CONSTRUCTION DOCTRINES • In the interpretation of statutes, it is not proper or permissible to
Construction, defined inquire into the motives which influenced the legislative body, except Caltex v. Palomar insofar as such motives are disclosed by the statute itself. • Construction is the art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning and the intention of the authors of the law with respect to its Cecilleville Realty and Service Corp. v. Court of Appeals application to a given case, where that intention is rendered doubtful, • Where the law is unambiguous and clear, it must be applied according amongst others, by reason of the fact that the given case is not explicitly to its plain and obvious meaning, according to its express terms. provided for in the law. Ursua v. Court of Appeals Legislative Intent/Ratio Legis – Dura Lex Sed Lex – when the law is clear and • There exists a valid presumption that undesirable consequences were unambiguous, there is no room for interpretation/Plain Meaning Rule/Spirit never intended by a legislative measure and that a construction of and Purpose of Law which the statute is fairly susceptible is favored which will avoid all RCBC v. IAC objectionable, mischievous, indefensible, wrongful, evil and injurious • When the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no consequences. room for construction or interpretation. Only when the law is ambiguous or of doubtful meaning may the court interpret or construe Garcia v. Social Security Commission Legal and Collection its true intent. A statute is ambiguous if it is admissible of two or more • The spirit, rather than the letter of a law determines construction of a possible meanings, in which case, the Court is called upon to exercise provision of law – it is a cardinal rule in statutory construction that in one of its judicial functions, which is to interpret the law according to its interpreting the meaning and scope of a term used in the law, a careful true intent. review of the whole law involved, as well as the intendment of the law, must be made. Regalado v. Yulo • The intent of the Legislature is to be ascertained and enforced is the Francisco, Jr. v. Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang intent expressed in the words of the statute. The courts cannot assume Pilipino, Inc. some purpose in no way expressed and then construe the statute to • If the plain meaning of the word is not found to be clear, resort to other accomplish this supposed intention. aids is available. The proper interpretation of a constitutional provision depends more on how it was understood by the people adopting it than Matabuena v. Cervantes the framers’ understanding thereof. • The principle of statutory construction that what is within the spirit of the law is as much a part of it as what is written; whatever omission may Ut res magis valeat quam pereat be apparent in an interpretation purely literal of the language used must JMM Promotions and Management Inc., v. NLRC be remedial by an adherence to its avowed objective. • In interpreting a statute, care should be taken that every part be given effect. Construction that would render a provision inoperative should be Del Mar v. Pagcor avoided and inconsistent provisions should be reconciled whenever possible as parts of the harmonious whole.
Wisdom/Practicality of Law Bello v. CA RCBC v. IAC • This Court has cautioned against narrowly interpreting a statute as to • The holding that suspension of actions for claims against a corporation defeat the purpose of the legislator and stressed that it is of the essence under rehabilitation takes effect as soon as the application or a petition of judicial duty to construe statutes so as to avoid such deplorable result for rehabilitation is filed with the SEC – may, to some, be more logical (of injustice or absurdity) and that therefore a literal interpretation is to and wise but unfortunately, such is incongruent with the clear language be rejected if it would be unjust or lead to absurd results. In the of the law. To insist on such ruling, no matter how practical and noble, construction of its own Rules of Court, this Court is all the more so would be to encroach upon legislative prerogative to define the wisdom bound to liberally construe them to avoid injustice, discrimination and of the law – plainly judicial legislation. unfairness and to supply the void – that is certainly within the spirit and purpose of the Rule to eliminate repugnancy and inconsistency. Lacson v. Roque, et al. • Mere silence of the statute with respect to notice and hearing will not Salaria v. Buenviaje justify the removal of such an officer without knowledge of the charges • Construction by Executive Branch of government of a particular law and an opportunity to be heard. although not binding upon courts must be given weight as the construction comes from that branch of government called upon to Quintos v. Lacson, et al. implement the law. • As long as laws do not violate any Constitutional provision, it is the duty of the courts to interpret and apply them regardless of whether or not Valid in part, void in part they are wise and salutary. If the law is deemed unwise and detrimental Barrameda v. Moir to the discipline and efficiency of public officers, proper representations • The general rule is that where part of a statute is void as repugnant to and requests may be made to the Legislature. the Organic Law, while another part is valid, the valid portion, if separable from the invalid, may stand and be enforced. Executive/Administrative Interpretation UP v. Court of Appeals Tatad v. Secretary of the Department of Energy • The previous uncontested acts of the Civil Service