SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW
COURSE SYLLABUS

COURSE CODE: STATCON

COURSE TITLE: STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

COURSE CREDIT: 2 UNITS

FACULTY: ATTY. CZARINA MAYBELLYNE V. PACIS

EMAIL ADDRESS: cmvpacis@sanbeda.edu.ph

TERM/ACADEMIC YEAR: FIRST SEMESTER SCHOOL YEAR 2023-2024

COURSE DELIVERY MODE: FULL ONLINE

CONSULTATION DAY/TIME:

COURSE DESCRIPTION:

A study of the different rules of statutory construction to prepare the student as he

or she attempts to discover and understand the meaning of the provisions of the
Constitution, various statutes, and the latter’s implementing rules. Before studying
the different rules of construction, this course will first equip the student with
sufficient knowledge about the process of lawmaking and the hierarchy and
classification of laws.

COURSE GOALS: Expected College of Law Graduate Attributes (“ELGAs”)

(A) Know and understand the process of lawmaking, the hierarchy of laws, and the
classification and interrelation of laws; (B) know and understand the different rules
of statutory construction; and (C) Develop: (i) student’s ability to apply with ease
the different rules of construction, (ii) student’s critical and analytical thinking,
(iii) student’s proficiency in written and oral communication, and (iv) student’s
logical reasoning and sound judgment.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES (“LOs”):

1. Knowledge/Remembering: define, list, recognize

2. Comprehension/Understanding: describe, explain, identify, recognize
3. Application/Applying: choose, demonstrate, implement, perform
4. Analysis/Analyzing: analyze, categorize, compare, differentiate
5. Evaluation/Evaluating: assess, critique, evaluate, rank, rate
6. Synthesis/Creating: construct, design, formulate, organize, synthesize

Upon completion of the Statutory Construction course, the student is expected to be able to:

ELGAs LEARNING OUTCOMES (LOs)

Critical and analytical LO1. Explain the process of enacting a law, the hierarchy and
thinking classification of laws, and the different rules of statutory construction.
Effective in written and LO2. Analyze/Criticize/Compare the application by the Court of the
oral communication different rules of construction in the cases assigned.
Logical reasoning LO3. Assess the applicability or inapplicability of a rule of
Sound judgment construction on a given hypothetical or actual situation.

1
 Exercise of proper LO4. Apply the different rules of construction on a given situation.
professional and ethical
responsibilities

ASSESSMENT/GRADING SYSTEM:

The student will be graded according to the following:

Percentage
(Weight is based
Requirements Based on the Learning Outcomes Scope of Work
on the
(“LO”) (Individual)
importance of
the LO)
LO1 Class recitations, Quizzes, Case Digests, Individual
LO2 and Discussion Individual
LO3 Individual
LO4

Class standing before Midterms Individual 16.67%

Midterm Exams Individual 16.67%
Class Standing after Midterms Individual 33.33%
Final Exams Individual 33.33%
TOTAL 100%

LEARNING PLAN:

LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)

Course Introduction
Ÿ Course overview Syllabus Lecture
Ÿ Course assignments
Ÿ Course requirements Discussion

MODULE 1: LEGISLATIVE POWER

I. Legislative Power in General, Where Lodged Syllabus Recitation

1. David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006 Textbooks Case Study
2. Sanidad v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-44640,
October 12, 1976 Supreme Court Discussion
Decisions
II. Bicameralism

2
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
1. Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No.
202242, April 16, 2013
2. Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA
630

III. Extent of and Limitations on Legislative

Power

1. In re: Cunanan, 94 Phil. 534

2. Ang Nars Party List v. Executive Secretary, G.R.
No. 215746, October 8, 2019
3. Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566, November
19, 2013
4. Abakada Guro Party-list v. Purisima, G.R. No.
166715, August 14, 2008, 562 SCRA 251
5. Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate, G.R. No.
19671, October 18, 2011, 659 SCRA 270

MODULE 2: STATUTES AND THEIR

ENACTMENT

I. Title of Bills

1. Lidasan v. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 496

2. Giron v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 188179, January
22, 2013

II. Formalities
Syllabus
Recitation
1. Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA
630 Textbooks
Case Study
2. PHILJA v. Prado, G.R. No. 105371, November
11, 1993, 227 SCRA 203 Supreme Court
Discussion
Decisions
III. Approval of Bills

1. Bolinao Electronics v. Valencia, G.R. No. L-

20740, June 30, 1964, 11 SCRA 486
2. Abakada Guro Party-list v. Purisima, G.R. No.
166715, August 14, 2008, 562 SCRA 251

IV.Evidence of Enactment of Lawsa.)

