STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

Mid-Year Term
Monday and Thursday 6:30 to 9:30 p.m.
Atty. Bea Angela C. Cruz

SAN SEBASTIAN COLLEGE – RECOLETOS

COLLEGE OF LAW

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Mid-Year Term

Atty. Bea Angela C. Cruz

email: [email protected]

I. COURSE DESCRIPTION

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

II. COURSE OBJECTIVES

At the end of this course, the student should be able to:

a. Appreciate the complexity and variety of the study of law;
b. Comprehend the logical basis for the rules of Statutory Construction;
and
c. Understand and apply the rules of Statutory Construction.

III. GRADING CRITERIA AND EVALUATION

The students shall be graded as follows:

Attendance – 5%
Class participation (Recitation and/or quizzes) – 35%
Midterm Examinations – 30%
Final Examinations – 30%
TOTAL 100%

The students are expected to attend and prepare for the class every
week. Attendance will be checked at the beginning and end of each class. The
students are only allowed to incur three (3) absences each semester. No excuse
letter shall be entertained except for exigent and justifiable reasons. One
percent (1%) shall be deducted in the attendance for every absence.

Recitations shall be conducted every meeting. Absentees shall receive

a recitation grade of “65”.

Examinations shall consist of objective and essay questions.

1
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Mid-Year Term
Monday and Thursday 6:30 to 9:30 p.m.
Atty. Bea Angela C. Cruz

I. INTRODUCTION
a. Definition of Statutory Construction.
i. Caltex vs. Palomar, G.R. No. L-19650, 29 September 1966
b. Construction and interpretation distinguished.
c. Purpose of construction.
i. City of Baguio vs. Marcos, G.R. No. L-26100, 28 February
1969.
d. When does statutory construction come in?
i. National Federation of Labor vs. Hon. Eisma, G.R. No. L-
61236, 31 January 1984.
ii. Paat vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111107, 10 January 1997.
e. Subjects of construction
i. Constitution
ii. Statute
1. Different types of statutes
a. As to scope of application
b. As to interested parties
c. As to effect (in time)
d. As to purpose
e. As to coercive force applied
f. As to period of effectivity
g. As to stage of enactment
iii. Ordinances
f. Enactment of Laws
i. Sections 24, 25, 26 and 27, Article VI, 1987 Constitution
g. Parts of a statute
i. Title
ii. Preamble
iii. Enacting Clause
iv. Body
v. Separability Clause
vi. Repealing Clause
vii. Effectivity Clause

II. POWER TO CONSTRUE

a. Construction is a judicial function
b. Legislature cannot overrule judicial construction
i. Endencia vs. David, G.R. No. L-6355-56, 31 August 1953
c. When judicial interpretation may be set aside
i. People vs. Jabinal, G.R. No. L-30061, 27 February 1974
d. Condition sine qua non before courts can construe statutes
i. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court and BF Homes Inc., G.R. No. 74851, 09
December 1999

2
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Mid-Year Term
Monday and Thursday 6:30 to 9:30 p.m.
Atty. Bea Angela C. Cruz

ii. Garcia vs. Social Security Commission Legal and Collection, G.R.
No. 170735, 17 December 2007
e. Rulings of Supreme Court part of legal system
i. Article 8, Civil Code of the Philippines
ii. Tung Chin Hui vs. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 137571, 21 September
2000
iii. Article 4, Civil Code of the Philippines
f. Judicial rulings have no retroactive effect
i. People vs. Jabinal, G.R. No. L-30061, 27 February 1974
ii. Sps. Benzonan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97973, 27 January
1992
g. Power of the Supreme Court to modify or abandon a principle of law
i. Article VIII, Sec. 4(3), 1987 Constitution
h. Limitations on Power to Construe
i. Courts may not enlarge nor restrict statutes
1. People vs. Garcia, G.R. No. L-2873, 28 February 1950.
ii. Courts not to be influenced by questions of wisdom
1. People vs. Limaco, G.R. No. L-3090, 09 January 1951.

III. AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION

a. In general
i. Title
1. City of Baguio vs. Marcos, G.R. No. L-26100, 28 February
1969.
2. Ebarle vs. Sucaldito, G.R. No. L-33628, 29 December 1987.
ii. Preamble
1. People vs. Purisima, G.R. No. L-42050-66, 20 November
1978.
iii. Context of whole text
1. Aisporna vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-39419, 12 April
1982.
iv. Punctuation marks
1. Florentino vs. PNB, G.R. No. L-8782, 28 April 1956.
v. Capitalization of letters
1. Unabia vs. City Mayor, G.R. No. L-8759, 25 May 1956.
vi. Headnotes or epigraphs
1. Kare vs. Platon, G.R. No. L-35902, 28 October 1931.
vii. Intent or spirit of law
1. Manila Race Horse Trainers Association, Inc. vs. De La
Fuente, G.R. No. L-2947, 11 January 1951.
2. People vs. Purisima, G.R. No. L-42050-66, 20 November
1978.
viii. Law and Justice
1. Alonzo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72873,
28 May 1987.

3
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Mid-Year Term
Monday and Thursday 6:30 to 9:30 p.m.
Atty. Bea Angela C. Cruz

2. Salvacion vs. Central Bank, G.R. No. 94723, 21 August

1997.
ix. Purpose of law or mischief to be suppressed
1. People vs. Purisima, G.R. No. L-42050-66, 20 November
1978.
2. Lopez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104158, 06
November 1992.
x. General words construed generally
1. Gatchalian vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. L-32560-61, 22
October 1970.
b. Legislative History
i. Celestial Nickel Mining Exploration Corp. vs. Microasia Corp.,
G.R. No. 169080, 19 December 2007.
ii. Arenas vs. City of San Carlos, G.R. No. L-34024, 05 April 1978.
iii. Manila Jockey Club, Inc. vs. Games and Amusements Board,
G.R. No. L-12727, 29 February 1960.
iv. Director of Lands vs. Abaja, G.R. No. 42134, 21 October 1936.
v. Buenaseda vs. Flavier, G.R. No. 106719, 21 September 1993.
vi. Republic vs. Meralco, G.R. No. 141314, 09 April 2003.
c. Contemporary Construction
i. Philippine Global Communications vs. Relova, G.R. No. L-60548,
10 November 1986.

IV. ADHERENCE TO, OR DEPARTURE FROM, LANGUAGE OR

STATUTE
a. Literal Interpretation
i. Verba Legis Non Est Recedendum
1. Trade and Investment Development Corp., vs. CSC, G.R.
No. 182249, 05 March 2013.
2. Atty. Risos-Vidal vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206666, 21
January 2015.
ii. Absoluta sententia expositore non indiget
1. Kapisanan ng mga Mangagagwa sa Manila Railroad
Company Credit Union Inc. vs. Manila Railroad
Company, G.R. No. L-25316, 28 February 1979
iii. Dura Lex Sed Lex
1. Revaldo vs. People, G.R. No. 170589, 16 April 2009.
2. Obiasca vs. Basallote, G.R. No. 176707, 17 February 2010.
b. Departure from Literal Interpretation
i. Statute must be capable of interpretation, otherwise inoperative
1. Santiago vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127325, 19 March 1997.
ii. Ratio Legis
1. League of Cities of the Philippines vs. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 176951, 21 December 2009.
iii. Literal import must yield to intent

4
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Mid-Year Term
Monday and Thursday 6:30 to 9:30 p.m.
Atty. Bea Angela C. Cruz

