CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

A. Definition of Statutory Construction

1. Caltex vs. Palomar, G.R. No. L-19650, 29 September 1966

B. Characteristics of Construction
1. Art of Process
2. Determination of Legislative Intent
3. Ambiguity
4. Judicial Function

C. Purpose
1. City of Baguio v Naga, G.R. No. L-26100, 28 February 1969

D. Related Legal Principles

1. Separation of Powers
- Angara v Electoral Commission, G.R. No. 45081, 15 July 1936

2. Hierarchy of Laws
- Article 7 of the Civil Code
1. Tatad v Secretary of the Department of Energy and Secretary of the
Department of Finance, G.R. No. 124360, 5 November 1997

3. Stare decisis
- Article 8 of the Civil Code
1. Villena v Spouses Chavez, G.R. No. 148126, 10 November 2003.
2. Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. et al. v Pagdanganan, G.R. No. 167866,
12 October 2006.

4. Res judicata and Law of the Case

- Lee v Lui Man Chong, G.R. No. 209535, 15 June 2015.
- Veloso, et al. v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116680, 28 August 1996.

CHAPTER II: SUBJECT MATTER OF CONSTRUCTION

A. Types of Law
1. Constitution
2. Statutes
3. Presidential Issuances
4. Implementing Rules of Regulations
5. Ordinances

B. Parts of a Statute
1. Title
- Article VI, Section 26(1) of the 1987 Constitution
1. City of Baguio v Marcos, G.R. No. L-26100, 28 February 1969.
2. Preamble
- People v Purisima, G.R. Nos. L-42050 to 66, 20 November 1978.
3. Enacting Clause
4. Body
5. Headnotes and Epigraphs
- People v Yabut, G.R. No. 39085, 27 September 1933.
6. Repealing Clause
7. Separability Clause
- Tatad v Department of Energy, G.R. No. 124360, 3 December 1997.
8. Effectivity Clause
- Tañada v Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, 24 April 1985.

CHAPTER III: VERBA LEGIS AND RATIO LEGIS

A. VERBA LEGIS RULE; PLAIN MEANING RULE

1. Republic v Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, 24 April 2018.

2. Social Weather Stations, Inc. and Pulse Asia, Inc v COMELEC, G.R. No. 208062, 7 April 2015.
B. RATIO LEGIS RULE; SPIRIT OF THE LAW

1. Salvacion v Central Bank, et al., G.R. No. 94723, 21 August 1997.

2. Matabuena v Cervantes, G.R. No. L-28771, 31 March 1971.

CHAPTER IV: PRINCIPLES OF CONSTRUCTION

A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CONSTRUCTION

1. Law Construed as a Whole

a. Caudal v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83414, 31 July 1989.
b. Claudio v COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 140560 and 140714, 4 May 2000.
c. Sajonas v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102377, 5 July 1996.
i. Interpretare et concordare leges legibus est optimus interpretandi modus –
“every statute must be construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a
uniform set of jurisprudence.”

2. Presumption of Justice
a. Article 10, Civil Code
i. Floresca, et. al. v Philex Mining Corporation, G.R. No. L-30642, 30 April 1948.

3. Construction consistent with the Constitution

a. Yu Cong Eng v Trinidad, G.R. No. 20479, 6 February 1925.

4. Construction to render provision effective

a. Ut res magis valeat quam pereat – “the thing should rather have effect that be destroyed.”
i. Lluz and Aldeosa v COMELEC, G.R. No. 172840, 7 June 2007.

B. LEGISLATIVE POLICIES AND PRESUMPTIONS; LIBERAL AND STRICT

CONSTRUCTION

1. Penal laws
a. Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege – “there is no crime where there is no law punishing
it.”
i. Centeno v Villalon-Pornillos, G.R. No. 113092, 1 September 1994.
ii. Quimvel v People, G.R. No. 214497, 18 April 2017.

2. Tax laws
a. CIR v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115349, 18 April 1997.
b. CIR v SM Prime Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 183505, 26 February 2010.
c. National Power Corporation v City of Cabanatuan, G.R. No. 149110, 9 April 2003.

3. Social Legislation
a. Article 4 of P.D. No. 442 (Labor Code of the Philippines)
i. Bautista v Murillo, G.R. No. L-13374, 31 January 1962.

