Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6K views

    Cases On Statutory Construction

    Uploaded by

    knicolas
    This document outlines general principles of statutory construction under Philippine law and discusses the interpretation of specific types of statutes. It examines rules for construing the constitution, statutes, ordinances, tax laws, labor laws, insurance provisions, and other areas of law. The document also reviews Latin maxims that guide statutory interpretation, such as mens legislatoris, dura lex sed lex, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, ejusdem generis, and casus omissus. It provides numerous case citations as examples of how Philippine courts have applied principles of statutory construction.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cases On Statutory Construction

    Uploaded by

    knicolas
    6K views9 pages
    This document outlines general principles of statutory construction under Philippine law and discusses the interpretation of specific types of statutes. It examines rules for construing the constitution, statutes, ordinances, tax laws, labor laws, insurance provisions, and other areas of law. The document also reviews Latin maxims that guide statutory interpretation, such as mens legislatoris, dura lex sed lex, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, ejusdem generis, and casus omissus. It provides numerous case citations as examples of how Philippine courts have applied principles of statutory construction.

    Original Title

    Cases on Statutory Construction

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document outlines general principles of statutory construction under Philippine law and discusses the interpretation of specific types of statutes. It examines rules for construing the constitution, statutes, ordinances, tax laws, labor laws, insurance provisions, and other areas of law. The document also reviews Latin maxims that guide statutory interpretation, such as mens legislatoris, dura lex sed lex, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, ejusdem generis, and casus omissus. It provides numerous case citations as examples of how Philippine courts have applied principles of statutory construction.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    6K views9 pages

    Cases On Statutory Construction

    Uploaded by

    knicolas
    This document outlines general principles of statutory construction under Philippine law and discusses the interpretation of specific types of statutes. It examines rules for construing the constitution, statutes, ordinances, tax laws, labor laws, insurance provisions, and other areas of law. The document also reviews Latin maxims that guide statutory interpretation, such as mens legislatoris, dura lex sed lex, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, ejusdem generis, and casus omissus. It provides numerous case citations as examples of how Philippine courts have applied principles of statutory construction.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 9

    1.

    General Principles
     Definition of Statutory Construction
    1. Caltex v. Palomar (GR L-19650, 29 September 1966)
     haystack
     digest
     When does Statutory Construction come in?

    2. National Federation of Labor (NFL) v. Eisma (GR L-61236, 31


    January 1984)
     haystack
     digest
    3. Paat v. CA (GR 111107, 10 January 1997)
     haystack
     digest
    4. People v. Mapa (GR L-22301, 30 August 1967)
     haystack
     digest
    5. Daoang v. Municipal Judge of San Nicolas (GR L-34568, 28
    March 1988)
     haystack
     digest
    6. Paras v. Comelec (GR 123169, 4 November 1996)
     haystack
     digest
    2. Statutory Construcion vs. Judicial Legislation
     Statutory Construction, whose job is it?

    7. Floresca v. Philex Mining (GR L-30642, 30 April 1985)


     haystack
     digest
    8. Republic v. CA and Molina (GR 108763, 13 February 1997)
     haystack
     digest
     How must Legislative Intent be ascertained

    9. Aisporna v. CA (GR L-39419, 12 April 1982)


     haystack
     digest
    10. China Bank v. Ortega (GR L-34964, 31 January 1973)
     haystack
     digest
    11. Board of Administrators of the PVA v. Bautista (GR L-37867, 22
    February 1982)
     haystack
     digest
    2. Literal Construction
     Case

    12. Salvatierra v. CA (GR 107797, 26 August 1996)


     haystack
     digest
    13. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa v. Manila Railroad Company (GR
    L-25316, 28 February 1979)
     haystack
     digest
     When not favored

    14. Abellana v. Marave (GR L-27760)


     haystack
     digest
    15. Paras vs. Comelec, 264 SCRA 49, supra
    2. Executive Construction
     Basic rule on Executive Construction

