STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

1 Year - 1st Semester - College of Law

st

Northeastern College
Santiago City

Wednesday, 6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.

Room - TBA

I. COURSE DESCRIPTION

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

II. OBJECTIVE

At the end of the course, the students should be able to:

1. Know the proper use and force of statutes and principles and methods of
their construction and interpretation.

2. Determine the power of words and its usage in our laws and statutes.

III. CREDIT

2 units : 2 hours / week

IV. ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE/EVALUATION SCHEME

Grade shall be computed as follows:

Midterms = 30%
Finals = 40%
Assignment/Case Digests = 30%
TOTAL = 100%

The grade equivalent of scores in the examinations will be derived using the
following formula below:

GE = RS x 50 / No. of Items + 50

Where:

GE = grade equivalent
RS = raw score

A student’s final overall grade will be computed as follows:

Midterm Grade + Final Grade = FINAL OVERALL

GRADE
2
V. REFERENCES

Rodriguez, Statutory Construction

Agpalo, Statutory Construction
Diaz, Statutory Construction
Supreme Court Reports Annotated
Laws and Administrative Issuances

VI. COURSE OUTLINE

Week 1

Part I - Preliminary Considerations

1. Statutes
A. In general
B. Enactment of Statutes
C. Parts of Statutes
D. Issuances, Rules and Ordinances
E. Validity of Statute
F. Effect and Operation
G. Duty of the Court to Construe and Interpret Laws
- Director of Lands v. CA, G.R. No. 102858, July 28, 1997.
- Pascual vs. Pascual, G.R. No. 84240, March 25, 1992.
- People vs. Mapulong, G.R. No. L-22301, August 30, 1967.

Week 2

Part II - Construction and Interpretation

1. Definition of Statutory Construction

A. Nature and Purpose

a. Construction defined
- Caltex (Phils), Inc. v. Palomar, G.R. No. 19650, September 29, 1966.

b. Construction vs. Interpretation

c.Rules of construction, generally

- Roman Catholic Apostolic Administration of Davao, Inc. v. Land
Registration Commission, G.R. No. L-8451, December 20, 1957.
- Torres v. Yu, G.R. No. 42626, December 8, 1982.

d. Purpose or object of construction

- Macondray & Co. v. Eustaquio, G.R. No. 43683, July 16, 1937.
- Roldan vs. Villarama, G.R. No. 46825, October18, 1939.
- Torres vs. Limjap, G.R. No. 34385, September 21, 1931.
- Manila Lodge No. 761 vs. CA, G.R. No. 41001, September 30, 1976.
- People vs. Concepcion, G.R. No. L-19190, November 29, 1922.
- Tañada vs. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051 (1957).
- Salaysay vs. Castro, 98 Phil. 364 (1936).
- City of Baguio vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 26100, February 28, 1969

Week 3
 e.Legislative intent, generally.
- U.S. vs. Tamparong, 31 Phil. 321 (1915).
- Tamayo vs. Gsell, 35 Phil. 953 (1916).
- Senerillas vs. Hermosisima, 100 Phil. 501 (1956).
- Hermani vs. Export Control Committee, 100 Phil. 973, (1957).
- People vs. Purisima, G.R. No. 42050, November 20, 1978.
- U.S. vs. Toribio, 15 Phil. 85 (1910).
- Hidalgo vs. Hidalgo, G.R. No. 25326, May 29, 1970.
- U.S. vs. Navarro, 19 Phil. 134 (1911).
- General vs. Barrameda, G.R. No. 29906, January 30, 1976.
- Litex Employees Assn. vs. Eduvala, G.R. No. 41106, September 22, 1977.
- Bocobo vs. Estanislao, G.R. No. 30458, August 31, 1976.
- Republic Flour Mills, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. 28463,
May 31, 1971.
- King vs. Hernaez, 114 Phil 730 (1962);
- Mejia vs. Balalong, 81 Phil. 497, (1948).
-Yellow Taxi & Pasay Trans. Workers Union vs. Manila Taxi Cab Co., 80
Phil. 833 (1948).
- Manila Jockey Club, Inc., vs. Games and Amusements Board, 107 Phil.
151 (1960).
- Borromeo vs. Mariano, 41 Phil. 322 (1921).
- Regalado vs. Yulo, 61 Phil. 173 (1935).
- Aboitiz Shipping Corp., vs. City of Cebu, G.R. No. 14526, March 31,
1965.
- Aisporma vs. CA, G.R. No. 39419, April 12, 1982.
- Veroy vs. Layague, 210 SCRA 97 (1992).
- Allarde vs. COA, 218 SCRA 227 (1993).
- B.E. San Diego, Inc., vs. CA, 218 SCRA 446 (1993).