4. Rules of Court
a. Rule 1, Section 6 of the Rules of Court
i. Cabrera v Ng, G.R. No. 201601, 12 March 2014.

5. Adoption Laws
a. In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia, G.R. No. 148311, 31
March 2015.
b. In re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle Lim and Michael Jude Lim, G.R. Nos. 168992 to
93, 21 May 2009.

6. Local Autonomy
a. San Juan v Civil Service Commission, et. al., G.R. No. 92299, 19 April 1991.

7. Naturalization Laws
a. In the Matter of Naturalization as Filipino Citizen, Hao Su Siong, alias Ramon Cuenco v
Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-13045, 30 July 1962.

8. Election Laws
 a. Rulloda v Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 154198, 20 January 2003.

9. Prescriptive Periods
a. Yapdiangco v Buencamino, G.R. No. L-28841, 24 June 1983.

10. Constitutional Construction

a. Frameworks
i. David v Senate Electoral Tribunal and Poe-Llamanzares, G.R. No. 221538, 20
September 2016.
b. Self-executing v Non-self-executing Provisions
i. Oposa v Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 30 July 1993.
ii. Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, 3 February 1997.
c. Administrative Construction
i. CIR v Bicolandia Drug Corporation, G.R. No. 148083, 21 July 2006.

CHAPTER V: CONSTRUCTION OF WORDS AND PHRASES IN A STATUTE

A. CONSTRUCTION OF CONTENTS OF A STATUTE; WORDS AND PHRASES;

PUNCTUATIONS

1. General words construed generally

a. Ubi lex non, distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos – “where the law does not distinguish,
neither do we distinguish.”
i. Ramirez v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93833, 28 September 1995.
ii. Dabalos v Regional Trial Court, G.R. No. 193960, 7 January 2013.
iii. MTRCB v ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, et. al., G.R. No. 155282, 17
January 2005.

b. Generalia verba sunt generaliter intelligenda – “the law does not make a distinction
prevents us from making one.”
i. Bartolome v Social Security System and Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc., G.R.
No. 192531, 12 November 2014.

c. Dissimilum dissimilis est ratio – “of things dissimilar, the rule is dissimilar.”
i. Garvida v Sales, et. al., G.R. No. 124893, 18 April 1997.

2. Provisos
a. Fernandez v National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 106090, 28 February 1994.
b. Arenas v City of San Carlos, G.R. No. L-34024, 5 April 1978.

3. Ordinary words understood in ordinary sense; Technical Words in technical sense

a. Carandang v Santiago, G.R. No. L-8238, 25 May 1955.
b. CIR v Manila Lodge No. 761, G.R. No. L-11176, 29 June 1959.
c. Manila Herald Publishing v Ramos, G.R. No. L-4268, 18 January 1951.
d. PLDT Company v Easter Telecommunications Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 94374, 27
August 1992.

4. Generic words and Progressive Construction

a. Diuquino v Araneta, G.R. No. 48176, 21 July 1944.

5. Punctuation Marks
a. United States v Hart, G.R. No. 8848, 21 November 1913.

6. Use of Specific Words

a. “and”/“or”
i. Microsoft Corporation v Manansala, G.R. No. 166391, 21 October 2015.
ii. Romula Mabanta Buenaventura Sayoc & De Los Angeles v Home Development
Mutual Fund, G.R. No. 131082, 19 June 2000.

b. Shall/May (Mandatory and Permissive Words)

i. Director of Lands v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102858, 28 July 1997.
ii. Marcelino v Cruz, et. al., G.R. No. L-42428, 18 March 1983.
iii. Gachon v Devera, G.R. No. 116695, 20 June 1997.
iv. Republic v Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, 11 May 2018.
 c. Including/Involving
i. Sterling Selections Corporation v Laguna Lake Development Authority, G.R.
No. 171427, 30 March 2011.
ii. La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association v Ramos, G.R. No. 127882, 14 December
2004.

d. Affirmative and Prohibitory Words

i. McGee v Republic, G.R. No. L-5387, 29 April 1954.

e. Exceptions
i. Lokin v COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 179431 to 32m 22 June 2010.

f. Periods
i. Article 13 of the Civil Code
1. National Marketing Corporation v Tecson, G.R. No. L-29131, 27 August
1969.

g. Plural words; Singular words

i. In re: The Intestate Estate of Pedron Satillon, G.R. No. L-19281, 30 June 1965.
ii. Gatchalian v COMELEC, G.R. Nos. L-32560 and 32561, 22 October 1970.

