Statutory Construction

PART 1:
BASIC PRINCIPLES
I.

What is Statutory Construction?

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

Construction is the art or process of discovering and expounding
the meaning and intention of the authors of the law with respect to
its application to a given case, where that intention is rendered
doubtful, amongst others, by reason of the fact that the given case
is not explicitly provided for in the law.

II.

When Do You Apply the Principles of Statutory Construction?

Daoang vs. Municipal Judge of San Nicolas, G.R. No. L-34568 ,

March 28, 1988
Amores vs. HRET, G.R. No. 189600, June 29, 2010
Republic Flour Mills, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. L28463, May 31, 1971
Kapisanan ng mga Manggawa sa Manila Railroad Company Credit
Union vs. Manila Railroad Company, February 28, 1979
Radio Communications of the Phil. vs. NTC, G.R. No. L-68729, May
29, 1987
Republic vs. Toledano, G.R. No. 94147, June 8, 1994

III.

Which Branch of Government Interprets the Law?

IV.

Requirement of Publication of Statutes

V.

Judicial Legislation

VI.

Floresca vs. Philex Mining, G.R. No. L-30642 April 30, 1985
Republic vs. CA and Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997

Spirit over Letter of the Law (Ratio Legis Est Anima Legis)

VII.

Tanada vs. Tuvera (Resolution), G.R. No. L-63915, December 29,

1986

Paras vs COMELEC, G.R. No. 123169, November 4, 1994

China Bank vs Ortega, G.R. No. L-34964, January 31, 1973

The construction of the law obtains the force of law (Legis

interpretatio legis vim obtinet)

People vs Jabinal, G.R. No. L-30061, February 27, 1974

PART 2:

EXECUTIVE CONSTRUCTION
I.

Executive Construction Given Great Weight

II.

When Executive Construction Not Given Weight

III.

Adasa vs Abalos, G.R. No. 168617, February 19, 2007

IBAA Employees Union vs Inciong, G.R. No. L-52415, October 23,

1984

Administrative Rule vs. Administrative Opinion

Victorias Milling Co. Inc. vs. Social Security Commission, G.R. No. L16704, March 17, 1962

PART 3:
CONSTRUCTION OF SPECIFIC TYPES OF LEGISLATION
I.

Constitution

II.

Francisco vs. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261,

November 10, 2003
Sarmiento vs Mison, G.R. No. 79974, December 17, 1987
Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997
Oposa vs Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993

Labor Laws

Manahan vs Employees Compensation Commission, G.R. No. L44899, April 22, 1981

Retirement Laws
Tantuico, Jr. vs Domingo, G.R. No. 96422, February 28, 1994
Note: Relate with Article 4, Labor Code
III.

Tax Laws
Tax Burdens
Philacor Credit Corporation Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R.
No. 169899, February 6, 2013
Tax Exemptions
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs Guerrero, G.R. No. L-20942,
September 22, 1967
Tax Refunds
Applied Food Ingredients vs Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
G.R. No. 184266, November 11, 2013

IV.

Penal Laws

People vs Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008

Conflict between Spanish text and English text

People vs Manaba, G.R. No. 38725, October 31, 1933
Note: Relate with Article 22, Revised Penal Code
V.

Election Laws

VI.

Insurance

VII.

Heirs of Jugalbot vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 170346, March 12,

2007

Wills

X.

Benjamin Co vs Republic, G.R. No. L-12150, May 26, 1960

Velasco vs Republic, G.R. No. L-14214, May 25, 1960
Co Y Quing Reyes Vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-10761, November 29,
1958

Expropriation Laws

IX.

De La Cruz vs Capital Insurance & Safety Co, Inc. , G.R. No. L21574, June 30, 1966
Qua Chee Gan vs. Law Union & Rock Insurance, G.R. No. L-4611,
December 17, 1955

Naturalization Laws

VIII.

Hipe vs COMELEC. G.R. No. 181528, October 2, 2009

Amora, jr. vs COMELEC, G.R. No. 192280, January 25, 2011

Tampoy vs Alberastine, G.R. No. L-14322. February 25, 1960

Rodriguez vs Alcala, G.R. No. 32672, November 5, 1930

Rules of Court

Anama vs Court of appeals, G.R. No. 187021, January 25, 2012

Note: See Section 6, Rule 1, 1997 Rules of Court

PART 4:
LATIN RULES

I.

Verba Legis Non Est Recedendum (From the words of the

statute, there should be no departure)

II.

Ratio Legis Est Anima Legis (The reason of the law is the soul
of the law)

III.

Victoria vs. COMELEC, G.R. 109005, January 10, 1994

Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) vs
Philippine Gaming Jurisdiction Inc. (PEJI), G.R. No. 177333, April 24,
2009

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

Dura Lex Sed Lex (The law is harsh but that is the law)

Ysidoro vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192330, November

14, 2012

When not applied:

IV.

Duncan vs. CFI of Rizal, G.R. No. L-30576, February 10, 1976
Alonzo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-72873, May 28,
1987

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius (The express mention of

one thing in a law means the exclusion of others not expressly
mentioned)

Lerum vs. Cruz, G.R. No. L-2783, November 29, 1950

Centeno vs. Villalon-Pornillos, G.R. No. 113092, September 1, 1994

When not applied:

a.
When adherence to the rule will lead to incongruities and in a
violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution

Chua vs. Civil Service

February 7, 1992

Commission,

G.R.

No.

88979,

b. When enumeration not intended to be exclusive

Manabat vs. de Aquino, G.R. No. L-5558, April 29, 1953

Escribano vs. Avila, G.R. No. L-30375, September 12, 1978

c. When no reason exists why a person or thing is excluded

V.

People vs. Manantan, G.R. No. L-14129, July 31, 1962

Primero vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-48468-69,
November 22, 1989

Ejusdem Generis

Liwag vs Happy Glen Loop Homeowners Association, G.R. No.

189755, July 4, 2012
Mutuc vs. COMELEC , G.R. No. L-32717, November 26, 1970

When not applied:

VI.

Casus Omissus Pro Omiso Habendus Est (A Thing Omitted Must

have Been Ommitted Intentionally)

VII.

United States vs. Victor Santo Nino, G.R. No. 5000, March 11, 1909
City of Manila vs. Lyric Music House, G.R. No. 42236, September 24,
1935
Roman Catholic Archbishop vs. Social Security Commission G.R. No.
L-15045, January 20, 1961
Colgate vs. Gimenez, G.R. No. L-14787, January 28, 1961

Spouses Delfino vs. St. James Hospital, G.R. No. 166735, November
23, 2007

Noscitur A Sociis
Caltex vs. Palomar, G.R. No. L-19650, September 29, 1966
Aisporna vs. Court of Appeals, April 12, 1982, G.R. No. L-39419

VIII.

Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos (Where the
law does not distinguish, the courts should not distinguish)

Philippine British Assurance vs. IAC, G.R. No. 72005, May 29, 1987
Banco de Oro vs. Equitable Bank, G.R. No. 74917, January 20, 1988
Spouses Salenillas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 78687, January
31, 1989
Demafiles vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-28396, December 29, 1967