Haystacks and Short Digests: Statutory Construction

  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?
      1. National Federation of Labor (NFL) v. Eisma (GR L-61236, 31 January 1984)
        • haystack
        • digest
      2. Paat v. CA (GR 111107, 10 January 1997)
        • haystack
        • digest
      3. People v. Mapa (GR L-22301, 30 August 1967)
        • haystack
        • digest
      4. Daoang v. Municipal Judge of San Nicolas (GR L-34568, 28 March 1988)
        • haystack
        • digest
      5. Paras v. Comelec (GR 123169, 4 November 1996)
        • haystack
        • digest
  2. Statutory Construcion vs. Judicial Legislation
    • Statutory Construction, whose job is it?
      1. Floresca v. Philex Mining (GR L-30642, 30 April 1985)
        • haystack
        • digest
      2. Republic v. CA and Molina (GR 108763, 13 February 1997)
        • haystack
        • digest
    • How must Legislative Intent be ascertained
      1. Aisporna v. CA (GR L-39419, 12 April 1982)
        • haystack
        • digest
      2. China Bank v. Ortega (GR L-34964, 31 January 1973)
        • haystack
        • digest
      3. Board of Administrators of the PVA v. Bautista (GR L-37867, 22 February 1982)
        • haystack
        • digest
  3. Literal Construction
    • Case
      1. Salvatierra v. CA (GR 107797, 26 August 1996)
        • haystack
        • digest
      2. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa v. Manila Railroad Company (GR L-25316, 28 February 1979)
        • haystack
        • digest
    • When not favored
      1. Abellana v. Marave (GR L-27760)
        • haystack
        • digest
      2. Paras vs. Comelec, 264 SCRA 49, supra
  4. Executive Construction
    • Basic rule on Executive Construction
      1. PAFLU v. Bureau of Labor Relations (GR L-43760, 21 August 1976)
        • haystack
        • digest
    • When Executive Construction is not given weight
      1. Philippine Apparel Workers’ Union v. NLRC (GR L-50320, 31 July 1981)
        • haystack
        • digest
      2. IBAA Employees Union v. Inciong (GR L52415, 23 October 1984)
        • haystack
        • digest
      3. Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople (GR L-44717, 28 August 1985)
        • haystack
        • digest
    • What is the difference between a rule and an opinion
      1. Victorias Milling v. Social Security Commission (GR L-16704, 17 March 1962)
        • haystack
        • digest
  5. Subjects of Construction
    • The Constitution
      • How should the constitution be construed
        1. Sarmiento v. Mison (GR 79974, 17 December 1987)
          • haystack
          • digest
        2. Perfecto v. Meer (GR L-2348, 27 February 1950)
          • haystack
          • digest
        3. Endencia v. David (GR L-6355-56, 31 August 1953)
          • haystack
          • digest
        4. 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?
        1. Aglipay v. Ruiz (GR 45459, 13 March 1937)
          • haystack
          • digest
      • Are the provisions of the Constitution self-executing?
        1. Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS (GR 122156, 3 February 1997)
          • haystack
          • digest
    • Statute
    • Requirements for the publication of laws
      1. Tanada v. Tuvera (GR L-63915, 24 April 1985)
        • haystack
        • digest
      2. Tanada v. Tuvera (GR L-63915, 29 December 1986)
    • Ordinances
      • Rule on Construction of ordinances vis-a-vis Statute
        1. Primicias v. Urdaneta (GR L-26702, 18 October 1979)
  6. Interpretation of specific types of statutes
    • Tax Laws
      • How are tax refunds construed?
        1. La Carlota Sugar Central v. Jimenez (GR L-12436, 31 May 1961)
      • Who has the burden of proof intax cases?
        1. CIR v. CA (GR 115349, 18 April 1997)
          • haystack
          • digest
        2. Mactan Cebu (MCIAA) v. Marcos (GR 120082, 11 September 1996)
          • haystack
          • digest
      • Tax Sales construed
        1. Serfino v. CA (GR L-40858, 15 September 1987)
    • Labor Laws
      • Rule on the construction of labor laws
        1. Manahan v. ECC (GR L-44899, 22 April 1981)
          • haystack
          • digest
        2. Villavert v. ECC (GR L-48605, 14 December 1981)
          • haystack
          • digest
        3. Del Rosario & Sons v. NLRC (GR L-64204, 31 May 1985)
    • Insurance
      • Rule in the interpretation of insurance provisions
        1. Ty v. First National Surety (GR L-16138, 29 April 1961)
        2. De la Cruz v. Capital Insurance (GR L-21574, 30 June 1966)
      • Ambiguous provision interpreted against insurer
        1. 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?