B. ASSOCIATION AND RELATIONSHIP OF WORDS, PHRASES, AND PROVISIONS

1. Noscitur a Sociis (Doctrine of Associated Words)

a. Caltex v Palomar, G.R. No. L-19650, 29 September 1996.
b. People v Delantar, G.R. No. 169143, 2 February 2007.

2. Ejusdem Generis – “of the same kind or specie.”

a. Liwag v Happy Glen Loop Homeowner’s Association, G.R. No. 189755, 4 July 2012.
b. CIR v American Express International, Inc., G.R. No. 152609, 29 June 2005.

3. Express mention and Implied exclusion

a. Expression unius est exclusion alterius – “express mention is implied exclusion”
i. Malinas v COMELEC, G.R. No. 146943, 4 October 2002.
ii. Coconut Oil Refiners Association v Torres, G.R. No. 132527, 29 July 2005.

4. Necessary Implication
a. Sugbuanon Rural Bank v Laguesma, G.R. No. 116194, 2 February 2000.

5. Casus Omissus
a. Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est – “a person, object or thing omitted from an
enumeration must be held to have been omitted intentionally.”
i. People v Manantan, G.R. No. L-14129, 31 July 1962.

6. Each to Each
a. Reddendo singular singulis – “the words are to be applied to the subjects that seem most
appropriately related by context and applicability.”
i. Amadora v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47745, 15 April 1988.

7. Qualifying Terms; Doctrine of Last Antecedent

a. Ad proximum antecedens fiat relatio nisi impediatur sentencia – “relative words refer to the
nearest antecedent, unless it be prevented by the context.”
i. Republic v Iglesia ni Cristo, G.R. No. 180067, 30 June 2009.

8. Context and Related Clauses

a. Paras v COMELEC, G.R. No. 123169, 4 November 1996.

CHAPTER VI: EXTRINSIC AIDS OF CONSTRUCTION

1. Legislative deliberations
i. De Villa v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 87416, 8 April 1991.
ii. Manila Jockey Club, Inc. v Games and Amusement Board, G.R. No. L-12727, 29
February 1960.
2. Legislative History
 i. Commissioner of Customs v Esso Standard Eastern, Inc., G.R. No. L-28329, 7 August
1975
ii. Filipinas Life Assurance Company v CTA, G.R. No. L-21258, 31 October 1967.
3. Contemporaneous Circumstances
i. Lagman v Medialdea, G.R. Nos. 231771 and 231774, 4 July 2017.
ii. Estrada v Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, 2 March 2001.
4. Legislative practice; Reference to other statutes
i. Escosura v San Miguel Brewery, G.R. No. L-16696, 31 January 1962.
5. Statutes borrowed from foreign jurisdictions
6. Preference

CHAPTER VII: CONSTRUCTION OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS

A. STATUTES IN PARI MATERIA

a. In pari materia – “on the same subject or matter.”
b. Interpretare et concordare legibus est optimus interpretandi – “every statute must be so
construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence.”
i. Gordon v Veridiano, G.R. No. L-55230, 8 November 1988.
ii. Flores v San Pedro, G.R. No. L-8580, 30 September 1957.

B. RULES ON RESOLVING STATUTES IN PARI MATERIA

a. Special Law v. General Law
i. Generalia specialibus non derogant – “special law prevails over a general law.”
1. Laguna Lake Development Authority v Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 120865
to 120871, 7 December 1995.
2. Forest Hills Golf and Country Club v Kings Properties Corporation, G.R. No.
212833, 7 August 2019.
ii. Exception
1. Bagatsing v Ramirez, G.R. No. L-41631, 17 December 1976.

b. Substantive Law v. Procedural Law

i. Fabian v Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, 16 September 1998.
ii. PNB v Asuncion, G.R. No. L-46905, 23 November 1977.
iii. Estipona v Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679, 15 August 2017.

c. Earlier Law v. Later Law; Amendment and Repeal

i. PNB v Cruz, G.R. No. 80593, 18 December 1989.
ii. Mecano v Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 103982, 11 December 1992.
iii. Dreamworks Construction, Inc. v Janiola, G.R. No. 184861, 30 June 2009.
iv. United States v Soliman, G.R. No. L-11555, 6 January 1917.

