STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

Cynthia Bolos VS. Danilo Bolos

Mendoza. J.:
Facts:
Petitioner Cynthia Bolos filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to Respondent
Danilo Bolos under Article 36 of the Family Code. After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the
petition for annulment which the respondent appealed. Despite timeliness in filing the Notice of Appeal to the RTC, it
was denied due failure to file the required motion for reconsideration or new trial, in violation of Section 20 of the
Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages. The RTC
issued the order declaring the marriage null and void as final and executory. Respondent filed with the Court of Appeals
(CA) a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking to annul the order of the RTC as it was rendered with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction and prayed that he be declared psychologically capacitated to
render the essential marital obligations. He assailed that the petitioner is the one who should be declared guilty of
abandoning him, the family home and their children. The CA granted in favor of the respondent on the basis that since
the marriage was solemnized on February 14, 1980 long before the Family Code took effect, thus making A.M. No. 02-
11-10-SC entitled “Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages” not
applicable.

ISSUE: Whether or not the declaration of nullity of marriage of the petitioner and respondent is valid on the basis of the
Family Code

RULING: No. Their marriage is not covered by the provisions and rules of the Family Code. The Rule on Declaration
of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages as contained in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC
which the Court promulgated on March 15, 2003, is explicit in its scope. Section 1 of the Rule states the scope that the
rule “shall govern petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable
marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines. The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily.” The categorical
language of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC leaves no room for doubt. The coverage extends only to those marriages entered into
during the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988. The rule sets a demarcation line between
marriages covered by the Family Code and those solemnized under the Civil Code. The Court finds itself unable
to subscribe to petitioner’s interpretation that the phrase “under the Family Code” in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC refers to
the word “petitions” rather than to the word “marriages.”

STATUTORY PRINCIPLE APPLIED: Verba Legis or the plain meaning rule. When the language of the law is clear, it should
be given its natural meaning.
Songco VS. NLRC
Medialdea, J.:
Facts:
This is a petition for certiorari seeking to modify the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission...
which dismissed the appeal of petitioners herein and in effect affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter... ordering
private respondent to pay petitioners separation pay equivalent to their one-month salary (exclusive of commissions,
allowances, etc.) for every year of service.
Zuellig seek to terminate the services of the petitioners allegedly on the ground of retrenchment due to financial
loss, which was opposed by petitioner. The petitioner alleging that the company is not suffering from any losses and the
reason that they are being dismissed is because of their membership in the union.
At the last hearing of the case, however, the petitioners 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.
Petitioners, who were in the sales force of Zuellig received monthly salaries of at least P400.00. In addition, they
received commissions for every sale they made.
ARTICLE XIV Retirement Gratuity... receive from the company a retirement gratuity in an amount equivalent to
one (1) month's salary per year of... service.
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 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.
June 26, 1978, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision... respondent should be as it is hereby, ordered to pay the
complainants separation pay equivalent to their one-month salary (exclusive of commissions, allowances, etc.) for every
year of service that they have worked with the... company.

Issues: whether or not earned sales commissions and allowances should be included in the monthly salary of petitioners
for the purpose of computation of their separation pay.

Ruling:
Petitioners' position was that... under the Labor Code or the CBA, their basic salary, earned sales commissions
and allowances should be added together.
'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.
This kind of interpretation gives meaning and substance to the liberal... and compassionate spirit of the law as
provided for in Article 4 of the Labor Code which states that "all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the
provisions of the Labor Code including its implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor"... and
Article 1702 of the Civil Code which provides that "in case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be...
construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the respondent National Labor Relations
Commission is MODIFIED by including allowances and commissions in the separation pay of petitioners Jose Songco and
Amancio Manuel.
Socorro Ramirez (petitioner)
VS.
Court of Appeals and Ester Garcia (respondents)

Kapunan, J.:

Facts:
A civil case damages was filed by petitioner Socorro Ramirez alleging that the respondent vexed, insulted and
humiliated her in a “hostile and furious mood” and in a manner offensive to petitioner’s dignity and personality,
“contrary to morals, good customs and public policy”
To support her claim, the petitioner produced a verbatim transcript of their confrontation by means of secretly
taping the respondent using recording device.
As a result of petitioner’s recording, Private respondent filed a criminal case before the RTC of Pasay City for
violation of RA 4200 aka “An act to prohibit and penalize wire tapping and other related violations of private
communication, and other purposes.” An information charging petitioner of violation of the said Act.

Issue:
Whether or not the Anti Wiretapping Act applies in recordings by one of the parties in the conversation.

Ruling:
Yes, Section 1 of RA 4200 states that “It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties
to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to
secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a
dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described.”

The aforestated provision clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by all the
parties to any private communication to secretly record such communication by means of a tape recorder. The law
makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a party other than or
different from those involved in the private communication.
Roberto Domingo (petitioner)
VS.
Court of Appeals and Delia Soledad (respondent)

Romero, J.:

Facts:
Private respondent Delia Soledad A. Domingo filed the petition On May 29, 1991, entitled “Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage and Separation of Property” against Roberto Domingo. The petition, which was filed before Pasig RTC,
alleged the following:
Delia and Domingo married on November 29, 1976. Later on, without the knowledge of Delia, Domingo had a
previous marriage with Emerina Dela Paz on April 25, 1969 which marriage is still valid and subsisting. Delia found out
about the first marriage only sometime in 1983 when Emerina sued them for Bigamy.
Since 1979, Delia has been working abroad and able to stay in the Philippines when she would avail the one-
month vacation annually which was granted by her employer. Roberto has been unemployed and dependent upon her
for support and subsistence. Delia’s personal property amounting to P350,000 are under the possession of Roberto who
disposed some of the said properties without her knowledge and consent. And even discovered that Roberto was
cohabiting with another woman.
Petitioner filed a Motion to dismiss on the ground that the declaration of their marriage which is void ab initio.
The Petitioners motion was dismissed by the RTC and CA for lack of merit.

Issue:
Whether or not a petition for judicial declaration of a void marriage is necessary. Whether or not the petition
entitled “Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and Separation of Property” is the proper remedy of private respondent to
recover certain real and personal properties allegedly belonging to her exclusively.

Ruling:
Yes. The nullification of a marriage for the purpose of contracting another cannot be accomplished merely on
the basis of the perception of both parties or of one that their union is defective. Were this so, this inviolable social
institution would be reduced to a mockery and would rest on a very shaky foundation. On the other hand, the clause “on
the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such marriage void” in Article 40 of the Code denotes that such final
judgment declaring the previous marriage void is not only for purpose of remarriage.
Yes. The prayer for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may be raised together with the other incident of
their marriage such as the separation of their properties. The Family Code has clearly provided the effects of the
declaration of nullity of marriage, one of which is the separation of property according to the regime of property
relations governing them.