B. Power to Construe
a. Construction is a judicial function
- U.S. vs. Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil. 1 (1922).
- L.S. Moon & Co vs. Hamson, 43 Phil. 27 (1922).
- San Miguel Corp., vs. Avelino, G.R. No. 39699, March 14, 1979.
- Chinese Flour Importers’ Assn. vs. Price Stabilization Board, 89 Phil. 439
(1951).
- Endencia vs. David, 93 Phil. 696 (1953).
- Joya vs. PCGG, 225 SCRA 568 (1993).
- Castro vs. Tan, 100 Phil. 910 (1957).
- Alunan, III, vs. Mirasol, 276 SCRA 501 (1997).
- Malaluan vs. COMELEC, 254 SCRA 397 (1996).
- Philippines Today, Inc., vs. NLRC, 267 SCRA 202 (1997).

b. When judicial interpretation may be set aside

- People vs. Jabinal,G.R. No. 30061, February 27, 1974.
- Quimpo vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 33052, August 31, 1981.
- Victorias Milling Co., Inc., vs. Social Security Commission, 114 Phil. 555
(1962).
- Salaysay vs. Castro, 98 Phil. 364 (1956).

Week 4
 c.Condition sine qua non before courts can construe statutes;
ambiguity defined.
- Banawa vs. Mirano, G.R. No. 24750, May 16, 1980.
- Resins, Inc., vs. Auditor General, G.R. No. 17888, October 29, 1968.
- Guevarra vs. Inocentes, G.R. No. 2557, March 15, 1966.
- Aparri vs. CA, G.R. No. 36057, January 31, 1984.
- Ong vs. Parel, 156 SCRA 768 (1987).
- Veroy vs. Loyague, 210 SCRA 97 (1992).
- Daong vs. Municipal Judge, 159 SCRA 369 (1988).
- Rizal Commercial Banking Corp., vs. IAC, 320 SCRA 279. (1999).
- Del Mar vs. PAGCOR, 346 SCRA 485 (2000).
- Garcia vs. SSS, G.R. No. 170935, December 17, 2007.

d. Court may not construe where statute is clear

- People vs. Mapa, G.R. No. 220301, August 30, 1967.
- Pacific Oxygen & Acetylene vs. Central Bank, G.R. No. 21881, March 1,
1968.
- Lizarraga Hermanos vs. Yap Tico, 24 Phil. 504 (1913).
- Yangco vs. CFI of Manila, 29 Phil. 183 (1915).
- Ramos vs. CA, G.R. No. 53766, October 30, 1981.
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Limpan Investment Corp., G.R.
No. 28571, July 31, 1970.
- Cebu Portland Cement Co., vs. Municipality of Naga, G.R. No. 24116,
August 22, 1968.
-
e.Legis interpretatio legis vim obtinet
- People vs. Jabinal, G.R. No. L-30061, February 27, 1974.
- Pesca vs. Pesca, G.R. No. 136921, April 17, 2001

f. Verba legis
- Basbacio vs. Office of the Secretary, DOJ, G.R. No. 109445, November 7,
1994.
- Republic vs. Lacap, G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007.
- National Food Authority vs. Security Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 163448,
March 8, 2005.
- CIR vs. American Express, G.R. No. 152609, June 29, 2005.

g. Rulings of the Supreme Court part of the legal system

- Miranda vs. Imperial, 77 Phil. 1066 (1947).
- Senovila vs. Hermosisino, 100 Phil. 501 (1956).
- Phil. Veterans Affairs Office vs. Segundo, 164 SCRA 365 (1988).
- Tung Chin Hui vs. Rodriguez, 340 SCRA 765 (2000).
- National Waterworks & Sewerage Authority vs. NWSA Consolidated
Union, G.R. No. 26894, February 28, 1969.
- Kabigting vs. Director of Persons, 6 SCRA 281 (1962).

h. Judicial rulings have no retroactive effect

- Benzonan vs. CA, 205 SCRA 515, (1992).
- Filoteo vs. Sandiganbayan, 263 SCRA 222 (1996).
- Koppel (Phils.), Inc., vs. Yatco, 77 Phil. 496, (1946).

Week 5
 C. Limitations on Power to Construe

a. Courts may not enlarge nor restrict statute

- Morales vs. Subido, G.R. No. 29658, November 29, 1968.
- People vs. -, 85 Phil. 657 (1950).
- Vera vs. Avelino, 77 Phil. 192 (1946).
- Baking vs. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. 30364, July 28, 1969.
- Inchong vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155 (1957).
- Palanca vs. City of Manila, 41 Phil. 123 (1920).
- Hongkong & Shanghai Bank vs. Peters, 116 Phil. 284 (1910).
- Canet vs. Decena, G.R. No. 155344, January 20, 2004.

b. Courts not to be influenced by questions of wisdom

- De Los Santos vs. Mallare, 87 Phil. 289 (1950).

