Anda di halaman 1dari 5

VERBA LEGIS V.

RATIO LEGIS
Agpalo, pp 206-254
Literal Interpretation
18.
19.
20.

Kapisanan ng Mga Manggagawa v. Manila Railroad Company,


G.R. No. L-25316, February 28, 1979
National Federation of Labor v. NLRC, 327 SCRA 158 (2000)
Pascual v. Pascual-Bautista, G.R. No. 84240, March 25, 1992

Departure from Literal Interpretation


Statute must be capable of interpretation, otherwise inoperative
21. Santiago v. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106 (1997)
Intent of a statute is the law
22. Solid Homes v. Tan, 465 SCRA 137 (2005)
Construction to accomplish purpose
23. Bocobo v. Estanislao, G.R. No. 30458, August 31, 1978
24. Bustamante v. NLRC, 265 SCRA 61 (1996)
25. Matabuena v. Cervantes, G.R. No. L-28771, March 31, 1997
When reason of law ceases, law itself ceases
26. Comendador v. De Villa, 200 SCRA 80 (1991)
Correcting clerical errors
27. Rufino Lopez & Sons, Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals, 100 Phil. 850
(1957)
Construction to avoid absurdity
28. Paras v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 123169, November 4, 1996
Construction to avoid injustice
29. *People v. Purisima, 86 SCRA 542 (1978)
Surplusage and superfluity disregarded
30. Uytengsu v. Republic, G.R. No. L-6379, September 29, 1954

GENERAL PRINCIPLES/ PRESUMPTIONS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF


CERTAIN STATUTES

A.

Penal Laws
31. Laurel v. Abrogar, G.R. No. 155076, February 22, 200
32. Centeno v. Villalon Pornillos, G.R. No. 113092, 1 September 1994

B.

Tax Laws
32. Marinduque Iron Mines v. Municipal Council, G.R. No. L-18924, 30
June 1964
33. La Carlota Sugar Central v. Jimenez, GR L-12436, May 31, 1961
34. Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Marcos, G.R. No.
120082, September 11, 1996
35. Serfino v. CA, G.R. No. L-40751, September 15, 1987

C.

Social Legislation
36. Villavert v. Employees Compensation Commission, G.R. NO. L48605, December 14, 1981
37. Manahan v. Employees Compensation Commission, G.R. No. L44899, April 22, 1981
38. International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Secretary, G.R No. 92981, 9
January 1992

D.

Rules of Court
39. Office of the Court Administrator v. Garong, A.M. No. P-99-1311,
15 August 2001
40. Provincial Sheriff of Rizal v. CA, et.al., G.R. No. L-22606, 12,
December 1975

E.

Law on adoption
41. Duncan v. Court of First Instance, G.R. No.L-30576, 10 February
1976

F.

Local Government/ Local Autonomy


42. San Juan v. CSC, G.R. No. 92299, 19 April 1991

G.

Insurance
43. Ty v. First National Surety, G.R. No. L-16138, April 29, 1961
44. Dela Cruz v. Capital Insurance, G.R. No. L-21574, June 30, 1966
45. Qua Chee Gan v. Law Union and Rock Insurance, G.R. No. L-4611,
December 17, 1955

H.

Naturalization Laws
46. Co v. Republic, G.R. No. L-12150, May 26, 1960

I.

Agrarian Reform Laws


47. Guerrero v. CA, G.R. No. L-44570, May 30, 1986

J.

Expropriation Laws

48.

City of Manila v. Chinese Community of Manila, G.R. No. 14355,


October 31, 1919

K.

Wills
49. In Re: Tampoy, G.R. No. L-14322, February 25, 1960

L.

Constitution
50. Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC, G.R No. 147589, 26 June 2011
51. Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R No. 122156, 3 February 1997
52. Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, 10
November 2003
53. De Castro v. JBC, G.R. No. 191002, 17 March 2010 (read also
resolution on the MR dated 20 April 2010)
54. Chavez v. JBC, G.R. No. 202242, 17 July 2012

SOME STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES


A.

Conflicting provisions
55. Manila Railroad Co. v. Collector, 52 Phil. 950 (1929)
56. Almeda v. Florentino, 15 SCRA 154 (1965)
57. Laxamana v. Baltazar, G.R. No. L-5955, September 19, 1952
58. Butuan Sawmill, Inc. v. City of Butuan, G.R. No. L-21516, April 29,

1966
B.

Words construed in their ordinary sense


59. Collector v. Manila Lodge No. 761, 105 Phil. 983 (1957)

C.

General words construed generally


60. Gatchalian v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 32560, 22 October 1970

D.

Use of generic words include things that arise after enactment of the
law - progressive interpretation
61. Geotina v. CA, G.R.. No. 33500, 30 August 1971

E.

Ejusdem generis
62. Mutuc v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-32717, November 26, 1970
63. Liwag v. Happy Glen Loop Homeowners Association, G.R. No.
189755, July 4, 2012

F.

Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguire debemos


61. Pilar v. COMELEC, 245 SCR4 759 (1995)
62. Guerrero v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 137004, July 26, 2000

G.

Use of technical terms


63. Manila Herald Publishing v. Ramos, 88 Phil. 94 (1951)

H.

Noscitur a sociis
65. Caltex Phils. V. Palomar, G.R. No. L-19650, September 29, 1966
66. Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp., Inc., 234 SCRA 255 (1994)

I.

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius


67. People v. Estenzo, G.R. No. L-35376, September 11, 1980
68. Malinias v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 146943, October 4, 2002

J.

Necessary implication
69. Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc v. Secretary of Labor, G.R.

No. 96663, 10 August 1999


K.

Cassus omissus pro omisso habendus est


70. Municipality of Nueva Era v. Municipality of Marcos, G.R. No.
169435, February 27, 2008
71. People v. Manantan, G.R. No. L-14129, July 31, 1962

L.

Reddendo singula singulis


72. People v. Tamani, G.R. No. 22160, 21 January 1974

M.

Relative and qualifying terms


73. Mapa v. Arroyo 175 SCRA 76 (1989)

N.

Use of punctuation marks


74. U.S. v. Hart, 26 Phil. 149 (1913)

O.

Words and Phrases:


Proviso
75. CIR v. Filipinas Campania de Seguros, G.R. No. L-14880, April 20,

1960
76.

1991

Mercado et. al. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 79869, 5 September

Including
77. Sterling Selections Corporation v. LLDA, G.R. No. 171427,

30 March 2011

Negative vs. affirmative words


78. In re McGee v. Republic, G.R.. No. L-5387, 29 April 1954
Mandatory vs. permissive
79. Bersabal v. Salvador, G.R. No. L-35910, 21 July 1978
80. Diokno v. Rehabilitation Finance Corp., 91 Phil 608 (1952)

81.

Adasa v. Abalos, G.R. No. 168617, February 19, 2007

and, or, and and/or


Agpalo, pp. 299-301
82. People v. Martin, G.R. No. 33487, May 31, 1971
83. Lincomcen v. Foundation Specialist, Inc., G.R. No. 169678, August
31, 2007
84. Rumarate v. Hernandez, 489 SCRA 317 (2006)
REPEALS
Agpalo, pp. 539-580
84.
85.

Villegas v. Subido, G.R. No. L-31711, September 30, 1971


Tac-an v. CA, G.R. No. L-38736, May 21, 1984

Anda mungkin juga menyukai