NOSCITUR A SOCIIS Words must be construed in conjunction with the other words and phrases used in the text.

Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute as a whole. The particular words, clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce a harmonious whole. Where a particular word or phrase in a statement is ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various meanings, its true meaning may be clear and specific by considering the company in which it is found or with which it is associated. EJUSDEM GENERIS Where a statute describes things of particular class or kind accompanied by words of a generic character, the generic words will usually be limited to things of a kindred nature with those particularly enumerated, unless there be something in the context of the statute to repel such influence. Ejusdem generis could be expansive, however, because the list is not exclusive; it may be expanded if a juridical tie could be found with another item. Parayno vs Jovellanos (under Expresso unius in Agpalo) The court held that since the ordinance made a distinction between gasoline service station and gasoline filling station, the maxim ejusdem generis does not apply and what is applicable is the maxim expression unius exclusion exclusion alterius. we hold that the zoning ordinance of respondent municipality made a clear distinction between gasoline service station and gasoline filling station Pertinent provisions: Sec 21. Filling station. A retail station servicing automobiles and other motor vehicles with gasoline and oil only. Sec 42. Service station. A building and its premises where gasoline oil, greases, batteries, tires and car accessories may be supplied and dispensed at retail and where, in addition, the following services may be rendered and sales and no other. Hence, because of the distinct and definite meanings alluded to the two terms by the zoning ordinance, respondents could not insist that gasoline service station under Sec 44 necessarily included gasoline filling station under Sec21. Indeed, activities undertaken in a gas service station did not automatically embrace tose in a gas filling station. EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSION ALTERIUS The express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all others. Variation: Expressium facit cessare tacitum. What is expressed puts an end to what is implied. Where a statute is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to other matters. Canon of restrictive interpretation. Where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to others. The rule proceeds from the premise that the legislature would not have made specified enumerations in a statute had the intention been not to restrict its meaning and to confine its terms to those expressly mentioned. Centeno v Villalon-Pornillos: A group of old men charged with violating the solicitation permit law was acquitted because the term religious purpose was not expressly included in the provisions of the statute, and what the law does not include, it excludes. The law referred only to charitable purposes, which phrase cannot be construed so as to include a religious purpose. The issue is whether the solicitation for the religious purposes, (renovation of a church) without first securing a permit from Regional Office of Department of Social Services, constitutes a violation of PD 1564, making it a criminal offense for any person to solicit or receive contributions for charitable or public welfare purposes qithout securing a permit. The resolution on the issue depends on whether the phrase charitable purposes includes a religious purpose. The Court ruled in the negative, by applying the maxim expression unius est exclusion alterius, thus: it will be observed that the 1987 Constitution, as well as several other statutes, treat the words charitable and religious separately and independently of each other. Thus, the word charitable is only one of three descriptive words used in Sec 28(3), Art VI of the Constitution which provides that charitable institutions, churches and parsonages xxx and all lands, buildings and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxationxxx That these legislative enactments specifically spelled out charitable and religious in an enumeration, whereas PD 1564 merely stated charitable or public welfare purposes, only goes to show that the framers of the law in question never intended to include solicitations for religious purposes within its coverage. Otherwise, there is no reason why it would not have so stated expressly. CASUS OMISSUS Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est. A person, object, or thing omitted from an enumeration in a statute must be held to have been omitted intentionally. This needs two laws. In expressio unius, its just the enumeration you are looking at, not another law. People vs Manantan: Manantan was charged with a violation of Sec54 of Revised Election Code. The defense moved to dismiss the information on the ground that as justice of peace , the defendant is not ione of the officers enumerated in Sec 54 of Revised Election Code. Under the rule of casus omissus pro omisso habendus est, a person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to be intentionally omitted. The maxim casus omissus can operate and apply only if and when the omission has been clearly established. The application of the rule casus omissus does not proceed from the mere fact that a case is criminal in nature, but rather from a reasonable certainty that a particular person, object or thing has been omitted from a legislative enumeration. Substitution of terms is not omission. For in its most extensive sense the term judge includes all officers appointed to decide litigated questions while acting in that capacity, including justice of peace, and even jurors, it is said, who are judges of facts. The intention of the legislature did not exclude the justice of peace from its operation. In sec54 there is no necessity to include the

