STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

Mondays: 7:30-9:30

A course that explores the use and force of statutes and the principles and methods of
their construction and interpretation.

I. General Principles
 Definition of Statutory Construction
1. Caltex v. Palomar (GR L-19650, 29 September 1966)
 When does Statutory Construction come in?
1. National Federation of Labor v. Eisma (GR L-61236, 31 January 1984)
2. Paat v. CA (GR 111107, 10 January 1997)
3. People v. Mapa (GR L-22301, 30 August 1967)
4. Daoang v. Municipal Judge of San Nicolas (GR L-34568, 28 March 1988)
5. Paras v. Comelec (GR 123169, 4 November 1996)

II. Statutory Construcion vs. Judicial Legislation

 Statutory Construction, whose job is it?
1. Floresca v. Philex Mining (GR L-30642, 30 April 1985)
2. Republic v. CA and Molina (GR 108763, 13 February 1997)
 How must Legislative Intent be ascertained
1. Aisporna v. CA (GR L-39419, 12 April 1982)
2. China Bank v. Ortega (GR L-34964, 31 January 1973)
3. Board of Administrators of the PVA v. Bautista (GR L-37867, 22 February
1982)

III. Literal Construction

 Case
1. Salvatierra v. CA (GR 107797, 26 August 1996)
2. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa v. Manila Railroad Company (GR L-
25316, 28 February 1979)
 When not favored
1. Abellana v. Marave (GR L-27760)
2. Paras vs. Comelec, 264 SCRA 49, supra

IV. Executive Construction

 Basic rule on Executive Construction
1. PAFLU v. Bureau of Labor Relations (GR L-43760, 21 August 1976)
 When Executive Construction is not given weight
1. Philippine Apparel Workers’ Union v. NLRC (GR L-50320, 31 July 1981)
2. IBAA Employees Union v. Inciong (GR L52415, 23 October 1984)
3. Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople (GR L-44717, 28 August
1985)
 What is the difference between a rule and an opinion
1. Victorias Milling v. Social Security Commission (GR L-16704, 17 March
1962)

II. Subjects of Construction

 The Constitution
De Castro vs. Judicial and Bar Council, G. R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010.

 How should the constitution be construed

21. Sarmiento v. Mison (GR 79974, 17 December 1987)
22. Perfecto v. Meer (GR L-2348, 27 February 1950)
23. Endencia v. David (GR L-6355-56, 31 August 1953)
24. Nitafan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (GR L-78780, 23 July 1987)
 May the preamble be referred to in the construction of Constitutional Provisions?
21. Aglipay v. Ruiz (GR 45459, 13 March 1937)
 Are the provisions of the Constitution self-executing?
21. Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS (GR 122156, 3 February 1997)
 Statute
 Requirements for the publication of laws
1
 21. Tanada v. Tuvera (GR L-63915, 24 April 1985)
22. Tanada v. Tuvera (GR L-63915, 29 December 1986)
 Ordinances
 Rule on Construction of ordinances vis-a-vis Statute
21. Primicias v. Urdaneta (GR L-26702, 18 October 1979)