    16. PAFLU v. Bureau of Labor Relations (GR L-43760, 21 August


    1976)
     haystack
     digest
     When Executive Construction is not given weight

    17. Philippine Apparel Workers’ Union v. NLRC (GR L-50320, 31


    July 1981)
     haystack
     digest
    18. IBAA Employees Union v. Inciong (GR L52415, 23 October
    1984)
     haystack
     digest
    19. Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople (GR L-44717, 28
    August 1985)
     haystack
     digest
     What is the difference between a rule and an opinion

    20. Victorias Milling v. Social Security Commission (GR L-16704, 17


    March 1962)
     haystack
     digest
    2. Subjects of Construction
     The Constitution

     How should the constitution be construed


    21. Sarmiento v. Mison (GR 79974, 17 December 1987)
     haystack
     digest
    22. Perfecto v. Meer (GR L-2348, 27 February 1950)
     haystack
     digest
    23. Endencia v. David (GR L-6355-56, 31 August 1953)
     haystack
     digest
    24. Nitafan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (GR L-
    78780, 23 July 1987)
     haystack
     digest
     May the preamble be referred to in the construction of
    Constitutional Provisions?

    21. Aglipay v. Ruiz (GR 45459, 13 March 1937)


     haystack
     digest
     Are the provisions of the Constitution self-executing?

    21. Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS (GR 122156, 3 February


    1997)
     haystack
     digest
     Statute
     Requirements for the publication of laws

    27. Tanada v. Tuvera (GR L-63915, 24 April 1985)


     haystack
     digest
    28. Tanada v. Tuvera (GR L-63915, 29 December 1986)

     haystack
     digest
     Ordinances

     Rule on Construction of ordinances vis-a-vis Statute


    29. Primicias v. Urdaneta (GR L-26702, 18 October 1979)
     haystack
     digest
    2. 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)
     haystack
     digest
     Who has the burden of proof intax cases?

    31. CIR v. CA (GR 115349, 18 April 1997)


     haystack
     digest
    32. Mactan Cebu (MCIAA) v. Marcos (GR 120082, 11
    September 1996)
     haystack
     digest
     Tax Sales construed

    33. Serfino v. CA (GR L-40858, 15 September 1987)


     haystack
     digest
     Labor Laws

     Rule on the construction of labor laws

    34. Manahan v. ECC (GR L-44899, 22 April 1981)


     haystack
     digest
    35. Villavert v. ECC (GR L-48605, 14 December 1981)
     haystack
     digest
    36. Del Rosario & Sons v. NLRC (GR L-64204, 31 May 1985)
     haystack
     digest
     Insurance

     Rule in the interpretation of insurance provisions

    37. Ty v. First National Surety (GR L-16138, 29 April 1961)


     haystack
     digest
    38. De la Cruz v. Capital Insurance (GR L-21574, 30 June
    1966)
     haystack
     digest
     Ambiguous provision interpreted against insurer

    <
    39. Qua Chee Gan v. Law Union and Rock Insurance (GR L-
    4611, 17 December 1955)
     haystack
     digest
     Corporate Law

     Rule on the interpretation of Corporate Law provisions?

    40. Home Insurance v. Eastern Shipping Lines (GR L-34382,


    20 July 1983)
     haystack
     digest
     Naturalization Laws

     Rule on the construction of Naturalization Laws

    41. Co v. Republic (GR L-12150, 26 May 1960)


     haystack
     digest
    42. Lee Cho (@ Sem Lee) v. Republic (GR L-12408, 28
    December 1959)
     haystack
     digest
     Agrarian Reform Laws

     Rule on the construction of Agrarian Reform Laws

    43. Guerrero v. CA (GR L-44570, 30 May 1986)


     haystack
     digest
     Rules of Court

     Rule on the construction of the provisions of the Rules of Court

    44. Bello v. CA (GR L-38161, 29 March 1974)


     haystack
     digest
     Expropriation Laws

    45. City of Manila v. Chinese Community of Manila (GR 14355, 31


    October 1919)
     haystack
     digest
     Election Laws

    45. Villanueva v. Comelec (GR L-54718, 4 December 1985)


     haystack
     digest

     Wills

     Rule on the interpretation of wills


    47. In RE Tampoy (GR L-14322, 25 February 1960)
     haystack
     digest
    2. Particular Latin Rules
     Mens legislatoris

