Anda di halaman 1dari 4

Danilo E.

Paras vs Comelec
Facts:
Petitioner herein was elected as the Punong Barangay of Pula, Cabanatuan City during
the 1994 Barangay Election. On the other hand, registered voters of the said barangay filed for
the recall of petitioner as Punong Barangay before the public respondent COMELEC.
Meanwhile, the COMELEC approved and set the recall of election provided that the registered
voters who signed the petition are more than the 25% requirement of law. However, COMELEC
postponed the recall election due to petitioners opposition.
Moreover, the petitioner invokes the Local Government Code (RA 7160) wherein the
scheduled 13 January 1996 recall election is barred for the reason that the SK election set by RA
7808 on May 1996 is considered to be a regular election. Hence, there can be no recall election
with just four months separating the SK election and the former.
Issue:
Whether or not the recall of election can be barred by the SK election where it is
considered as regular local election.
Ruling:
No, SK election cannot be considered as regular local election.
In statutory construction, every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to
the context. The court should start with the assumption that the legislature intended to enact an
effective law, and the legislature is not presumed to have done a vain thing in the enactment of
statute.
Rationale:
In this case, while the Supreme Court declared that the SK election cannot be considered
as regular local election, Section 74(b) of RA 7160 provides the limitation on the recall election
wherein it is no longer possible provided that the next regular local election for barangay office
is barely seven (7) months away or on May 1997. Thus, SK election can still be considered as
regular local election.

CIR vs ESSO Standard Eastern Inc. and Court of Tax Appeals


Facts:
In 1959, ESSO overpaid its income tax, meanwhile, the Commissioner granted a tax
credit to the former on 5 August 1964. It was later found out that ESSO was short on its 1960
income tax, thus, the Commissioner demanded for the deficiency as well as interest. Thereafter,
ESSO paid the deficiency tax and its interest. They claimed that the only due to them is the
difference between the overpayment and deficiency without bearing any interest. Thus, private
respondent requested for the refund.
On the other hand, Internal Revenue Commissioner denied the claim for refund of ESSO.
Then, the latter appealed before the Court of Tax Appeals where the refund was subsequently
granted. Thus, the appeal of the Commissioner.
Issue:
Whether or not ESSO can claim its refund.
Ruling:
Yes, ESSO can claim its refund.
In the doctrine of In re Allen (2 Phil 630), the court held that the literal interpretation is to
be rejected if it would lead to absurd or unreasonable consequences. Statutes should receive a
sensible construction, such as will give effect to the legislative intention and so as to avoid an
unjust or absurd conclusion.
Rationale:
It is clear in the case that the overpayment belonged to ESSO and was bound to be
returned to them and whatever other subsequent obligation of ESSO to the Government must be
reduced by the amount of overpayment and which no interest to be incurred.

Cesario Ursua vs Court of Appeals


Facts:
Counsel for petitioner herein requested before the Office of Ombudsman in Davao City
to furnish them a copy of complaint filed against the latter. Due to some circumstances, the
petitioner had personally delivered the letter-request using the name of the counsels messenger
for the acknowledgment receipt where the latter actually gave him the consent.
However, one of the staffs of the Office of Ombudsman, whom personally known the
petitioner, later found out that he used a different name. It was later on reported to the Deputy
Ombudsman, then, charged the petitioner accordingly.
On the other hand, the petitioner alleged for the failure of prosecution to prove that the
supposed alias was different from his registered name in local registry was fatal to its cause.
Meanwhile, the court rejected the contention and decided against the petitioner for violation of
Sec. 1 of CA No. 142 as amended by RA 6085. This was later on affirmed by the Court of
Appeals.
Issue:
Whether or not the use of different name belonging to another in isolated transactions fall
within the prohibition of CA No. 142.
Ruling:
No.
In construing a statute, it should be in reference to the intended scope and purpose.
Further, the court may consider the spirit and reason of the statute where a literal meaning would
lead to absurdity, contradiction, injustice, or would defeat the clear purpose of lawmakers.
Rationale:
The act of petitioner may be covered by other provisions and not of CA No. 142 as
amended. The confusion in anti-alias law as well as its related statutes as being employed in
business transactions is not present in the case where its occurrence is peculiar and different in
CA No. 142 as amended.

Miriam Defensor Santiago et al vs COMELEC, Jesus Delfin, Alberto Pedrosa and Lorna Pedrosa
Facts:
Private respondent Jesus Delfin filed before the COMELEC a Petition to Amend the
Constitution to Lift Term limits of elective Officials, by Peoples Initiative. Thereafter, petitioner
filed for special civil action which provides that the constitutional provision on peoples
initiative to amend the Constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress.
On the other hand, RA 6735 states the three systems of initiative initiative on Constitution, on
statutes, on local legislation.
Issue:
Whether or not RA No. 6735 An Act Providing for System of Initiative and Referendum
and Appropriating Funds Therefor intended to cover adequately the initiative on amendments to
Constitution.
Ruling:
No, RA No. 6735 did not cover adequately the initiative on amendments to Constitution.
In statutory construction, title and subtitle can be used as intrinsic aid in determining the
legislative intent.
Rationale:
In RA No. 6735, it failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the Constitution, unlike
in the other modes of initiative. Thus, this omission indicates that the matter of peoples initiative
to amend the Constitution was left to some future law.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai