Statutory Construction
PART 1:
BASIC PRINCIPLES
I. What is Statutory Construction?
Caltex vs. Palomar, G.R. No. L-19650, September 29, 1966
Construction is the art or process of discovering and expounding
the meaning and intention of the authors of the law wit respe!t to
its appli!atio" to a #ive" !ase, where that i"te"tio" is re"$ere$
$o%bt&%l, amongst others, by reason of the fact that the given case
is not explicitly provided for in the law.
II. When Do You A!y the Princi!es o" Statutory Construction?
'aoa"# vs. (%"i!ipal )%$#e o& Sa" Ni!olas, G.R. No. L-*+56, ,
(ar! 2,, 19,,
-mores vs. .R/0, G.R. No. 1,9600, )%"e 29, 2010
Rep%bli! 1lo%r (ills, 2"!. vs. Commissio"er o& C%stoms, G.R. No. L-
2,+6*, (a3 *1, 1941
5apisa"a" "# m#a (a"##awa sa (a"ila Railroa$ Compa"3 Cre$it
6"io" vs. (a"ila Railroa$ Compa"3, 1ebr%ar3 2,, 1949
Ra$io Comm%"i!atio"s o& te Pil. vs. N0C, G.R. No. L-6,429, (a3
29, 19,4
Rep%bli! vs. 0ole$a"o, G.R. No. 9+1+4, )%"e ,, 199+
III. Which Branch o" #o$ern%ent Interrets the La&?
I'. Re(uire%ent o" Pu)!ication o" Statutes
0a"a$a vs. 0%vera 7Resol%tio"8, G.R. No. L-6*915, 'e!ember 29,
19,6
'. *u+icia! Le,is!ation
1lores!a vs. Pilex (i"i"#, G.R. No. L-*06+2 -pril *0, 19,5
Rep%bli! vs. C- a"$ (oli"a, G.R. No. 10,46*, 1ebr%ar3 1*, 1994
'I. Sirit o$er Letter o" the La& (Ratio Legis Est Anima Legis)
Paras vs C9(/L/C, G.R. No. 12*169, November +, 199+
Ci"a :a"; vs 9rte#a, G.R. No. L-*+96+, )a"%ar3 *1, 194*
'II. The construction o" the !a& o)tains the "orce o" !a& (Legis
interpretatio legis vim obtinet)
1
People vs )abi"al, G.R. No. L-*0061, 1ebr%ar3 24, 194+
PART -:
E.EC/TI'E C0NSTR/CTI0N
I. E1ecuti$e Construction #i$en #reat Wei,ht
-$asa vs -balos, G.R. No. 16,614, 1ebr%ar3 19, 2004
II. When E1ecuti$e Construction Not #i$en Wei,ht
2:-- /mplo3ees< 6"io" vs 2"!io"#, G.R. No. L-52+15, 9!tober 2*,
19,+
III. A+%inistrati$e Ru!e $s. A+%inistrati$e 0inion
=i!torias (illi"# Co. 2"!. vs. So!ial Se!%rit3 Commissio", G.R. No. L-
1640+, (ar! 14, 1962
PART 2:
C0NSTR/CTI0N 03 SPECI3IC TYPES 03 LE#ISLATI0N
I. Constitution
1ra"!is!o vs. .o%se o& Represe"tatives, G.R. No. 160261,
November 10, 200*
Sarmie"to vs (iso", G.R. No. 4994+, 'e!ember 14, 19,4
(a"ila Pri"!e .otel vs GS2S, G.R. No. 122156, 1ebr%ar3 *, 1994
9posa vs 1a!tora", G.R. No. 1010,*, )%l3 *0, 199*
II. La)or La&s
(a"aa" vs /mplo3ees Compe"satio" Commissio", G.R. No. L-
++,99, -pril 22, 19,1
Retirement Laws
0a"t%i!o, )r. vs 'omi"#o, G.R. No. 96+22, 1ebr%ar3 2,, 199+
Note: Relate with rticle !, Labor Code
III. Ta1 La&s
"ax #urdens
Pila!or Cre$it Corporatio" Commissio"er o& 2"ter"al Reve"%e, G.R.