    48. Matabuena v. Cervantes (GR L-28771, 31 March 1971)


     haystack
     digest
     Dura Lex Sed Lex

    48. People vs. Mapa, 20 SCRA 1164, supra


    49. People v. Santayana (GR L-22291, 15 November 1976)

     haystack
     digest
     Expressio Unius est exclusio alterius

    48. People v. Estenzo (GR L-35376, 11 September 1980)

     haystack
     digest

     Ejusdem generis

     When do we apply this rule?


    52. Mutuc v. Comelec (GR L-32717, 26 November 1970)
     haystack
     digest
     Casus Omissus

     Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est (restrictive rule)

    52. People v. Manantan (GR L-14129, 31 July 1962)


     haystack
     digest
     Permissive rule

    52. Lopez v. CTA (GR L-9274, 1 February 1957)


     haystack
     digest
     Noscitur a sociis

    55. Sanciangco v. Rono (GR L-68709, 19 July 1985)


     haystack
     digest
    56. Caltex Phil. vs. Palomar, 18 SCRA 247, supra
    2. Construction of words and phrases
     “May” and “Shall”

    55. Capati v. Ocampo (GR L-28742, 30 April 1982)

     haystack
     digest
     “Of” and “May”

    55. GMCR vs. Bell Telecommunications, 271 SCRA 790 [1]


     “Principally” and “Exclusively”

    55. Alfon v. Republic (GR L-51201, 29 May 1980)

     haystack
     digest

     “Previously”

    55. Rura v. Lopena (GR L-69810-14, 19 June 1985)

     haystack
     digest

     “Every”

    55. NHA vs. Juco, 134 SCRA 172 [2]


     Surplusages

    55. Demafiles vs. Comelec, GR L-28396, 29 December 1987 [3]


     Punctuations

    55. Arabay vs. CFI of Zamboanga del Norte, 66 SCRA 617 [4]
     Other examples

    55. People vs. Mejia, 275 SCRA 127 [5]


    2. Special over general
     What is the rule regarding conflicting provisions of the same statute?
    55. Manila Railroad Co. v.Collector of Customs (GR 30264, 12 March
    1929)

     haystack
     digest
    56. Almeda vs. Florentino, 15 SCRA 514 [6]

     What is the rule regarding conflicting provisions of different statutes?

    55. Laxamana v. Baltazar (GR L-5955, 19 September 1952)

     haystack
     digest
    56. Butuan Sawmill v. City of Butuan (GR L-21516, 29 April 1966)

     haystack
     digest
    56. Arayata vs. Joya, 51 PHIL 654 [7]

     What is the rule in case of conflict between a special provision of a


    general law and a general provision of a special law?

    55. City of Manila vs. Teotico, 2 SCRA 267 [8]


    56. David vs. Comelec, 271 SCRA 90 [9]

    3. External Aids

     Origin of the State


    71. US vs. De Guzman [10]
     Legislative debates

    71. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. SSC (GR L-


    15045, 20 January 1961)
     haystack
     digest
     Contemporaneous acts of the legislature

    71. David vs. Comelec, 271 SCRA 90, supra

    2. Presumptions

     In favor of validity of legislative acts

    74. NHA vs. Reyes, 125 SCRA 245 [11]


     In favor of beneficial operation of statutes
    74. Paat vs. CA, 265 SCRA 167, supra

    2. Repeals

     Rule on retroactivity of repeals

    74. Tac-an vs. CA, 137 SCRA 803 [12]


     Implied Repeals

    74. Villegas v. Subido (GR L-31711, 30 September 1987)


     haystack
     digest

    You might also like