Enrolled Bill Theory

3
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
1. Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, L-1223, March 5,
1947, 78 Phil. 1 (1947)
2. Arroyo v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255,
August 14, 1997, 277 SCRA 268

b.) Journal Entry Rule

1. Astorga v. Villegas, G.R. No. 23475, April 30,

1974, 56 SCRA 714

MODULE 3: CONSTITUTIONAL
CONSTRUCTION

I. Constitution, Definition and

Characteristics

1. Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156,

February 3, 1997, 267 SCRA 408

II. General Principles of Construction

1. Gold Creek Mining Corp. v. Rodriguez, 66 Phil.

259 (1938)
Syllabus
III. Aids to construction Recitation
Textbooks
1. Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, Case Study
194 SCRA 317 (1991) Supreme Court
2. Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Discussion
Decisions
Agrarian Reform, 192 SCRA 51 (1990)
3. Tanada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051 (1957)
4. Galman v. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 294 (1985)
5. Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R.
No. 160261, November 10, 2003

IV. Ordinary Sense v. Technical Sense

1. Ordillo v. Commission on Elections, 192

SCRA 100 (1992)
2. Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, 79 Phil. 461
(1947)

V. Self-Executing vs. Non-Self-Executing

4
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
1. Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No.
122156, February 3, 1997
2. Pamatong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161872,
April 13, 2004
3. Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30,
1993

VI. Mandatory v. Directory

1. Tanada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051 (1957)

2. Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 28196,
November 9, 1967

VII. Prospective v. Retroactive

1. Filoteo v. Sandiganbayan, 263 SCRA 222

(1996)
2. Co v. Electoral Tribunal, 199 SCRA 692
(1991)

MODULE 4: EFFECTIVITY OF STATUTES

I. When the Constitution Becomes

Effective

1. Alfredo M. de Leon v. Hon. Benjamin B.

Esguerra, G.R. No. 78059, August 31, 1987

II. When Statute Becomes Effective

Syllabus
1. Civil Code, Article 2 Recitation
2. Administrative Code, Book I, Chapter 5, Textbooks
Section 18 Case Study
3. Administrative Code, Book I, Chapter 6, Supreme Court
Sections 24 – 25 Discussion
Decisions
4. Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 63915, 29
December 1986
5. Philippine Veterans Bank v. Vega, G.R. No.
105364, 28 June 2001

III. When Statute Becomes Effective

1. Administrative Code, Book VII, Sections 2 – 9

2. Tanada vs. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915 April
24, 1985

5
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
3. Commissioner of Customs v. Hypermix Feeds
Corporation, G.R. No. 179579, 1 February
2012
4. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Michel
J. Lhuillier Pawnshop, Inc., G.R. No. 150947,
15 July 2003

IV. When Local Ordinance Takes Effect

1. Local Government Code, Sections 54 – 59

2. Municipality Of Paranaque v. V.M. Realty
Corporation, G.R. No. 127820, 20 July 1998
3. Bagatsing v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 41631, 17
December 1976

V. Manner of Computing Time

1. Civil Code, Article 13

2. Administrative Code, Book I, Chapter 8,
Section 31
3. Administrative Code, Book I, Chapter 7, Section
28
5. National Marketing Corp. v. Tecson, G.R. No.
29131, 27 August 1969
6. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
Primetown Property Group, Inc., G.R. No.
162155, August 28, 2007
7. PNB v. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 134
(1993)
8. Yapdiangco v. Buencamino, G.R. No. 28841,
24 July 1983

VI. Effectivity of Laws Until Repealed

1. Concept of Temporary Statutes

2. Co Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh, G.R. No. L-
5, 17 September 1945
3. William F. Peralta v. The Director of Prisons,
G.R. No. L-49, 12 November 1945
4. Anastacio Laurel v. Eriberto Misa, G.R. No. L-
409, 30 January 1947
Syllabus Recitation
MODULE 5: CONSTRUCTION AND
INTERPRETATION Textbooks Case Study

6
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
I. Definition Supreme Court Discussion
and Court of
1. Caltex (Phils.), Inc. v. Palomar, G.R. No. Appeals Quiz
19650, 29 September 1966 Decisions

II. Purpose of Construction

1. City of Baguio v. Marcos, G.R. No. 26100, 28

February 1969

III. When construction is resorted to

1. Garcia v. Social Security Commission, G.R. No.

170735, 17 December 2007

IV. Executive Construction

1. Commissioner of Customs v. Hypermix Feeds,

G.R. No. 150947, 15 July 2003
2. Victorias Milling Co. Inc. v. Social Security
Commission, 4 SCRA 627

V. Judicial Construction

A. Basis, Extent, and Limitations

1. Article VIII, Section 1 and Section 4 of the

1987 Constitution
2. Record of the Constitutional Commission, 434-
436 (1986)
3. Endencia v. David, 93 Phil. 696 (1953)
4. Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211,
September 15, 1989

B. Requisites for Judicial Review

1. Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network,

Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council, G.R. No.
178552, 5 October 2010
2. David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, 3 May
2006