CHAPTER VIII: PROSPECTIVITY AND RETROACTIVITY

A. IN GENERAL

B. PROSPECTIVITY OF LAWS
a. Article 4 of the Civil Code
b. Lex prospicit, non respicit – “the laws looks forward, not backward.”
c. Lex de future, judex de praeterito – “the law provides for the future, the judge for the past.”
i. Universal Corn Products, Inc. v Rice and Corn Board, G.R. No. L-21013, 17 August
1967.
ii. Nilo v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-34586, 2 April 1984.
iii. People v Lacson, G.R. No. 149453, 7 October 2003.
iv. Buyco v PNB, G.R. No. L-14406, 30 June 1961.

C. RETROACTIVITY OF STATUTES
a. Procedural rules
i. Panay Railways, Inc. v HEVA Management and Development Corporation, G.R. No.
154061, 25 January 2012.
ii. Lintag v NPC, G.R. No. 158609, 27 July 2007.

b. Police power
i. Ortigas & Co., Ltd. V Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126102, 4 December 2000.

c. Curative laws
 i. Narzoles v NLRC, G.R. No. 141959, 29 September 2000.
ii. Nunga Jr. v Nunga III, G.R. No. 178306, 18 December 2008.

d. Penal laws
i. Favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda – “penal laws which are favorable to
the accused are given retroactive effect.”
1. People v Talaro, G.R. No. 175781, 20 March 2012.
2. Ortega v People, G.R. No. 151085, 20 August 2008.

D. PROSPECTIVITY AND RETROACTIVITY OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS

a. People v Jabinal, G.R. No. L-30061, 27 February 1974.
b. Columbia Pictures, Inc. v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110318, 28 August 1996.

CHAPTER IX: INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS

A. Contracts in General
a. Article 1305, Civil Code
b. Article 1306, Civil Code
c. Article 1315, Civil Code
d. Article 1319, Civil Code
e. Article 1320, Civil Code

B. Interpretation of Contracts
a. Director of Public Works v Sing Juco, et. al., G.R. No. L-30181, 12 July 1929.
b. Empire Insurance Company v Rufino, et. al., G.R. No. L-38268, 31 May 1979.
c. Oil and Natural Gas Commission v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114323, 23 July 1998.

C. Legal Provisions on the Interpretation of Contracts

a. Article 1370 of the Civil Code
i. San Mauricio Mining Company v Ancheta, G.R. Nos. L-47859 and L-57132, 10 July
1981.
ii. Manila Banking Corp. v Teodoro, G.R. No. 53955, 13 January 1989.
iii. Abad v Goldloop Properties, Inc., G.R. No. 168108, 13 April 2007.

b. Article 1371 of the Civil Code

i. Riviera Filipina, Inc. v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117355, 5 April 2002.
ii. San Diego v Evangelista, G.R. No. 24 January 2006.

c. Article 1372 of the Civil Code

i. Empire Insurance Company v Rufino, G.R. No. L-38628, 31 May 1979.
ii. Matienzo v Servidad, G.R. No. 28135, 10 September 1981.

d. Article 1373, Civil Code

e. Article 1374, Civil Code

i. China Banking Corp. v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121158, 5 December 1996.
ii. Cañete v San Antonio Agro-Industrial Development Corporation, G.R. No. L-51152,
27 April 1982.

f. Article 1375, Civil Code

g. Article 1376, Civil Code

i. Northern Cement Corp. v Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 68636, 29 February
1988.
ii. Cruz v Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 71557, 29 November 1998.
iii. New Kanlaon Construction, Inc. v First Global BYO Corporation, G.R. No. 231467,
16 October 2019.

h. Article 1377, Civil Code

i. Orient Air Services v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76931, 29 May 1991.

i. Article 1378, Civil Code

j. Article 1379, Civil Code
k. Section 10 to 19, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court
CHAPTER X: LATIN MAXIMS AND MEANINGS