authorities in • A separability clause states that if for any reason, any section or endorsing to the University for action the administrative cases of provision of the statute is held to be unconstitutional or (invalid), the Hospital employees Fernandez and Gorospe, and declaring that “the other section(s) or provision(s) of the law shall not be affected thereby. Bureau had no disciplinary jurisdiction over said employees in view of It is a legislative expression of intent that the nullity of one provision the provisions of the University charter,” constitutes contemporary shall not invalidate the other provisions of the act. Such a clause is not, interpretation of highly persuasive character. however, controlling and the courts may, in spite of it, invalidate the whole statute where what is left, after the void part, is complete and Enrique v. Court of Appeals workable. • Great weight accorded to interpretation or construction of a statute by the government agency called upon to implement the same. Ambiguity, construed against party who caused it Reyes v. dela Cruz Literal Interpretation • If there is any ambiguity or obscurity in the interpretation and meaning • There should be no distinction in the application of a statute where of a contract, the same shall not favour the party who cause such none is indicated. For courts are not authorized to distinguish where the ambiguity or obscurity. law makes no distinction. They should instead administer the law not as they think it ought to be but as they find it and without regard to Ildefonso v. Sibal consequences. • Agreements must be construed according to the intention of the parties. • A corollary of the principle is the rule that where the law does not make any exception, courts may not except something therefrom, unless Qua Chee Gan v. Law Union and Rock Insurance Company Ltd. there is compelling reason apparent in the law to justify it. • The contract of insurance is one of perfect good faith not for the insured alone, but equally so for the insurer; in fact, it is more so for the latter, Mandatory and Directory since its dominant bargaining position carries with it stricter Pimentel, Jr. v. Aguirre responsibility, By reason of the exclusive control of the insurance • The provision in the Local Government Code providing for such release company over the terms and phraseology of the insurance contract, the uses the word “shall” and as a rule, the term “shall” is a word of ambiguity must be strictly interpreted against the insurer and liberally in command that must be given compulsory meaning. favour of the injured, especially to avoid a forfeiture. Marcelino v. Cruz Baylon v. Court of Appeals • Constitutional provisions are directory, and not mandatory, where they • If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt as to the refer to matters merely procedural. intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall control. Brehm v. Republic • Mandatory provisions prevail over directory ones. Law does not distinguish, Courts should not distinguish Colgate Palmolive Phil., Inc. v. Gimenez Expressio unius est exclusion alterius • General terms may be restricted by specific words, with the result that City Government of San Pablo, Laguna v. Reyes the general language will be limited by specific language which indicates • It is a basic precept in statutory construction that the express mention the statute’s object and purpose. The rule is applicable only to cases of one person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all others. where, except for one general term, all the items in an enumeration belong to or fall under one specific class. People v. Moro Macarandang • Where the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish. • “Peace officers” are exempted from the requirements relating to the • The rule of construction, that general and unlimited terms are issuance of license to possess firearms. restrained and limited by particular recitals, when used in connection with them, does not require the rejection of the general term entirely. It Peope v. Mapa is intended merely as an aid in ascertaining the legislative intent and is • The fact that a person, found in possession of an unlicensed firearm, is a to be considered in connection with other rules of construction. secret agent of a provincial governor does not exempt him from criminal liability. The law does not contain any exception for a secret agent. Phil. British Assurance Co. v. IAC People v. Santayama external one; it originates in intention and is perfected by expression. • At the accused’s apprehension, the doctrine then prevailing is Failure of the latter may defeat the former. enunciated in the case of People v. Macarandang, holding that the appointment of a civilian as “secret agent to assist in the maintenance Noscitur a sociis of peace and order campaigns and detection of crimes sufficiently puts Nagtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp., Inc. him within the category of a ‘peace officer’ equivalent even to a • Under the rule of noscitur a sociis, a word or pharse should be member of the municipal police expressly covered by Section 879.” The interpreted in relation to, or given the same meaning of, words with case of People v. Mapa revoked the doctrine in Macarandang case only which it is associated, and, since the word “gambling” is associated with on August 30, 1967. Under the Macarandang rule therefore obtaining at “and other prohibited games of chance,” under Sec. 458 of the Local the time of the accused’s appointment as secret agent, he incurred no Government Code, the word should be read as referring only to illegal criminal liability for possession of the pistol. gambling.
