Lichauco & Co. v.

Apostol
A irreconcilable conflict between parts of a revised statute or a code, that which is best in accord
with the general plan or, in the absence of circumstances upon which to base a choice, that which
is later in physical position, being the latest expression of legislative will, will prevail.
Sigre v. CA
Victorias Milling Co. v. SSS
A statutory definition of term containing a general rule and an exception thereto is amended by
eliminating the exception, the legislative intent is clear that the term should now include the
exception within the scope of the general rule.

Philippines Interisland Shipping Association vs CA
It came to pass that a response from a clamor of harbour pilots for an increase in pilotagerates
was given by the then President Marcos through the issuance of an E.O o. !"##
$P%O&I'I( )O% *I)O%M A' MO'I)IE' %A+E, )O% PI-O+A(E
,E%&I.E,%E'E%E' +O )O%EI( A' .OA,+/I,E &E,,E-, I A-- P%I&A+E A'
P*0-I.PO%+,. +he executive order increased substantially the rates of the existing pilotage
fees previously fixed by the PPA.1
'uring that time the President was exercising legislative power and was authori2ed
3owever, PPA was reluctant to enforce the same arguing that it was issued hastily and it was 4ust
an Administrative Order whereby PPA has the power to revised EO !"## which it did so by
issuing A.O. o. 567#8, which fixed lower rates of pilotage fees, and even entirely left the fees to
be paid for pilotage to the agreement of the parties to a contract.. Actually Philippine Interisland
,hipping Association of the Philippines is 4ust an intervenor in the factual milieu that lead us to
this issue. )or Purposes of Admin -aw we should not care about it.
Issue9 Is E.O. o. !"## an Administrative Order and by virtue of which PPA has the power to
modify the same.
3eld9 EO !"## is a law.
+he fixing of rates is essentially a legislative power. is no basis for petitioners: argument that rate
fixing is merely an exercise of administrative power, that if President Marcos had power to
revise the rates previously fixed by the PPA through the issuance of E.O. o. !"##, the PPA
could in turn revise those fixed by the President, as the PPA actually did in A.O. o. 567#8,
which fixed lower rates of pilotage fees, and even entirely left the fees to be paid for pilotage to
the agreement of the parties to a contract. +he orders previously issued by the PPA were in the
nature of subordinate legislation, promulgated by it in the exercise of delegated power. As such
these could only be amended or revised by law, as the President did by E.O. o. !"##.It is not an
answer to say that E.O. o. !"## should not be considered a statute because that would imply the
withdrawal of power from the PPA. /hat determines whether an act is a law or an administrative
issuance is not its form but its nature. 3ere, as we have already said, the power to fix the rates of
charges for services, including pilotage service, has always been regarded as legislative in
character.;ote9 0old letters are copied from the Original ,upreme .ourt decision<
DIOSDADO LAGCAO,
DOO!"O LAGCAO and
#S#LA LAGCAO,
Petitioners
vs.
$#DG" G"%"OSA G. LA&A and CI!' O( C"&#,
espondents
(.%. o. !==>58, October !6, ?""5
)acts9
+he Province of .ebu donated ?!" lots to the .ity of .ebu. 0ut then, in late !@8=, the ?!" lots,
including -ot !"?@, reverted to the Province of .ebu. .onseAuently, the province tried to annul
the sale of -ot !"?@ by the .ity of .ebu to the petitioners. +his prompted the latter
to sue the province for specific performance and damages in the then .ourt of )irst Instance.
+he court a Auo ruled in favor of petitioners and ordered the Province of .ebu to execute the
final deed of sale in favor of petitioners. +he .ourt of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial
court. After acAuiring title, petitioners tried to taBe possession of the lot only to
discover that it was already occupied by sAuatters. +hus petitioners instituted
e4ectment proceedings against the sAuatters. +he Municipal +rial .ourt in .ities ;M+..<
ordering the sAuatters to vacate the lot. On appeal, the %+. affirmed the M+..Cs decision and
issued a writ of execution and order of demolition. 3owever, when the demolition order
was about to be implemented, .ebu .ity Mayor Alvin (arcia wrote two letters to the
M+.., reAuesting the deferment of the demolition on the ground that the .ity was still
looBing for a relocation site for the sAuatters. Acting on the mayorCs reAuest, the
M+.. issued two orders suspending the demolition. *nfortunately for petitioners, during the
suspension period, the ,angguniang Panlungsod ;,P< of .ebu .ity passed a resolution which
identified -ot !"?@ as a sociali2ed housing site pursuant to %A >?>@.Petitioners filed with
the %+. an action for declaration of nullity of Ordinance o. !#56 for being
unconstitutional.
Issue9
/O the Ordinance o. !#56 is unconstitutional as it sanctions the expropriation
of their property for the purpose of selling it to the sAuatters, an endeavor contrary to the
concept of $public use1 contemplated in the .onstitution.
%uling9
*nder ,ection 5# of %A >!8", otherwise Bnown as the -ocal (overnment .ode of
!@@!, local legislative power shall be exercised by the ,angguniang Panlungsod of the city.
+he legislative acts of the ,angguniang Panlungsod in the exercise of its lawmaBing authority
are denominated ordinances. -ocal government units have no inherent power of eminent domain
and can exercise it only when expressly authori2ed by the legislature. 0y virtue of %A
>!8", .ongress conferred upon local government units the power to expropriate.
Ordinance o. !#56 which authori2ed the expropriation of petitionersC lot was enacted by the ,P
of .ebu .ity to provide sociali2ed housing for the homeless and low7income
residents of the .ity. 3owever, while we recogni2e that housing is one of the most
serious social problems of the country, local government units do not possess
unbridled authority to exercise their power of eminent domain in seeBing solutions to this
problem. +here are two legal provisions which limit the exercise of this power9 ;!<
no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied he eAual protection of the lawsD and ;?< private property shall not be taBen
for public use without 4ust compensation. +hus, the exercise by local government units of the
power of eminent domainis not absolute. In fact, ,ection !@ of %A >!8" itself
explicitly states that such exercise must comply with the provisions of the .onstitution
and pertinent laws.
obiter dicta (oh-bitter dick-tah) n. remarks of a judge which are not necessary
to reaching a decision, but are made as comments, illustrations or thoughts.
Generally, obiter dicta is simply "dicta."
Stare decisis is a doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in
previous judicial decisions. t is the principal that maintains that previous decisions
are to be followed by the courts. !his policy dictates that the court must abide or
adhere to decided cases.
atio Decidendi
[-atin, +he ground or reason of decision.] The legal principle upon which the decision in a
specific case is founded.
+he ratio decidendi is also Bnown as the rationale for a decision.