INTERPRETATION OF WORDS

AND PHRASES USED IN A

STATUTE
Generally

A word or phrase used in a statute may have an

ordinary, generic, restricted, technical, legal,
commercial or trade meaning
It may have been defined in the statute itself, or may
have previously received a judicial construction.
Which meaning should be given depends upon what
the legislature intended
This could be found from the statute itself and
secondarily from extraneous and relevant
circumstances
Statutory definition
Legislative definition controls the meaning of
the statutory word, irrespective of any other
meaning the word or phrase may have in its
ordinary or usual sense
Qualification: is controlling only insofar as said
act/law is concerned. The definition is not
conclusive as to the meaning of the same
word or tem as used in other statutes.
How to interpret words and phrases in
a statute?
It depends. If the words and phrases used are
defined in the statute itself, such definition controls
the meaning of the statutory word, irrespective of
any other meaning the word or phrase may have in
its ordinary or usual sense.
If there is no such definition, the words or phrases in
the statute should be interpreted in accordance with
its well-accepted meaning and they should be
construed in the light of the context of the whole
statute.
Is statutory definition conclusive to the
courts?
Not necessarily conclusive to the courts in the
following cases:
When such definition creates obvious incongruities
When it contravenes the major purpose of the statute
and
When it becomes illogical as a result of a change in its
factual basis
In such cases, it will be given a meaning that will
serve the purpose of the law or which make the law
logical and free from incongruities
Rules
Words construed in their ordinary sense
General words construed generally
Generic term includes things that arise
thereafter
Words with commercial or trade meaning
Words with technical or legal meaning
 How identical terms in same statute construed
Meaning of word qualified by purpose of
statute
Meaning of term dictated by context
Where the law does not distinguish
Disjunctive and Conjunctive words
Rules in the following situations:
When a word used in a statute has a general
meaning
When the word used has a technical meaning
When the word used has no meaning in harmony
with the legislative intent
When the word or phrase is repeatedly used in a
statute
Word has a general meaning
The general word should not be given a restricted
meaning unless it is otherwise indicated
Word has a technical meaning
They are considered to have been used in their
technical sense

Case: Macasaet vs. Commission on Audit

Word has no meaning in harmony with
legislative intent
These can be treated as surplusage and they may
entirely be ignored
Before resorting to this however, the courts should
and true the statute in its entirety and find out if the
words used can still admit a reasonable construction
which can give them force and meaning.
Case: Montenegro vs. Castaneda (91 Phil 882)
Word or phrase is repeatedly used

A word or phrase used in one part of a statute shal

receive the same interpretation when used in every
other part of the statute, unless a different meaning
is intended. Likewise, when a word or phrase is
repeatedly used in a statute, it will, as a rule, bear
the same meaning throughout the statute
Case: Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds, 79 Phil. 461)
Particular words and phrases
OR and AND
AND/OR
SHALL and MAY
ALL, EVERY, and ANY
AND SO FORTH
AND THE LIKE
CANNOT, SHALL NOT
THE FOLLOWING MAY, THE FOLLOWING SHALL
OR and AND
OR is a disjunctive term which indicates an
alternative. Various members of the sentence are to
be taken separately
OR is not disjunctive:when the spirit or content of the
law warrants it
AND is a conjunctive term, it means that the
members of a sentence are to be taken jointly
Exception: AND may mean OR if this is the plain
intention of the legislature which could be gleaned from
the context of the statute
AND/OR
Effect shall be given to both the conjunctive AND the
disjunctive OR depending on which one will serve
the legislative
Cases:
Dayao et al vs. COMELEC et al. GR No. 193643 and
Federation of Philippine Industries, Inc. v. COMELEC. Et
al. GR No. 193704
Civil Service Commission v. Saturnino dela Cruz GR No.
158737. Aug. 31, 2004
SHALL and MAY
SHALL is imperative. It operates to impose a duty,
which may be enforced
MAY is permissive and it operates to confer
jurisdiction
Cases
Purita Bersabal vs. Hon. Judge Serafin
Salvador G.R. No. L-35910, July 21, 1978
Jenette Marie B. Crisologo vs. G.R. No.
167631, December 16, 2005
Globe Telecom, Inc. and Cesar M. Maureal,
Vice President for Human Resources G.R.
No. 117188, August 7, 1997
Loyola Grand Villas Homeowners (South)
Association, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals GR
No. 170678, July 17, 2006
When the law does not
distinguish:
Philippine British Assurance Co. Inc. vs. The
Honorable Intermediate Appellate Court
Juanito Pilar vs. Commission on Elections
People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Judge
Antonio C. Evangelista and Guido S.
Tugonon
Associated Words
Noscitur a sociis
Ejusdem generis
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
Doctrine of last antecedent
Reddendi singula singulis
Noscitur A Sociis:
Dra. Brigida S. Buenaseda et.al. vs. Secretary
Juan Flavier, et. Al. G.R. No. 106719,
September 21, 1993
Ejusdem Generis
Republic of the Philippines vs. Hon. Eutropio Migrinio
and Troadio Tecson G.R. No. 89483, August 30, 1990
The People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Vicente B.
Echavez Jr. et.al. G.R. No. L-47757-61, January 28,
1980
Misael P. Vera as Commissioner of Internal Revenue as
Judge of the CFI of Manila, Branch IV, Institute of
Evaporated Filled Milk Manufacturers of the Philippines,
Inc. and Consolidated Industries, Inc. G.R. Nos. L-
33693-94, May 31, 1979
Concepcion Parayno vs. Jose Jovellanos and
Municipality of Calasiao, Pangasinan, G.R. No. 148408,
July 14, 2006
Expressio Unius est Exclusio
Alterius
San Pablo Manufacturing Corporation,
petitioner vs. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue G.R. No. 147749, June 22, 2006
Proviso
ALU-TUCP vs. NLRC and National Steel
Corporation G.R. No. 109902, August 2
Acting Commissioner of Customs vs. Manila
Electric Company and Court of Tax Appeals
G.R. No. L-23623, June 30, 1997
Danilo E. Paras vs. Commission on Elections
G.R. No. 123169, November 4, 1996
Others
General and Special Terms: Colgate-
Palmolive Phils. Inc. vs. Hon. Pedro M.
Jimenez vs. Auditor General
Use of Negative Words: Manolo P. Fule vs.
The Honorable Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-
79094, June 22, 1988
Exceptions in the Statute : Cecilio de Villa vs.
Court of Appeals