DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Law 004M G04 & G07
st
1 Semester, SY 2015-2016
Dyan Danika G. Lim
Rules:
Coverage/Assignments for class will be given at least three (3) days before each
scheduled class. Students are expected to come to class prepared, having read all
assigned cases, texts and materials. Students will be called randomly to recite but
voluntary recitations are also welcome.
Students are allowed to glance only at their handwritten notes when called for
recitation. No electronic gadgets (cellular phones, tablets, laptops, etc.) may be used
during class. No coaching is allowed.
Students with perfect attendance will receive an incentive/bonus of four (4) points that
will be added to his/her final grade. This incentive diminishes according to the number
of absences. Students who come in after attendance has been called will be considered
absent for the purpose of attendance. However, said student may still be called for
recitation and will receive a grade of zero point zero (0.0) if absent when called.
Breakdown of Grades:
Recitations/Quizzes/Assignments: 40%
Midterms: 25%
Finals: 35%
Grade Point
4.00
3.75
3.50
3.25
3.00
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.75
1.50

Equivalent
99-100
97-98
95-96
93-94
91-92
89-90
87-88
85-86
83-84
81-82
79-80
1

Description
Excellent
Superior
Very Good
Good
Satisfactory
Fair

1.25
1.00
0.0

77-78
75-76
74-below

Passed
Failed

Recommended Textbook:
Ruben E. Agpalo, Statutory Construction, Sixth Edition 2009
COURSE OUTLINE
I.

INTRODUCTORY READINGS
RICHARD A. POSNER, Statutory Interpretation--in the Classroom and in the
Courtroom, 50 University of Chicago Law Review 800 (1983), available at
http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2873&context
=journal_articles
Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 U.S. 275 (1946), available at
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/328/275/case.html
Yates v. United States, 574 U. S. ____ (2015), available at
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-7451_m64o.pdf
In re: Max Shoop, 29 November 1920, 41 Phil. 213 (1920)

II.

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
1. Definition, Concept, Characteristics and Purpose
Caltex v. Palomar, G.R. No.L-19650, 29 September 1966, 18 SCRA 247
People v. Mapa, G.R. No. L-22301, 30 August 1967, 20 SCRA 1164
General v. Barrameda, G.R. No. 29906, 30 January 1976, 69 SCRA 182
National Federation of Labor v. Eisma, G.R. No. L-61236, 31 January 1984, 127 SCRA
419
Daoang v. Municipal Judge of San Nicolas, G.R. No. L-34568, 28 March 1988, 159
SCRA 369
Paras v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 123169, 4 November 1994, 264 SCRA 49
2. Power to Construe; Limitations
Endencia v. David, G.R. Nos. L-6355-56, 31 August 1953, 93 Phil. 696
A. How must Legislative intent be ascertained?

Aisporna v. CA, G.R. No. L-39419, 12 April 1982, 113 SCRA 459
China Bank v. Ortega, G.R. No. L-34964, 31 January 1973, 49 SCRA 355
Board of Administrators of the P.V.A. v. Bautista, G.R. No. L-37867, 22 February
1982, 112 SCRA 59
B. Construction v. Judicial Legislation
Floresca v. Philex Mining Corporation, G.R. No. L-30642, 30 April 1985, 136
SCRA 142 (Note: read dissenting opinions)
Tanada v. Yulo, G.R No. 43575, 31 May 1935
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, 3 February 1997, 267 SCRA 408
(Note: read Justice Panganibans dissenting opinion)
3. Aids to Interpretation and Construction
A. Intrinsic Aids
i.

Title

Ebarle v. Sucaldito, G.R. No. L-33628, 29 December 1987, 156 SCRA 803
City of Baguio v. Marcos, G.R. No. 26100, 28 February 1969, 27 SCRA 342
ii.

Preamble

People v. Purisima, G.R. Nos. 402050-66, 20 November 1978, 86 SCRA 542

iii.

Punctuation Marks

People v. Subido, G.R. No. 21734, 5 September 1975, 66 SCRA 545

Florentino v. PNB, G.R. No. L-8782, 28 April 1956, 98 Phil. 959
iv.

Headnotes or Epigraphs

People v. Yabut, G.R. No. 39085, 27 September 1933, 58 Phil. 499

v.

Definition, Sections and Interpretation Clauses/Statutory Directives

People v. Buenviaje, G.R. No. L-29945, 3 March 1925, 47 Phil. 536

Vergara, Jr. v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 176985, 1 April 2013
Republic Act No. 6938 (1990), 126
Republic Act. 7160 (1991), 5
Republic Act No. 8792 (2000), 37
Republic Act No. 9285 (2004), 8, 20, 25

Republic Act No. 9372 (2007), 2, 53

B. Extrinsic Aids
i.

Origin of the Statute

Carolina Industries, Inc. v. CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc., G.R. No. L-46908, 17 May
1980, 97 SCRA 734
U.S. v. De Guzman, G.R. No. L-9144, 27 March 1915, 30 Phil. 416
Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Feati Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No. L-24670, 94
SCRA 533
ii.

Legislative History

Song Kiat Chocolate Factory v. Central Bank, G.R. No. L-8888, 29 November
1957, 102 Phil. 477
Buenaseda v. Flavier, G.R. No. 106719, 21 September 1993, 226 SCRA 645
Francisco v. Bosier, G.R. No. 137677, 31 May 2000, 332 SCRA 792.
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. S.S.C., G.R. L-15045, 20 January 1961, 1
SCRA 10.
iii.
a.