Ejusdem Generis AND/OR Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. SSS Romulo, Mabanta v. Home Development and Mutual Fund • The rule of ejusdem generis applies only when there is uncertainty. It is • The term ‘and/or’ means that the effect shall be given to both the not controlling where the plain purpose and intent of the lawmaking conjunctive “and” and the disjunctive “or;” or that one word or the body would thereby hindered and defeated. other may be taken accordingly as one or the other will best effectuate the purpose intended by the legislature as gathered from the whole Mutuc v. COMELEC statute. The term is used to avoid a construction which by the use of the • Under the well-known principle of ejusdem generis, the general words disjunctive “or” alone will exclude the combination of several of the following any enumeration being applicable only to things of the same alternatives or by the use of the conjunctive “and” will exclude the kind or class as those specificially referred to. efficacy of any one of the alternatives standing alone.” It is accordingly ordinarily held that the intention of the legislature in using the term Statement of Individual Legislator “and/or” is that the word “and” and the word “or” are to be used Casco Phil. Chemical Co. v. Gimenez interchangeably. • Individual statements made by Senators on the floor of the Senate do not necessarily reflect the view of the Senate. Much less do they Retroactivity indicate the intent of the House of Representatives. Espiritu v. Cipriano • Statutes are not to be construed as intended to have a retroactive effect Manila Jockey Club Inc. v. Games and Amusement Board so as to affect pending proceedings unless such intent is expressly • In the interpretation of a legal document, especially a statute, unlike in declared or clearly and necessarily implied from the language of the interpretation of an ordinary written document, it is not enough to enactment. obtain information as to the intention or meaning of the author or authors, but also to see whether the intention or meaning has been Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est expressed in such a way as to give it legal effect and validity. The legal People v. Manantan act, so to speak, is made up of two elements – an internal and an • The rule of casus omissus pro omisso habendus est can operate and burdens are not to be imposed, nor presumed to be imposed, beyond apply only if and when the omission has been clearly established. what the statutes expressly and clearly import.
Computation of Time Pleadings and Rules: Del Rosario v. Hamoy Viray v. CA • Rules of Court mandates a liberal construction in favour of the rules and • The rule that excludes the last day of a period, should the same be a pleadings to effect substantial justice. holiday, refers to the performance of the act prescribed or required. But it does not apply where at the end of the period no such act is to be Domalanta v. CA done. • On certain occasions, this Court has allowed liberality in the construction of the rules. The present case, however, does not warrant Liberal or strict construction such liberality because the decision of respondent CA is satisfactorily - statement of a rule when there is ambiguity supported by the records. - if procedural: liberal Holographic wills: Ajero v. CA Quibuyen v. CA • Failure to strictly observe other formalities will not result in the • Pleadings, as well as remedial laws, should be construed liberally, in disallowance of a holographic will that is unquestionably handwritten by order that the litigants may have ample opportunity to prove their the testator. respective claims, and that a possible denial of substantial justice, due to legal techincalities, may be avoided. Naturalization Laws: Ong Chia v. Republic • It is settled that naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and Contracts of Insurance: NPC v. CA strictly construed in favor of the government and against the applicant. • Contracts of insurance construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer. Thus ambiguity in the words of an insurance Labor Statutes: A.L. Ammen v. Borja contract should be interpreted in favour of its beneficiary. • Labor: liberal construction in favour of labor statutes. Corporation Law: Home Insurance Co. v. Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. Tax Exemptions: Esso Standard v. Acting Commissioner of Customs • The objective of the law was to subject the foreign corporation to the • Exemption from taxation is not favored. Exemptions in tax statutes are jurisdiction of our courts. The Corporation Law must be given a never presumed. Exceptions from taxation are construed in strictissimi reasonable, not an unduly harsh, interpretation which does not hamper juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favour of the taxing authority. the development of trade relations and which fosters friendly commercial intercourse among countries. Taxation: Manila Railroad v. Collector of Customs • It is the general rule in the interpretation of statutes levying taxes or Probation: Pablo v. Castillo duties not to extend their provisions beyond the clear import of the • Probation law is not a penal statute and therefore, the principle of language used. In every case of doubt, such statutes are construed most liberal interpretation is inapplicable. The Court has pronounced that the strongly against the Government and in favour of the citizen, because policy of liberality of probation statutes cannot prevail against the categorical provisions of the law. • All the words of a statute should, when possible, be given some Retirement Laws: Request of Clerk of Court Tessie L. Gatmaitan meaning, and when the legislator makes use of words of limitation, he • Retirement laws are liberally interpreted in favour of