        1. Home Insurance v. Eastern Shipping Lines (GR L-34382, 20 July 1983)
          • haystack
          • digest
    • Naturalization Laws
      • Rule on the construction of Naturalization Laws
        1. Co v. Republic (GR L-12150, 26 May 1960)
        2. Lee Cho (@ Sem Lee) v. Republic (GR L-12408, 28 December 1959)
    • Agrarian Reform Laws
      • Rule on the construction of Agrarian Reform Laws
        1. Guerrero v. CA (GR L-44570, 30 May 1986)
    • Rules of Court
      • Rule on the construction of the provisions of the Rules of Court
        1. Bello v. CA (GR L-38161, 29 March 1974)
          • haystack
          • digest
    • Expropriation Laws
      1. City of Manila v. Chinese Community of Manila (GR 14355, 31 October 1919)
        • haystack
        • digest
    • Election Laws
      1. Villanueva v. Comelec (GR L-54718, 4 December 1985)
    • Wills
      • Rule on the interpretation of wills
        1. In RE Tampoy (GR L-14322, 25 February 1960)
          • haystack
          • digest
  7. Particular Latin Rules
    • Mens legislatoris
      1. Matabuena v. Cervantes (GR L-28771, 31 March 1971)
        • haystack
        • digest
    • Dura Lex Sed Lex
      1. People vs. Mapa, 20 SCRA 1164, supra
      2. People v. Santayana (GR L-22291, 15 November 1976)
        • haystack
        • digest
    • Expressio Unius est exclusio alterius
      1. People v. Estenzo (GR L-35376, 11 September 1980)
        • haystack
        • digest
    • Ejusdem generis
      • When do we apply this rule?
        1. Mutuc v. Comelec (GR L-32717, 26 November 1970)
          • haystack
          • digest
    • Casus Omissus
      • Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est (restrictive rule)
        1. People v. Manantan (GR L-14129, 31 July 1962)
          • haystack
          • digest
      • Permissive rule
        1. Lopez v. CTA (GR L-9274, 1 February 1957)
          • haystack
          • digest
    • Noscitur a sociis
      1. Sanciangco v. Rono (GR L-68709, 19 July 1985)
        • haystack
        • digest
      2. Caltex Phil. vs. Palomar, 18 SCRA 247, supra
  8. Construction of words and phrases
    • “May” and “Shall”
      1. Capati v. Ocampo (GR L-28742, 30 April 1982)
        • haystack
        • digest
    • “Of” and “May”
      1. GMCR vs. Bell Telecommunications, 271 SCRA 790 [1]
    • “Principally” and “Exclusively”
      1. Alfon v. Republic (GR L-51201, 29 May 1980)
        • haystack
        • digest
    • “Previously”
      1. Rura v. Lopena (GR L-69810-14, 19 June 1985)
        • haystack
        • digest
    • “Every”
      1. NHA vs. Juco, 134 SCRA 172 [2]
    • Surplusages
      1. Demafiles vs. Comelec, GR L-28396, 29 December 1987 [3]
    • Punctuations
      1. Arabay vs. CFI of Zamboanga del Norte, 66 SCRA 617 [4]
    • Other examples
      1. People vs. Mejia, 275 SCRA 127 [5]
  9. Special over general
    • What is the rule regarding conflicting provisions of the same statute?
      1. Manila Railroad Co. v.Collector of Customs (GR 30264, 12 March 1929)
        • haystack
        • digest
      2. Almeda vs. Florentino, 15 SCRA 514 [6]
    • What is the rule regarding conflicting provisions of different statutes?
      1. Laxamana v. Baltazar (GR L-5955, 19 September 1952)
        • haystack
        • digest
      2. Butuan Sawmill v. City of Butuan (GR L-21516, 29 April 1966)
        • haystack
        • digest
      3. 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?
      1. City of Manila vs. Teotico, 2 SCRA 267 [8]
      2. David vs. Comelec, 271 SCRA 90 [9]
  10. External Aids
      • Origin of the State
        1. US vs. De Guzman [10]
      • Legislative debates
        1. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. SSC (GR L-15045, 20 January 1961)
          • haystack
          • digest
      • Contemporaneous acts of the legislature
        1. David vs. Comelec, 271 SCRA 90, supra
  11. Presumptions
    • In favor of validity of legislative acts
      1. NHA vs. Reyes, 125 SCRA 245 [11]
    • In favor of beneficial operation of statutes
      1. Paat vs. CA, 265 SCRA 167, supra
  12. Repeals
    • Rule on retroactivity of repeals
      1. Tac-an vs. CA, 137 SCRA 803 [12]
    • Implied Repeals
      1. Villegas v. Subido (GR L-31711, 30 September 1987)
        • haystack
        • digest