VI. Interpretation of specific types of statutes

 Tax Laws
 How are tax refunds construed?
21. La Carlota Sugar Central v. Jimenez (GR L-12436, 31 May 1961)
 Who has the burden of proof in tax cases?
21. CIR v. CA (GR 115349, 18 April 1997)
22. Mactan Cebu (MCIAA) v. Marcos (GR 120082, 11 September
1996)
 Tax Sales construed
21. Serfino v. CA (GR L-40858, 15 September 1987)
蘀⤀ ጀ 㘀⬀ ጀ 뀀Ⰰ ጀ ＀䗿⸀ ሀ ＀䗿　 ሀ 쐀㈀ ሀ ＀胿攘∁ ᜀ ༀༀ炄ᄈ预ᗾ‫׆‬Āࡰ帆炄怈预䏾ᑊ伀Ŋ
儀Ŋ漀(ኛ 驀œ" ᠏ 萏ࡰ萑‫ﺘ‬옕瀁؈葞ࡰ葠‫ﺘ‬䩃䩏䩑⡯Ā뜀㓰 ጀ Labor Laws
 Rule on the construction of labor laws
21. Manahan v. ECC (GR L-44899, 22 April 1981)
22. Villavert v. ECC (GR L-48605, 14 December 1981)
23. Del Rosario & Sons v. NLRC (GR L-64204, 31 May 1985)
 Insurance
 Rule in the interpretation of insurance provisions
21. Ty v. First National Surety (GR L-16138, 29 April 1961)
22. De la Cruz v. Capital Insurance (GR L-21574, 30 June 1966)
 Ambiguous provision interpreted against insurer
21. Qua Chee Gan v. Law Union and Rock Insurance (GR L-4611, 17
December 1955)
 Corporate Law
 Rule on the interpretation of Corporate Law provisions?
21. Home Insurance v. Eastern Shipping Lines (GR L-34382, 20 July
1983)
 Naturalization Laws
 Rule on the construction of Naturalization Laws
21. Co v. Republic (GR L-12150, 26 May 1960)
22. Lee Cho (@ Sem Lee) v. Republic (GR L-12408, 28 December
1959)
 Agrarian Reform Laws
 Rule on the construction of Agrarian Reform Laws
21. Guerrero v. CA (GR L-44570, 30 May 1986)
 Rules of Court
 Rule on the construction of the provisions of the Rules of Court
21. Bello v. CA (GR L-38161, 29 March 1974)
 Expropriation Laws
45. City of Manila v. Chinese Community of Manila (GR 14355, 31 October
1919)
 Election Laws
45. Villanueva v. Comelec (GR L-54718, 4 December 1985)
 Wills
 Rule on the interpretation of wills
46. In RE Tampoy (GR L-14322, 25 February 1960)

VII. Particular Latin Rules

 Mens legislatoris
47. Matabuena v. Cervantes (GR L-28771, 31 March 1971)
 Dura Lex Sed Lex
47. People vs. Mapa, 20 SCRA 1164, supra
48. People v. Santayana (GR L-22291, 15 November 1976)
 Expressio Unius est exclusio alterius
47. People v. Estenzo (GR L-35376, 11 September 1980)
 Ejusdem generis
2
  When do we apply this rule?
51. Mutuc v. Comelec (GR L-32717, 26 November 1970)
 Casus Omissus
 Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est (restrictive rule)
51. People v. Manantan (GR L-14129, 31 July 1962)
 Permissive rule
51. Lopez v. CTA (GR L-9274, 1 February 1957)
 Noscitur a sociis
54. Sanciangco v. Rono (GR L-68709, 19 July 1985)
55. Caltex Phil. vs. Palomar, 18 SCRA 247, supra

VIII. Construction of words and phrases

 “May” and “Shall”
54. Capati v. Ocampo (GR L-28742, 30 April 1982)
 “Or” and “And”
54. GMCR vs. Bell Telecommunications, 271 SCRA 790
 “Principally” and “Exclusively”
54. Alfon v. Republic (GR L-51201, 29 May 1980)
 “Previously”
54. Rura v. Lopena (GR L-69810-14, 19 June 1985)
 “Every”
54. NHA vs. Juco, 134 SCRA 172
 Surplusages
54. Demafiles vs. Comelec, GR L-28396, 29 December 1987
 Punctuations
54. Arabay vs. CFI of Zamboanga del Norte, 66 SCRA 617
 Other examples
54. People vs. Mejia, 275 SCRA 127

IX. Special over general

 What is the rule regarding conflicting provisions of the same statute?
54. Manila Railroad Co. v.Collector of Customs (GR 30264, 12 March 1929)
55. Almeda vs. Florentino, 15 SCRA 514
 What is the rule regarding conflicting provisions of different statutes?
54. Laxamana v. Baltazar (GR L-5955, 19 September 1952)
55. Butuan Sawmill v. City of Butuan (GR L-21516, 29 April 1966)
56. Arayata vs. Joya, 51 PHIL 654
 What is the rule in case of conflict between a special provision of a general law
and a general provision of a special law?
54. City of Manila vs. Teotico, 2 SCRA 267
55. David vs. Comelec, 271 SCRA 90

X. External Aids
 Origin of the State
70. US vs. De Guzman
 Legislative debates
70. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. SSC (GR L-15045, 20 January
1961)
 Contemporaneous acts of the legislature
70. David vs. Comelec, 271 SCRA 90, supra
XI. Presumptions
 In favor of validity of legislative acts
73. NHA vs. Reyes, 125 SCRA 245
 In favor of beneficial operation of statutes
73. Paat vs. CA, 265 SCRA 167, supra
XII. Repeals
 Rule on retroactivity of repeals
73. Tac-an vs. CA, 137 SCRA 803
 Implied Repeals
73. Villegas v. Subido (GR L-31711, 30 September 1987)

- End -
3
4