the retiree. must be presumed to have intended to limit and restrict, in some way, the word or idea with reference to which such words of limitation are Interpretation of laws: Buenaseda v. Flavier applied. • Penal statutes are strictly construed while procedural statutes are liberally construed. State Prosecutors v. Muro • A statute granting powers to an agency created by the Constitution • Judicial notice cannot be taken of a statute before it becomes effective. should be liberally construed for the advancement of the purposes and A law which is not yet in force and hence, still inexistent, cannot be of objectives which it was created. common knowledge capable of ready and unquestionable demonstration. Interpretation of Peanl Statutes – Retroactivity U.S. v. Cuna Effects of Repeals and Amendments – General and Special Laws – Implied • Penal laws are to be given retroactive effect only in so far as they favour Repeal the defendant charged with a crime or a misdemeanour, and that, when Manila Railroad Co. v. Rafferty a penal law is enacted repealing a prior law, such repeal does not have • Special laws or charters may not be amended, altered, or repealed by a the effect of relieving the offender in whole or in part of penalties general law, by mere implication. already incurred under the old law, unless the new law favors the • Repeal of laws by implication is not favored. The mere repugnancy defendant by diminishing the penalty or doing away with it altogether, between two statutes should be very clear in order to warrant the court and then only to the extent to which the new law is favourable to the in holding that the later in time repeals the former, when it does not in offender. terms purport to do so. • It is well settled that a special and local statute is not repealed by a People v. Tamayo subsequent statute unless the intent to repeal or alter it is manifest, • The doctrine was clearly established that in the Philippines, repeal of a although the terms of the general act are broad enough to include the criminal act by its re-enactment, even without a saving clause, would cases in the special law. not destroy criminal liability. • Where there are two statutes, the earlier special and the later general – the terms of the general broad enough to include the matter provided U.S. v. Go Chico for in the special – the fact that one is special and the other general • It is clear from the authorities cited in the Act under consideration that creates a presumption that the special is to be considered as remaining the legislature did not intend that a criminal intent should be a an exception to the general – one as a general law of the land, the other necessary element of the crime. The statutory definition of the offense as the law of a particular case. embraces no word implying that the prohibited act shall be done knowingly. The Act means what it says. Nothing is left to interpretation. Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association, Inc. v. Feliciano • A repealing clause in an Act which provides that “all laws or parts U.S. v. Estapia thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly” is certainly not an express repealing clause because it fails to identify or designate the Act or Acts that are intended the existing laws on the subject and not to have enacted inconsistent or to be repealed. Rather, it is a clause which predicates the intended conflicting statutes. repeal upon the condition that a substantial conflict must be found in existing and prior Acts. Such being the case, the presumption against City of Basilan v. Hechanova implied repeals and the rule against strict construction regarding • Whenever there is a conflict of an ordinance with a statute, the former implied repeals apply ex proprio vigore. must give way.
Almeda v. Florentino Arenas v. City of San Carlos • Repeals by implication are not favored, unless it is manifest that the • The primary purpose of a proviso is to limit the general language of a legislature so intended and courts are duty bound to adopt a statute. When there is irreconcilable repugnancy between the proviso construction that will give effect to every part of a statute, if at all and the body of the statute, the former is given precedence over the possible. latter on the ground that it is the latest expression of the intent of the legislature. Sanchez v. Rigos • In construing different provisions of one and the same law or code, such interpretation should be favored as will reconcile or harmonize said provisions and avoid a conflict between the same. • Exceptions are not favored, unless the intention to the contrary is clear.
Mecano v. Commission on Audit • The failure to add a specific repealing clause indicates that the intent was not to repeal any existing law, unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exist in the terms of the new and old laws. • There are two categories of repeal by implication. The first is where provisions in the two acts on the same subject matter are in an irreconcilable conflict, the later act to the extent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier one. The second is if the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute, it will operate to repeal the earlier law. Implied repeal by irreconcilable inconsistency takes place when the two statutes cover the same subject matter; and both cannot be given effect, that is, that one law cannot be enforced without nullifying the other. • Lastly, it is a well-settled rule in statutory construction that repeals by statute by implication are not favored. The presumption is against inconsistency and repugnancy for the legislature is presumed to know
8 13 13 996 Pages Bates Stamped Ex 2 Ocr For 60838 62337 ROA From RMC in 22176 To 2JDC For CR12 - 2064 and Everything Filed in Appeal Through 3 27 12 Printed