STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

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

General Principles
Definition of Statutory Construction
1. Caltex v. Palomar (GR L-19650, 29 September 1966)
When does Statutory Construction come in?
2. National Federation of Labor v. Eisma (GR 1--61236,
31 January 1984)

4. people v. Mapa (GR L-22301, 30 August 1967)

5. Daoang v. Municipal Judge of San Nicolas (GR 1--34568, 28 March
1988)
6. Paras v. Comelec (GR 123169, 4 November 1996)

ll. Statutory Construcion vs. Judicial Legislation

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

Literal Construction
Case
12. Salvatierra v. CA (GR 107797, 26 August 1996)
13. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa v. Manila Railroad Company (GR
L25316, 28 February 1979)
When not favored
14. Abeliana v. Mar-ave
15. (GR L-27760)
16. Paras vs. Comelec, 264 SCRA 49, supra

IV. Executive Construction

Basic rule on Executive Construction
16. PAFLU v. Bureau of Labor Relations (GR L-43760, 21 August 1976)
• When Executive Construction is not given weight
17. Philippine Apparel Workers' Union v. NLRC (GR L-50320, 31 July 1981)
18. IBAA Employees Union v. Inciong (GR 1.52415, 23 October 1984)
19. Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople (GR L-44717, 28
August 1985)
What is the difference between a rule and an opinion
20. Victorias Milling v. Social Security Commission (GR L-16704, 17 March
1962)

V. Subjects of Construction
1
 • The Constitution
De Castro vs. Judicial and Bar Council, G. R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010.
• How should the constitution be construed
17. Sarmiento v. Mison (GR 79974, 17 December 1987)
18. Perfecto v. Meer (GR L-2348, 27 February 1950)
19. Endencia v. David (GR L-6355-56, 31 August 1953)
20. Nitafan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (GR L-78780, 23 July
1987)
• May the preamble be referred to in the construction of Constitutional
Provisions?
17. Aglipay v. Ruiz (GR 45459, 13 March 1937)
• Are the provisions of the Constitution self-executing?
17. Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS (GR 122156, 3 February 1997)
• Statute
• Requirements for the publication of laws
17. Tanada v. Tuvera (GR L-63915, 24 April 1985)
18. Tanada v. Tuvera (GR L-63915, 29 December 1986)
• Ordinances
• Rule on Construction of ordinances vis-a-vis Statute
17. Primicias v. Urdaneta (GR L-26702, 18 October 1979)

VI. Interpretation of specific types of statutes

• Tax Laws
• How are tax refunds construed?
30. La Carlota sugar Central v. Jimenez (GR L-12436, 31 May
1961) Who has the burden of proof in tax cases?
31. CIR v. CA (GR 115349, 18 April 1997)
32. Mactan Cebu (MCIAA) v. Marcos (GR 120082, 11 September
1996)
• Tax Sales construed
30. Ser-fino v. CA (GR 1--40858, 15 September 1987)
Labor Laws
Rule on the construction of labor laws
34. Manahan v. ECC (GR L-44899, 22 April 1981)
35. Villavert v. ECC (GR L-48605, 14 December 1981)
36. Del Rosario & sons v. NLRC (GR L-64204, 31 May 1985)
Insurance
Rule in the interpretation of insurance provisions
37. Tyv. First National surety (GR L-16138, 29 April 1961) 38. De la
cruz v. capital Insurance (GR L-21574, 30 June 1966)
Ambiguous provision interpreted against insurer
39. Qua Chee Gan v. Law Union and Rock Insurance (GR 1--
4611, 17
December 1955)
Corporate Law
Rule on the interpretation of Corporate Law provisions?
40. Home Insurance v. Eastern Shipping Lines (GR L-34382, 20 July
1983)
2
 Naturalization Laws
Rule on the construction of Naturalization Laws
40. co v. Republic (GR 1--12150, 26 May 1960)
42. Lee Cho @ Sem Lee) v. Republic (GR 1--12408, 28 December
1959)
Agrarian Reform Laws
Rule on the construction of Agrarian Reform Laws
43. Guerrero v. CA (GR L-44570, 30 May 1986)
Rules of Court
Rule on the construction of the provisions of the Rules of Court
43. 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
46. Villanueva v. Comelec (GR 1--54718, 4 December 1985)
Wills
• Rule on the interpretation of wills
46. In RE Tampoy (GR L-14322, 25 February 1960)
Vll. Particular Latin Rules
• Mens legislatoris
47. Matabuena v. Cervantes (GR L-28771, 31 March 1971)
• Dura Lex Sed Lex
48. People vs. Mapa, 20 SCRA 1164, supra
49. People v. Santayana (GR L-22291, 15 November 1976)
Expressio Unius est exclusio alterius
50. People v. Estenzo (GR L-35376, 11 September 1980)
Ejusdem generis
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 1--68709, 19 July 1985)
55. Caltex Phil. vs. Palomar, 18 SCRA 247, supra
VIII. Construction of words and phrases
"May" and "Shall"
56. capati v. Ocampo (GR L-28742, 30 April 1982)
• "Or" and "And"
57. GMCR vs. Bell Telecommunications, 271 SCRA 790
"Principally" and "Exclusively"
58. (GR L-51201 , 29 May 1980)
"Previously"
58. Rura v. Lopena (GR L-69810-14, 19 June 1985)
"Every"

3
 60. NHA vs. Juco, 134 SCRA 172
Surplusages
61.Demafiles vs. Comelec, GR 1--28396, 29 December 1987
Punctuations
61.Arabay vs. CFI of Zamboanga del Norte, 66 SCRA 617
Other examples
63. People vs. Mejia, 275 SCRA 127
Special over general
What is the rule regarding conflicting provisions of the same statute?
64. Manila Railroad co. v.Collector of Customs (GR 30264, 12 March 1929)
65. Almeda vs. Florentino, 15 SCRA 514
What is the rule regarding conflicting provisions of different statutes?
64. Laxamana v. Baltazar (GR 1--5955, 19 September 1952)
65. Butuan Sawmill v. City of Butuan (GR L-21516, 29 April 1966)
66. 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? 68. City of Manila vs. Teotico, 2 SCRA
267
69. David vs. Comelec, 271 SCRA 90
X. External Aids
• Origin of the State
70. US vs. De Guzman
• Legislative debates
71. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. SSC (GR L-15045, 20 January
1961)
Contemporaneous acts of the legislature
72. David vs. Comelec, 271 SCRA 90, supra
Xl. Presumptions
In favor of validity of legislative acts
73. NHA vs. Reyes, 125 SCRA 245
In favor of beneficial operation of statutes
74. Paat vs. CA, 265 SCRA 167, supra
Xll. Repeals
Rule on retroactivity of repeals
75. Tac-an vs. CA, 137 SCRA 803
• Implied Repeals
76. Villegas v. Subido (GR L-31711, 30 September 1987)

• End -