1.

Discuss the definition and meaning of "ambiguity" in the context of a

statute or law.
Ambiguity, or fallacy of ambiguity, is a word, phrase, or statement which contains more
than one meaning. Ambiguous words or statements lead to vagueness and confusion,
and shape the basis for instances of unintentional humor.
Sometimes, courts decide the meaning of ambiguous language on the basis of who was
responsible or at fault for the ambiguity. When only one party knew or should have
known of the ambiguity, the unsuspecting party's subjective knowledge of the meaning
will control. If both parties knew or should have known of the uncertainty, the court will
look to the subjective understanding of both. The ambiguity no longer exists if the
parties agree upon its meaning. If the parties disagree and the ambiguous provisions
are material, no contract is formed because of lack of mutual assent.
For instance, it is ambiguous to say “I rode a black horse in red pajamas,” because it
may lead us to think the horse was wearing red pajamas. The sentence becomes clear
when it is restructured as, “Wearing red pajamas, I rode a black horse.”
Ambiguity is doubtfulness, doubleness of meaning, indistinctness or uncertainty of
meaning of an expression used in a written instrument. At first glance, it may seem that
ambiguity and vagueness are nearly homonymic, as the definition of ambiguity allows
for more than one potential conclusion. However, the possible interpretations of an
ambiguous situation or phrase are limited and stem logically from the information
presented. Vagueness, on the other hand, refers to a situation in which no interpretation
can be successfully drawn because the information given is not clear enough.

2. Give at least five examples of ambiguity arising from a statute or law.

Victorias Milling Co. v. Social Security Commission

RA 1161, Sec. 8(f) “compensation” to include all renumerations, except bonuses,
allowances & overtime pay
Definition was amended: deleted “exceptions”
Legislative Intent: the amendment shows legislative intent that bonuses &
overtime pay now included in employee’s renumeration.
Principle: by virtue of express substantial change in phraseology, whatever prior
judicial or executive construction should give way to mandate of new law.

Peo. v. Venviaje
ISSUE: Whether person who practiced chiropractic without having been duly licensed,
may be criminally liable for violation of medical law.
HELD: Though term “practice of medicine,” chiropractic may in ordinary sense fall within
its meaning; statutorily defined - includes manipulations employed in chiropractic; thus,
one who practices chiropractic without license is criminally liable.
Chang Yung Fa v. Gianzon
ISSUE: whether alien who comes into country as temporary visitor is an “immigrant?”
HELD: while “immigrant” in ordinary definition- “an alien who comes to the Philippines
for permanent residence”; The Immigration Act makes own definition of term, which is
“any alien departing from any place outside the Philippines destined for the Philippines,
other than a non-immigrant.
The definition emphasizes an immigrant, who is an alien, who comes to the Philippines
either to reside TEMPORARILY or PERMANENTLY

Ernest v. CA
< RA 4166 & EO 900, 901>
“sugarcane planter” is defined as a planter-owner of sugarcane plantation w/in
particular sugar mill district, who has been allocated export and/or domestic & reserve
sugar quotas.
Statutory definition excludes emergency, non-quota, non-district and
accommodation planters, they having no sugar quota.  However, in 1955, quota system
abolished
With change in situation, illogical to continue adhering to previous definition that
had lost their legal effect.

Amadora v. CA
·         However, where statute remains unchanged, interpreted according to its clear
and original mandate; until legislature taking into account changes subjected to be
regulated, sees fit to enact necessary amendment.

3. Explain how the principle of Ubi jus ibi remedium was applied by the
Supreme Court in the case of Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS; et.al., G.R. No.
122156, Feb. 3, 1997.

For the Prince Hotel v. GSIS, et al., G.R. Feb, 3,1997, No. 122156. The Supreme
Court has applied the rule of thumb of Ubi jus ibi remedium, which interprets as a goal
where there's a right. A provision that sets up an overall hypothesis, for instance, that
contained in Article II of the Constitution of 1987 isn't self-executing. In any case, said
self-execution of a law which is full in itself and gets viable without the assistance of
supplemental or approving enactment, or that which accommodates an adequate
guideline under which the benefit it awards may be exercised or made sure about.
Accordingly, an authoritative condition is self-executed if the pith and extent of the
privilege allowed and therefore the obligation imposed are chosen by the constitution
itself in such how that the audit and construction of its terms is decided and there's no
wording to propose that the subject is gotten back to the establishment for mediation.
The laws of the Philippine Constitution should be viewed as self-executing, except if
the reverse is specifically implied, because the opposite law would give the intensity of
the lawmaking body to decide on whether, or whether not, they might be effective.
These laws must be subjected to the need of the governing branch, which, by simply
declining to determine the essential executing enactment, may make the, totally futile.
1. When the law is clear, the court's duty is to apply it, not to interpret it; (Hidalgo v.
Hidalgo, L-25326, 33 SCRA 105; Quijano p. DBP, 35 SCRA 220, L-26419, October
16, 1970)

It means that there is no vagueness or ambiguity to the law that the court is applying
then there is no reason to interpret it, it is not the duty of the court to interpret it
unless either party is not contented or had found an ambiguous word in the statute
itself.

2. It is the duty of the judge to apply the law without fear or favor. In case of doubt in
the interpretation or application of the laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body
intended right and justice to prevail; (Article 10, New Civil Code)

Though the foregoing is also an unquestioned rule, yet, it is necessary to embody it

in the code, so that it may tip the scales in favor of right and justice when the law is
doubtful or obscure. According to the law, in case of any doubt in the interpretation
or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and
justice to prevail. Thus, the law must be applied, even if it is harsh or unjust, for the
Judge cannot change the mandate of the law.

3. When construction or interpretation is necessary, the court should interpret the law
according to the meaning the legislature intended to give it;

If the law or statute should necessarily be construed, the purpose or spirit of the
statute should be followed on how the legislative department intended it to function
and for sure it is for the good of the people. One thing that we remember that if
construing a certain statute, the legislature had a specific purpose when they
promulgate that law and that the interpretation of that law should not fall far from that
intention.

4. If there are two possible interpretations of a law, that which will achieve the ends
desired by Congress should be adopted;

When two possible interpretation should be considered, the construing of statutes

should be done according to the intention of the Congress upon promulgation of
such statute.

5. Laws of pleading, practice and procedure are liberally construed in order to promote
their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive
determination of every action and proceeding;

6. A judge cannot decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or

insufficiency of the laws. (Article 9, New Civil Code) In other words, he must decide the
case assigned to him whether or not he knows what law shall be applied. In case of
silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws, a judge may still be guided by the
following:
a. Customs which are not contrary to law, public order or public policy;
b Court decisions, foreign or local, in similar cases,
C. Legal opinions of qualified writers and professors;
d. General principles of justice and equity; and
e. Rules of statutory construction.