m1. VL vil. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Definition of Statutory Construction (Caltex, Inc. vs. Palomar, 18 SCRA 247 Nature of the Rules of Statutory Construction PCFlos. NIC, G.R No. L-63318, August 18, 1984 ‘Construction and Interpretation Power to Construe and its Limitations Floresea vs. Philex, 136 SCRA 141 Endencia vs. David, 93 Phil 696 Perfecto vs. Meer, 85 Phil 552 Article 8, Civil Code Strict versus Liberal Construction Fetalino vs. Barcelona, G.R. No, 191890, December 4, 2012 People vs. Veneracin, 319 Phil 364 a Penal Statutes United States vs, Abad Santos, 36 Phil 243 People vs. Gatchaian, 104 Phil 664 ‘Meriz vs. People, 420 Phil 608 Tenebro vs. CA, G.R. No. 150758, February 18, 2004 b. TaxStatutes La Carlota Sugar Central vs. jimenez, 112 Phil 232 CIR 9s, CA, G.R. No, 124043, October 14, 1998 Labor Statutes Centro Project Management Services Corp. 0s. Nalus, G.R, No, 160123, june 17, 2015 Naturalization Laws (Ong Chia vs. Republic, G.R. No, 127240, March 27, 2000 Republic vs. Li Yao, G.R. No, 35947, October 20, 1992 Probation Laws Colinares 08. Pople, G.R. No. 182748, December 13, 2011 fE Rules of Court Bello vs. CA, 56 SCRA 509 ‘8. Expropriation Laws City of Manila vs. Chinese Community, 40 Phil 349 Judicial Legislation Floresca vs. Pilex, 136 SCRA 141 Fort Bonifacio es, CIR, G.R. No. 173425, September 4, 2012 Conpuz vs, People, Gu, No, 180016, April 29, 2014 Ads to Construction a. Internal Aids b External Aids i. Origin of StatuteUS vs, Venancio de Guzman (90 Phil. 416) ii Legislative History China Bank vs, Ortega (49 SCRA 355) ¢. Contemporary Construction Vill. Subjects of Construction 4. Constitution b. Statutes i. Definition; Kinds; Parts ii. ffectivity iii, Enrolled Bill Doctrine iv, Repeal and its effects Ordinances d. Presidential Decrees IX. _ Interpretation of Statutes X. Latin Rules ‘a. Verba Legis Non Est Recedendum Globe Mackay vs. NLRC (206 SCRA 701) Victoria vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 109005, January 10, 1994) Garcia v. COMELEC (GR. No. 2166691, July 21, 2015) i. Departure from literal interpretation fi, Doctrine of Necessary Implication bua Lex Sed Lex People vs. Macarandang (106 Phil. 719) People vs. Mapa (20 SCRA 1164) (127 Phil 624) People vs. Santayana (74 SCRA 125) (165 Phil. 648) Ratio Legis Est Anima Legis Paras v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 123169 November 4, 1996) League of Cities of the Philippines vs, Commission on Elections (G.R. Nos. 1176951, 177498, and 178056, December 21, 2009, 608 SCRA 636, 644-645) 4. Mens Legislatores Matabuena vs. Cervantes (38 SCRA 284) (148 Phil 295) Prasnick vs. Republic (98 Phil 665) e. Expressio Unius Ext Exclusion Alterius Acosta vs. Flor (5 Phil 18) Green Star vs. Nissin-Universal (G.R. No. 181517, July 6, 2015) PAGCOR ws. BIR (660 Phil 636) (GR. No, 172087, March 15, 2011) Primero vs. CA (GR. Nos. L-48468-69, November 25, 1989) Municipality of Nueva Era, locos Norte vs. Municipality of Marcos, Hocos Norte (GR No. 166435, February 27, 2008) f. Ejusdem Generis ‘Matuc vs. COMELEC (36 SCRA 228, 232) US vs. Sto. Nino (13 Phil. 741) PBA vs, Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 119122, August 8, 2000) Parayno vs, jovellanos (GR. No. 14808, July 14, 2006)x1 XI Cassius Onissus Pro Omisso Habendus Est People vs. Manantan (5SCRA 684) Francisco Chavez vs, JBC (G.R. No. 202242 July 17, 2012) Noscitur A Sociis Aispora vs. Court of Appeals (113 SCRA 459) Ubi ex non distinguish nec nos distinguie debemos General Terms may be Restricted by Specific Words Colgate-Palmolive, Inc. vs, Gimenez (GR. No. L-14787, January 28, 1961) Construction and Interpretation of Words and Phrases oD Ordinary Meaning Jacinto Molina vs. James Rafferty (G.R. No. L-11988, February 1, 1918) "May" and "Shall” Ramon Diokno vs. Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (GR. No. L-4712, July 11, 1952) CCapati vs. Ocampo 113 SCRA 799 “Principally” and “Exclusively” Lung Center ofthe Philippines vs. Quezon City (GR. No. 144104, June 29, 2004) “Previously” Teoxtulo Rura vs, Hoon. Gervacio Leopena (137 SCRA 121) “Every” National Housing Corporation vs. Juco (G.R. No. 64313, January 17, 1985) Punctuations United States vs. William Hart, et al. (GR, No. L-8848, November 21, 1913) Surplusages Demafiles vs. COMELEC (129 Phil. 92) Doctrine of Last Antecedent PLDT vs. The Public Service Commission (GR. No, 1-26762 August 28, 1975 - ‘Concurring Opinion of J. Castro) Jose Antonio Mapa vs. Joker Arroyo (G.R. No. 78585 July 5, 1988) Rule on Conflicting Provisions of the Same Statute Manila Railroad vs. Insular Collector of Customs (52 Phil 950) Rule on Contlicting Provisions of Different Statutes Commissioner vs. Philippine Airlines (GR. o. 180066, July 7, 2009) Rule on Conflict between a Special Provision of a General Law and General Provisions cof aSpecial Law Bagatsing vs. Ramirez (G.R. No. L-41631 December 17, 1976)