is not xxx biological father.
2. EJUSDEM GENERIS
-Ejusdem generis (ee-joose-dem gen-ris) is a Latin phrase that means “of the same
kind.” The statutory and constitutional construction principle of “ejusdem generis” states
that where general words or phrases follow a number of specific words or phrases, the
general words are specifically construed as limited and apply only to persons or things
of the same kind or class as those expressly mentioned. For example, if a law refers to
automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles, and other motor-powered vehicles, a court
might use ejusdem generis to hold that such vehicles would not include airplanes,
because the list included only land-based transportation.

Philippines Basketball Association v Court of Appeals G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994
Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp.
G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994
Cruz, J.
Facts:
PAGCOR decided to expand its operations to Cagayan de Oro City. To this end, it
leased a portion of a building belonging to Pryce Properties Corporation, Inc., renovated
and
equipped the same, and prepared to inaugurate its casino there during the Christmas
season. Civic organizations angrily condemned the project. The religious sectors
repeated the objection as wells as women's groups and the youth. Demonstrations were
led by the mayor and the city legislators. The media trumpeted the protest, describing
the casino as an insult to the welfare of the city. The allegation of the petitioners is that
it is violating the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City Ordinance No.
3353 prohibiting the use of buildings for the operation of a casino and Ordinance No.
3375-93 prohibiting the operation of casinos. On the other hand, the respondents invoke
P.D. 1869 which created PAGCOR to help centralize and regulate all games of chance,
including casinos on land and sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. The
Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the respondents. Hence, the petition for review.
Issue:
Whether or not the Ordinance No. 3353 and Ordinance No. 3375-93 are valid
Held:
No. Cagayan de Oro City, like other local political subdivisions, is empowered to enact
ordinances for the purposes indicated in the Local Government Code. It is expressly
vested with the police power under what is known as the General Welfare Clause now
embodied in Section 16 as follows: Sec. 16.
General Welfare
. — Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those
necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental
for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion
of the
generalwelfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local governmentunits
shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of
culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced
ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant
scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic
prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain
peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their
inhabitants. There is a requirement that the ordinances should not contravene a statute.
Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. Local councils
exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred on them by Congress as the
national law making body. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise
powers higher than those of the latter. It is a heresy to suggest that the local
government units can undo the acts of Congress, from which they have derived their
power in the first place, and negate by mere ordinance the mandate of the statute.
3. EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS
A Latin term literally meaning "the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other".
This is a common law principle for construing legislation which holds that a syntactical
presumption may be made that an express reference to one matter excludes other
matters.
CATU VS RELLOSA, A. C. No. 5738, February 19, 2008
FACTS:
Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a lot and the building raised thereon in
Manila. His mother and brother resisted the control of Elizabeth C. Diaz-Catu and
Antonio Pastor of one of the units in the building. The latter disregard the request for
them to leave the premises. Thus, a complaint was initiated against them in the Lupong
Tagapamayapa of Barangay. Respondent, as punong barangay, summoned the parties
to conciliation meetings. When the parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement,
respondent issued a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court.
Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants in the (subsequent
ejectment) case. Complainant filed the instant administrative complaint, claiming that
respondent committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer and as a public officer when he
stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact that he presided over the
conciliation proceedings between the litigants as punong barangay.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Rellosa violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
YES. Respondent suspended for six (6) months.
RATIO:
[R]espondent was found guilty of professional misconduct for violating his oath as a
lawyer and Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
A civil service officer or employee whose responsibilities do not require his time to be
fully at the disposal of the government can engage in the private practice of law only
with the written permission of the head of the department concerned in accordance with
Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules.
Respondent was strongly advised to look up and take to heart the meaning of the
word delicadeza.
4. CASUS OMISUS PRO OMISSO HABENDUS EST
- a case omitted is to be held as intentionally omitted
- a rule of statutory construction, if a person object, or thing is omitted from being
enumerated in a statute it must be held or considered to have been omitted
intentionally.
Commission on Audit of the Province of Cebu v Province of Cebu, G.R. No. 141386,
November 29, 2001
FACTS:
The provincial governor of the province of Cebu, as chairman of the local school board,
under Section 98 of the Local Government Code, appointed classroom teachers who
have no items in the DECS plantilla to handle extension classes that would
accommodate students in the public schools. It was charged against the provincial
Special Education Fund (SEF) along with college scholarship grants of the province.
Consequently, COA issued Notices of Suspension saying that disbursements for the
salaries and scholarship grants are not chargeable to SEF. Faced with the Notices of
Suspension, the Province of Cebu filed a petition for declaratory relief with the trial court
to which a decision declaring the questioned expenses as authorized expenditures was
rendered.
ISSUE:
May the salaries and personnel-related benefits of public school teachers appointed by
local chief executives in connection with the establishment and maintenance of
extension classes as well as the expenses for college scholarship grants be charged to
the SEF of the local government unit concerned?
RULING:
YES. The SEF was created by virtue of RA 5447 which defined the activities of DECS
that may exclusively be funded. Under the doctrine of necessary implication, the
allocation of the SEF for the establishment and maintenance of extension classes
logically implies the hiring of teachers who should, as a matter of course, be
compensated for their services. Ex necessitate legis. Verily, the services and the
corresponding compensation of these teachers are necessary and indispensable to the
establishment and maintenance of extension classes.