C. Effect of Unconstitutionality

7
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
1. Article 7, New Civil Code
2. Peralta v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No.
95832, August 10, 1992
3. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San
Roque Power Corporation, G.R. No. 187485, 8
October 2013
4. Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, July 1,
2014

MID-TERM EXAMINATIONS

MODULE 6: LITERAL INTERPRETATION

AND DEPARTURE THEREFROM

A. Literal Interpretation

I. Verba Legis

1. Trade and Investment Development

Corporation of the Philippines v. Civil Service
Commission, G.R. No. 182249, March 5, 2013
(Application of the rule)

II. Dura lex sed lex Syllabus

Recitation

1. Olympio Revaldo v. People of the Philippines, Textbooks

Case Study
G.R. No. 170589, April 16, 2009
2. Arnel Sagana v. Richard A. Francisco, G.R. Supreme Court Discussion
No.161952, October 2, 2009 Decisions

B. Departure from literal interpretation

I. Statutes must be capable of

interpretation

1. Miriam Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC,

G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997

II. Ratio legis et anima

8
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
1. Rodolfo G. Navarro v. Executive Secretary
Eduardo Ermita, G.R. No. 180050, April 12,
2011
2. Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013

III. Literal import must yield to

intent

1. Automotive Parts & Equipment Company v.

Jose B. Lingad, G.R. No. L-26406, October 31,
1969
2. United States v. Toribio, 15 Phil. 85 (1910)
3. Sy Tiong shiou v. Sy Chim and Felicidad Chan
Sy, G.R. No. 174168, March 30, 2009

IV. Cessante ratione legis, cessat et ipsa lex

1. B/Gen. Jose Comendador v. Gen. Renato S.

De Villa, G.R. No. 93177, August 2, 1991

V. Supplying legislative omission

1. Governor Rodolfo C. Farinas v. Mayor

Angelo M. Barba, G.R. No. 116763, April 19,
1996

VI. Construction to avoid absurdity

1. Paras v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 123169, 4

November 1996
VII. Construction in favor of right
and justice
1. Karen E. Salvacion v. Central Bank of the
Philippines, China Banking Corporation and
Greg Bartelli y Northcott, G.R. No. 94723,
August 21, 1997
VIII. Law does not require the
impossible

9
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
1. Pedro T. Santos, Jr. v. PNOC, G.R. No.
170943, September 23, 2008
IX. Number and gender of words

1. Santillon v. Miranda, G.R. No. 19281, June

30, 1965

MODULE 7: IMPLICATIONS

I. Necessary Implications

1. Department of Environment and Natural

Resources (DENR) v. United Planners
Consultants, Inc., G.R. No. 212081, February
23, 2015
2. Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc. v. Hon.
Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma, G.R.
No. 116194, February 2, 2000
Syllabus
Recitation
II. Grant of power includes incidental
Textbooks
power Case study
Supreme Court
1. Carmelo F. Lazatin v. HRET, G.R. No. Discussion
Decisions
84297, December 8, 1988
2. Cemco Holdings, Inc. v. National Life
Insurance Company of the Philippines, Inc.,
G.R. No. 171815, August 7, 2007

III. What cannot be done directly cannot be

done indirectly

1. Tawang Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. La

Trinidad Water District, G.R. No. 166471,
March 22, 2011

10
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)

MODULE 8: INTERPRETAION OF WORDS

AND PHRASES

I. In General

1. Joseph Ejercito Estrada v. Sandiganbayan,

G.R. No. 148560, 19 November 2001.
2. Jose Jesus M. Disini, jr. v. Secretary of
Justice, G.R. No. 203335, 11 February 2014.

II. General rules of interpretation

1. Atty. Reynante B. Orceo v. COMELEC, G.R.

No. 190779, 26 March 2010
2. Mustang Lumber, Inc. v. Hon. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 104988, 18 June 1996.

III. Where the law does not distinguish

1. Republic of the Philippines v. Daisy R.

Syllabus
Recitation
Yahon, G.R. No. 201043, June 16, 2014
2. Visayas Community Medical Center (VCMC) Textbooks
Case Study
v. Erma Yballe, G.R. No. 196156, January 15,
2014 Supreme Court
Discussion
3. Republic of the Philippines v. Marelyn
Decisions
Tanedo Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, April 24,
2018

IV. Disjunctive and Conjunctive Words

1. Antonio D. Dayao v. COMELEC, G.R. No.

193643, January 29, 2013
2. People of the Philippines v. Antonio
Comadre, G.R. No. 153559, June 8, 2004
3. Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 28196,
November 9, 1967

V. Noscitur a sociis

1. People of the Philippines v. Isidro Flores,

G.R. No. 188315, August 25, 2010
2. Cesar M. Carandang v. Vicente Santiago,
G.R. No. L-8238, May 25, 1955

11
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
VI. Ejusdem generis

1. Emeteria Liwag v. Happy Glen Loop

Homeowners’ Association, Inc., G.R. No.
189755, July 4, 2012
2. Commissioner of Customs v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 33471, January 31, 1972.