No. 169,99, 1ebr%ar3 6, 201*
"ax $xemptions
%
Commissio"er o& 2"ter"al Reve"%e vs G%errero, G.R. No. L-209+2,
September 22, 1964
"ax Refunds
-pplie$ 1oo$ 2"#re$ie"ts vs Commissio"er o& 2"ter"al Reve"%e,
G.R. No. 1,+266, November 11, 201*
IV. Pena! La&s
People vs 0empora$a, G.R. No. 14*+4*, 'e!ember 14, 200,
Con&ict between 'panish text and $nglish text
People vs (a"aba, G.R. No. *,425, 9!tober *1, 19**
Note: Relate with rticle %%, Revised (enal Code
V. E!ection La&s
.ipe vs C9(/L/C. G.R. No. 1,152,, 9!tober 2, 2009
-mora, >r. vs C9(/L/C, G.R. No. 1922,0, )a"%ar3 25, 2011
VI. Insurance
'e La Cr%? vs Capital 2"s%ra"!e @ Sa&et3 Co, 2"!. , G.R. No. L-
2154+, )%"e *0, 1966
A%a Cee Ga" vs. Law 6"io" @ Ro!; 2"s%ra"!e, G.R. No. L-+611,
'e!ember 14, 1955
VII. Natura!i4ation La&s
:e">ami" Co vs Rep%bli!, G.R. No. L-12150, (a3 26, 1960
=elas!o vs Rep%bli!, G.R. No. L-1+21+, (a3 25, 1960
Co B A%i"# Re3es =s. Rep%bli!, G.R. No. L-10461, November 29,
195,
VIII. E1roriation La&s
.eirs o& )%#albot vs Co%rt o& -ppeals, G.R. No. 140*+6, (ar! 12,
2004
IX. Wi!!s
0ampo3 vs -lberasti"e, G.R. No. L-1+*22. 1ebr%ar3 25, 1960
Ro$ri#%e? vs -l!ala, G.R. No. *2642, November 5, 19*0
X. Ru!es o" Court
nama vs Court of appeals, ).R. No. 1*+,%1, -anuary %., %,1%
/
Note: 'ee 'ection 0, Rule 1, 111+ Rules of Court
PART 5:
LATIN R/LES
I. Verba Legis Non Est Recedendum 63ro% the &or+s o" the
statute7 there shou!+ )e no +earture8
=i!toria vs. C9(/L/C, G.R. 109005, )a"%ar3 10, 199+
Pilippi"e -m%seme"t a"$ Gami"# Corporatio" 7P-GC9R8 vs
Pilippi"e Gami"# )%ris$i!tio" 2"!. 7P/)28, G.R. No. 144***, -pril 2+,
2009
II. Ratio Legis Est Anima Legis 6The reason o" the !a& is the sou!
o" the !a&8
(atab%e"a vs Cerva"tes, G.R. No. L-2,441, (ar! *1, 1941
III. Dura Lex Sed Lex 6The !a& is harsh )ut that is the !a&8
Bsi$oro vs. People o& te Pilippi"es, G.R. No. 192**0, November
1+, 2012
2hen not applied:
'%"!a" vs. C12 o& Ri?al, G.R. No. L-*0546, 1ebr%ar3 10, 1946
-lo"?o vs. 2"terme$iate -ppellate Co%rt, G.R. No. L-42,4*, (a3 2,,
19,4
IV. Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius 6The e1ress %ention o"
one thin, in a !a& %eans the e1c!usion o" others not e1ress!y
%entione+8
Ler%m vs. Cr%?, G.R. No. L-24,*, November 29, 1950
Ce"te"o vs. =illalo"-Por"illos, G.R. No. 11*092, September 1, 199+
2hen not applied:
a. 2hen adherence to the rule will lead to incongruities and in a
violation of the e3ual protection clause of the Constitution
C%a vs. Civil Servi!e Commissio", G.R. No. ,,949,
1ebr%ar3 4, 1992
!
b. 2hen enumeration not intended to be exclusive
(a"abat vs. $e -C%i"o, G.R. No. L-555,, -pril 29, 195*
/s!riba"o vs. -vila, G.R. No. L-*0*45, September 12, 194,
c. 2hen no reason exists why a person or thing is excluded
People vs. (a"a"ta", G.R. No. L-1+129, )%l3 *1, 1962
Primero vs. Co%rt o& -ppeals, G.R. No. L-+,+6,-69,
November 22, 19,9
V. E9us+e% #eneris
Liwa# vs .app3 Gle" Loop .omeow"ers -sso!iatio", G.R. No.
1,9455, )%l3 +, 2012
(%t%! vs. C9(/L/C , G.R. No. L-*2414, November 26, 1940
2hen not applied:
6"ite$ States vs. =i!tor Sa"to Ni"o, G.R. No. 5000, (ar! 11, 1909
Cit3 o& (a"ila vs. L3ri! (%si! .o%se, G.R. No. +22*6, September 2+,
19*5
Roma" Catoli! -r!bisop vs. So!ial Se!%rit3 Commissio" G.R. No.
L-150+5, )a"%ar3 20, 1961
Col#ate vs. Gime"e?, G.R. No. L-1+4,4, )a"%ar3 2,, 1961
VI. asus !missus "ro !miso #abendus Est 6A Thin, 0%itte+ :ust
ha$e Been 0%%itte+ Intentiona!!y8
Spo%ses 'elD"o vs. St. )ames .ospital, G.R. No. 1664*5, November
2*, 2004
VII. Noscitur A Sociis
Caltex vs. Palomar, G.R. No. L-19650, September 29, 1966
-ispor"a vs. Co%rt o& -ppeals, -pril 12, 19,2, G.R. No. L-*9+19
'III. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos 6Where the
!a& +oes not +istin,uish7 the courts shou!+ not +istin,uish8
Pilippi"e :ritis -ss%ra"!e vs. 2-C, G.R. No. 42005, (a3 29, 19,4
:a"!o $e 9ro vs. /C%itable :a";, G.R. No. 4+914, )a"%ar3 20, 19,,
Spo%ses Sale"illas vs. Co%rt o& -ppeals, G.R. No. 4,6,4, )a"%ar3
*1, 19,9
'emaDles vs. C9(/L/C, G.R. No. L-2,*96, 'e!ember
29, 1964
.
.