justice of peace in the enumeration, as previously made in sec 449 of the Revised Administrative Code , has the legislature has availed itself of the more generic and broader term judge, including therein all kinds of judges, like judges of the CFI, judges of the courts of Agrarian relations judges, judges of the courts of Industrial Relations, and justices of peace. REDEENDO SINGULAR SINGULIS Referring each to each; referring to each phrase or expression to its appropriate object, or let each be put in its proper place, that is, the words should be taken distributively. As a rule, it requires that the antecedents and consequences should be read distributively to the effect that each word is to be applied to the subject to which it appears by context most appropriately related and to which it is most applicable. King vs Hernandez. The employment of the three Chinese as salesmen and purchaser in the store of Macario King is a violation of the Section 1 of the Retail Trade Act which provides that only citizens of the Philippines can engage in retail trade, as well as of Section 2-A of the Anti-Dummy Law which prohibits Chinese citizens to intervene in the management, operation, administration or control of such business, whether as an officer, employee or laborer with or without remuneration. The context of the law seems to be clear on what its extent and scope seem to prohibit but also because the same is in full accord with the main objective that permeates both the Retail Trade Law and the Anti-Dummy Law. The one advocates the complete nationalization of the retail trade by denying its ownership to any alien, while the other limits its management, operation, administration and control to Filipino citizens. The prevailing idea is to secure both ownership and management of the retail business in Filipino hands. It prohibits a person not a Filipino from engaging in retail trade directly or indirectly while it limits the management, operation, administration and control to Filipino citizens. These words may be technically synonymous in the sense that they all refer to the exercise of a directing, restraining or governing influence over an affair or business to which they relate, but it cannot be denied that by reading them in connection with the positions therein enumerated one cannot draw any other conclusion than that they cover the entire range of employment regardless of whether they involve control or non-control activities. When the law says that you cannot employ an alien in any position pertaining to management, operation, administration and control, "whether as an officer, employee, or laborer therein", it only means one thing: the employment of a person who is not a Filipino citizen even in a minor or clerical or non-control position is prohibited. The reason is obvious: to plug any loophole or close any avenue that an unscrupulous alien may resort to flout the law or defeat its purpose, for no one can deny that while one may be employed in a noncontrol position who apparently is harmless he may later turn out to be a mere tool to further the evil designs of the employer. It is imperative that the law be interpreted in a manner that would stave off any attempt at circumvention of this legislative purpose.

DISSIMILUM DISSIMILIS EST RATIO The courts may distinguish when there are facts and circumstances showing that the legislature intended a distinction or qualification. Doctrine of Necessary Implication No statute can be enacted that can provide all the details involved in its application. There is always an omission that may not meet a particular situation. What is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is expressed. Every statute is understood, by implication, to contain all such provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its object and purpose, or to make effective rights, powers, privileges or jurisdiction which it grants, including all such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred from its terms. Natu vs Torres. In applying the doctrine of necessary implication, we took into consideration the rationale behind the 28 disqualification of managerial employees expressed in Bulletin Publishing Corporation v. Sanchez, thus: ". . . if these managerial employees would belong to or be affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be assured of their loyalty to the Union in view of evident conflict of interests. The Union can also become company-dominated with the presence of managerial employees in Union membership." Stated differently, in the collective bargaining process, managerial employees are supposed to be on the side of the employer, to act as its representatives, and to see to it that its interests are well protected. The employer is not assured of such 29 protection if these employees themselves are union members. Collective bargaining in such a situation can become one-sided. It is the same reason that impelled this Court to consider the position of confidential employees as included in the disqualification found in Art. 245 as if the disqualification of confidential employees were written in the provision. If confidential employees could unionize in order to bargain for advantages for themselves, then they could be governed by their own motives rather than the interest of the employers. Moreover, unionization of confidential employees for the purpose of collective bargaining would mean the 30 extension of the law to persons or individuals who are supposed to act "in the interest of" the employers. It is not farfetched that in the course of collective bargaining, they might jeopardize that interest which they are duty-bound to protect. Along the same line 31 32 of reasoning we held in Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja reiterated in Philips Industrial Development, Inc. v. NLRC, that "confidential employees such as accounting personnel, radio and telegraph operators who, having access to confidential information, may become the source of undue advantage. Said employee(s) may act as spy or spies of either party to a collective bargaining agreement."