VII. Expressio unius est exclusion alterius

and casus omissus

1. San Pablo Manufacturing Corporation v.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
147749, June 22, 2006
2. Coconut Oil Refiners Assn., Inc. v. Torres,
G.R. No. 132527, July 29, 2005
3. The Commission on Audit of the Province of
Cebu v. Province of Cebu, G.R. No. 141386,
November 29, 2001

VIII. Reddendo singula singulis

1. Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez v. The House of

Representatives Committee on Justice, G.R.
No. 193459, February 15, 2011
2. City of Manila v. Laguio, G.R. No. 118127,
April 12, 2005

IX. Provisos, Exceptions and Saving Clauses

1. Ricardo Fernandez v. NLRC, G.R. No.

106090, February 28, 1994
2. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Filipinas
Compania De Seguros, G.R. No. L-14880,
April 29, 1960
3. Arenas v. City of San Carlos, G.R. No. 34024,
April 5, 1978
4. Chartered Bank of India v. C. A. Imperial, G.R.
No. L-17222, March 15, 1921
5. Roberto S. Benedicto v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 125359, September 4, 2001
6. Balagtas Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159268, October
27, 2006

12
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)

MODULE 9: STATUTES CONSTRUED AS A

WHOLE AND IN RELATION TO OTHER
STATUTES

I. Statutes construed as a whole

1. Aquino v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 137534,

August 3, 2006
2. Liwayway Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune Tobacco Syllabus
Recitation
Corporation, G.R. No. 141309, June 19, 2007
3. People of the Philippines v. Luisito D. Textbooks
Case Study
Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004
Supreme Court
Discussion
MODULE 10: MANDATORY AND Decisions
DIRECTORY STATUTES

1. Article 5, New Civil Code

2. Acosta v. Adaza, G.R. No. 168617, February
19, 2007
3. Luis K. Lokin, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos.
179431-32, June 22, 2010
4. Florante S. Quizon v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
177927, February 15, 2008

MODULE 11: STRICT OR LIBERAL

CONSTRUCTION

I. Statutes strictly construed

A. Penal laws Recitation

Syllabus

1. Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Case Study

Textbooks
Carungcong v. People of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 181409, February 11, 2010 Discussion
Supreme Court
2. Gerardo R. Villaseñor v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Decisions
No. 180700, March 4, 2008 Quiz

B. Statutes in derogation of rights

1. Heirs of Alberto Suguitan v. Mandaluyong,

G.R. No. 135087, March 14, 2000

13
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
2. Philacor Credit Corporation v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 169899, February
06, 2013
3. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Kudos
Metal Corporation, G.R. No. 178087, May 5,
2010
4. Mapulo Mining Association v. Hon. Fernando
Lopez, G.R. No. L-30440, February 7, 1992

C. Statutes granting privileges

1. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.

Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company,
G.R. No. 140230, December 15, 2005
2. Raoul B. Del Mar v. PAGCOR, G.R. No.
138298, November 29, 2000
3. Republic of the Philippines v. Kerry Lao Ang,
G.R. No. 175430, June 18, 2012

D. Exceptions and provisos

1. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. The Court

of Appeals, Central Vegetable Manufacturing
Co., Inc., G.R. No. 107135, February 23, 1999
2. Geologistics, Inc. v. Gateway Electronics
Corporation, G.R. Nos. 174256-57, March 25,
2009

II. Statutes Liberally Construed

1. Re: Application for Survivorship Pension

Benefits Under Republic Act No. 9946, A.M.
No. 14155-Ret., November 19, 2013
2. Maria Obra v. SSS, G.R. No. 147745, April 9,
2003
3. In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim,
G.R. Nos. 168992-93, May 21, 2009
4. The Coca-Cola Export Corporation v. Clarita P.
Gacayan, G.R. No. 149433, December 15, 2010
5. Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165155, Apr 13,
2010

14
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
6. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. BASF
Coating, G.R. No. 198677, November 26, 2014
7. Ramon A. Syhunliong v. Teresita Rivera, G.R.
No. 200148, June 4, 2014

FINAL EXAMINATIONS

TEXTBOOKS:

1. Statutory Construction by Ruben Agpalo (latest Edition)

2. Canons of Statutory Construction by Dennis B. Funa

POLICIES:

1. Attendance will be checked every meeting.

2. Students who missed an announced quiz will get a grade of 60.
3. Students are strictly prohibited from recording the online class.

Prepared by:

Approved by:

Atty. Marciano G. Delson

Dean, College of Law

15