1. United States vs. Toribio, G.R. No. L-5060, 26 January

1910.
2. Automotive Parts & Equipment Company, Inc. vs. Lingad,
G.R. No. L-26406, 31 October 1969.
iv. Cessante ratione legis, cessat et ipsa lex
1. Comendador vs. De Villa, G.R. No. 93177, 02 August 1991.
v. Supplying legislative omission
1. Matabuena vs. Cervantes, G.R. No. L-28771, 31 March
1971
vi. Correcting clerical errors
1. Farinas vs. Barba, G.R. No. 116763, 19 April 1996.
2. Lagardo vs. Masaganda, G.R. No. L-17624, 30 June 1962
vii. Construction to avoid absurdity
1. People vs. Duque, G.R. No. 100285, 13 August 1992
2. Paras vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 123169, 04 November 1996.
viii. Construction to avoid injustice
1. Amatan vs. Aujerio, A.M. No. RTJ-93-956, 27 September
1995.
2. Onchengco vs. City Court of Zamboanga, G.R. No. L-
44657, 22 January 1980.
c. Implications
i. Doctrine of Necessary Implications
1. Chua vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 88979, 07
February 1992
ii. Remedy implied from a right
1. Felipe vs. Leuterio, G.R. No. L-4604, 30 May 1952
2. Batungbakal vs. National Development Co., G.R. No. L-
5127, 27 May 1953.
iii. Grant of power includes incidental power
1. CEMCO Holdings Inc. vs. National Life Insurance
Company of the Philippines, G.R. No. 171815, 07 August
2007
iv. What is implied should not be against the law
1. In re contempt proceedings against Armando Ramos, G.R.
No. L-17778, 30 November 1962.
v. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly
1. Tawang Multi-Purpose Cooperative vs. La Trinidad Water
District, G.R. No. 166471, 22 March 2011.

V. CONSTRUCTION OF WORDS OR PHRASES

a. Ordinary Meaning
i. Mustang Lumber Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104988, 18
June 1996
b. May and Shall
i. Capati vs. Ocampo, G.R. No. L-28742, 30 April 1982
ii. Tanada vs Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, 24 April 1985

5
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Mid-Year Term
Monday and Thursday 6:30 to 9:30 p.m.
Atty. Bea Angela C. Cruz

c. Or and And
i. Mayor Vargas vs. Cajucom, G.R. No, 171095, 22 June 2015
ii. GMCR Inc vs. Bell Telecommunication Philippines, Inc., G.R. No.
126496, 30 April 1997
d. Principally and Exclusively
i. Alfon vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-51201, 29 May 1980
e. Previously
i. Rura vs. Lopena, G.R. Nos. L-69810-14, 19 June 1985
f. Every
i. NHA vs. Juco, G.R. No. L-64313, 17 January 1985
g. Negative vs. Affirmative
i. In Re Mcgee vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-5387, 29 April 1954
h. Other Example
i. People vs. Mejia, G.R. Nos. 118940-41 and G.R. No. 119407, 07
July 1997

VI. INTERPRETATION OF SPECIFIC TYPES OF STATUTES: Strictly or

liberally?
a. Constitution
i. Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, 03 February 1997
b. Penal Statutes
i. Yu Oh vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125297, 06 June 2003
c. Tax Laws
i. Marinduque Iron Mines vs. Municipal Council, G.R. No. 18924,
30 June 1964
d. Labor Laws
i. Manahan vs. ECC, G.R. No. L-44899, 22 April 1981
e. Naturalization Laws
i. Co vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-12150, 26 May 1960
f. Agrarian Reform Laws
i. Guerrero vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-44570, 30 May 1986
g. Expropriation Laws
i. City of Manila vs. Chinese Community, G.R. No. L-14355, 31
October 1919

VII. PARTICULAR LATIN RULES

a. Verba Legis
b. Ratio Legis
c. Dura Lex Sed Lex
d. Noscitur a Sociis
e. Reddendo singular singulis
i. Amadora vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47745, 15 April 1988
f. Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius
i. Parayno vs. Jovellanos, G.R. No. 148408, 14 July 2006
g. Ejusdem Generis

6
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Mid-Year Term
Monday and Thursday 6:30 to 9:30 p.m.
Atty. Bea Angela C. Cruz

i. Cebu Institute of Technology vs. Ople, Cebu Institute of

Technology vs. Ople, G.R. No. L-58870, 18 December 1987
h. Casus Omissus pro omisso habendus est
i. People vs. Manantan, G.R. No. 14129, 31 July 1962
i. Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus
i. Peralta vs. CSC, G.R. No. 95832, 10 August 1992