- Republic vs. Go Bon Lee, 111 Phil. 805 (1961).
- Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936).
- People vs. Carlos, 78 Phil. 535 (1947).
- Quintos vs. Lacson, 97 Phil. 290 (1955).
- Morfe vs. Mutuc, G.R. No. 20387, January 31, 1968.
- People vs. Limaco, 88 Phl. 35 (1951).
- Lorenzo vs. Director of Health, 50 Phil. 595 (1927).
- Lacson vs. Roque, 92 Phil. 465 (1935).
- Cornejo vs. Naval, 54 Phil. 809 (1930).
- Magtajas vs. Pryce Properties Corp., Inc., 234 SCRA 255 (1994).

c.When is there room for interpretation or construction

- Songco vs. NLRC, G.R. No. L-50999, March 23, 1990.
- Amores vs. HRET, G.R. No. 189600, June 29, 2010.

d. When can courts construe or interpret laws

- RCBC vs. IAC, G.R. No. 74851, December 9, 1999.

e.When courts need not resort to interpretation or construction

- Go Ka Toc Sons vs. Rice and Corn Board, G.R. No. L-23607, May 23,
1967.
- Luzon Realty vs. De Garcia, G.R. No. L-25659, October 31, 1969.

Week 6

Part III - Aids to Construction

A. In General

1. Generally

2. Title
- People vs. Rivera, 59 Phil. 235 (1933).
- Central Capiz vs. Ramirez, 40 Phil. 883 (1920).
- Government vs. Municipality of Binalonan, 32 Phil 634 (1915).
- Commissioner of Customs vs. Relunia, 105 Phil. 875 (1959).

3. When resort to title not authorized

4. Preamble
- People vs. Echavez, G.R. No. 47757, January 28, 1980.
- Alliance of Government Workers vs. Ministry of Labor, G.R. No. 50403,
August 3, 1983.
- Revisit: People vs. Purisima, G.R. No. 42050, November 20, 1978.
- Revisit: People vs. Echavez, G.R. No. 47757, January 28, 1980.

5. Context of whole text

- Revisit: Aboitiz Shipping Corp., vs. City of Cebu, G.R. No. 14526,
March 31, 1965.
- Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds, 79, Phil. 461 (1967).
- CIR vs. TMX Sales, Inc., 205 SCRA 184 (1992).

6. Punctuation marks
- Agcaoili vs. Suguitan, 48 Phil. 678 (1926).
- Feliciano vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 10201, September 23, 1957.
- Nera vs. Garcia, 106 Phil. 1031 (1960).
- Florentino vs. Phil. National Bank, 98 Phil. 959 (1956).
- People vs. Subido, G.R. No. 21735, September 5, 1975.

7. Capitalization of letters
- In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil. 156 (1918).
- Unabia vs. City Mayor, 99 Phil 253 (1956).

8. Headnotes or epigraphs
- Kare vs. Platon, 56 Phil. 248 (1931).
- Peopl vs. Yabut, 58 Phil. 499 (1933).

9. Intent or spirit of the law

- Ledesma vs. Pictain, 79 Phil. 95 (1947).
- Garcia vs. Ambler, 4 Phil. 81 (1904).
- McMicking vs. Lichauco, 27 Phil. 386 (1914).
- Manila Race Horse Trainers Assn., vs. De La Fuente, 88 Phil. 60 (1951).
- Go Chi vs. Go Cho, 96 Phil. 622 (1955).
- Roa vs. Collector of Customs, 23 Phil. 315 (1912).

10. Policy of law

- Automotive Parts & Equipment Co., vs. Longad, G.R. No. 26406,
October 30, 1969.
- Macabenta vs. Davao Stevedoring Terminal, G.R. No. 27489, April 30,
1970.
- Adong vs. Cheong Seng Gee, 43 Phil. 43 (1922).
- Tinio vs. Francis, 98 Phil. 32 (1955).

11. Purpose of law or mischief to be suppressed

- Phil. Sugar Central Agency vs. Collector of Customs, 51 Phil. 131 (1927).
- Escribano vs. Avila, G.R. No. 30375, September 12, 1978.
- Home Ins. Co., vs. Eastern Shipping Lines, G.R. No. 34382, July 20,
1983.
- Litex Employees Assn., vs. Eduvala, G.R. No. 41106, September 22,
1977.
- Sarcos vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 29755, January 31, 1969.

12. Consequences of various constructions

 - Araneta vs.Dinglasan, 84 Phil. 368 (1949).

13. Presumptions

***Other topics for discussion will be provided at a later date***

ATTY. GLENN L. AQUINO

Instructor
Northeastern College
Santiago City