Contemporary Construction
General Rule on Executive Construction
PAFLU v. Bureau of Labor Relations, GR L-43760, 21 August 1976, 72
SCRA 396
Victorias Milling v. Social Security Commission, GR L-16704, 17 March
1962, 4 SCRA 629
Nestle Philippines Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86738, 13 November
1991, 203 SCRA 504

b.

When Executive Construction is not given weight

Philippine Apparel Workers Union v. NLRC, GR L-50320, 31 July 1981, 106
SCRA 444
IBAA Employees Union v. Inciong, GR L-52415, 23 Oct. 1984, 132 SCRA
663
Philippine Scout Veterans Security & Investigation Agency Inc. v. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 99858, 20 September 1996, 262
SCRA 112
Adasa v. Abalos, G.R. No. 168617, 19 February 2007

iv.

Other Aids (dictionaries, documents, legal treatises, etc.)

4

III.

STATUTES AND THEIR ENACTMENT

Read Article VI, Sections 1, 16, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30 and 31, and Article VII, Section 10 of the
1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES and all other relevant constitutional provisions
cited in the cases below.
1. Legislative Power
A. Legislative Power in General, Where Lodged
Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, 8 April 2014
La Suerte Cigar v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125346, 11 November 2014
B. Bicameralism
Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 202242, 16 April 2013
Garcillano v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 170338, 23 December 2008
2. Statutes and their Enactment
A. Parts of a Statute
i.

Title

Lidasan v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 29089, 29 October 1967 21 SCRA 496

BANAT v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 177508, 7 August 2009, 595 SCRA 477
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.

Preamble
Enacting Clause
Body
Repealing Clause
Separability Clause
Effectivity Clause

B. Formalities/Steps in the Enactment of the Statute

Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate, G.R. No. 19671, 18 October 2011, 659 SCRA
270
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 25 August 1994, 235 SCRA 630
C. Approval of Bills
Abakada Guro Party-list v. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, 14 August 2008, 562 SCRA
251

D. Evidence of Due Enactment of Laws

i.

Enrolled Bill Theory

Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, G.R. No. L-1223, 5 March 1947, 78 Phil. 1

Casco Phil. Chemical Co., Inc. v. Gimenez, G.R. No. L-17931, 28 February 1963, 7
SCRA 347
Arroyo v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255, 14 August 1997, 277 SCRA 268
ii.

Journal Entry Rule

Astorga v. Villegas, G.R. No. 23475, 30 April 1974, 56 SCRA 714

IV.

SPECIFIC TYPES OF STATUTES AND THEIR INTERPRETATION

1. Constitution
A. How construed?
Sarmiento v. Mison, G.R. No. 79974, 17 December 1987
J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration, G.R. No. L-21064, 18
February 1970, 31 SCRA 413
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 83896, 22 February 1991,
194 SCRA 317
Nitafan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-78780, 23 July 1987, 152
SCRA 284
Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 14789, 26 June 2011
B. May the preamble be referred to in the construction of a Constitutional
provision?
Aglipay v. Ruiz, G.R. No. 45459, 13 March 1937, 64 Phil. 201
C. Are the provisions of the Constitution self-executing?
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, 3 February 1997, 267 SCRA 408
Taada v. Angara, G.R No. 118295, 2 May 1997, 272 SCRA 18
Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 30 July 1993, 224 SCRA 792
D. Mandatory and Directory Provisions
Marcelino v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-42428, 18 March 1983, 121 SCRA 51
Co v. Electoral Tribunal, G.R. Nos. 92191-92, 30 July 1991, 199 SCRA 692

2. Ordinances and Administrative Orders

Primicias v. Urdaneta, G.R. No. L-26702, 18 October 1979, 93 SCRA 462
Conte v. COA, G.R. No. 116422, 4 November 1996, 264 SCRA 19\6yBI
3. Penal Statutes
Centeno v. Villalon Pornillos, G.R. No. 113092, 1 September 1994
U.S. v. Go Chico, G.R. No. 4963. 15 September 1909
4. Tax Laws
Marinduque Iron Mines v. Municipal Council, G.R. No. L-18924, 30 June 1964
NPC v. City of Cabanatuan, G.R. No. 149110, 9 April 2003
A. How are tax refunds construed?
La Carlota Sugar Central v. Jimenez, G.R. No. L-12436, 31 May 1961, 2 SCRA 295
B. Who has the burden of proof in tax cases?
CIR v. CA, G.R. No. L-115349, 18 April 1997, 271 SCRA 605
Mactan Cebu (MCIAA) v. Marcos, G.R. No. 120082, 11 September 1996
C. Tax Sales Construed
Serfino v. CA, G.R. No. L-40858, 15 September 1987
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Ariste, G.R. No. 164153, 21 January 2010
Maceda v. Macaraig, G.R. No, 88291, 31 May 1991
5. Labor Laws
Manahan v. ECC, G.R. No. L-44899, 22 April 1981, 104 SCRA 198
Villavert v. ECC, G.R. No. L-48605, 14 December 1981, 110 SCRA 233
Del Rosario & Sons v. NLRC, G.R. No. L-64204, 31 May 19985, 135 SCRA 669
6. Insurance
Ty v. First National Surety, G.R. No. L-16138, 29 April 1961, 1 SCRA 1324
De la Cruz v. Capital Insurance, G.R. No. L-21574, 30 June 1966, 17 SCRA 559
Qua Chee Gan v. Law Union and Rock Insurance, G.R. No. L-4611, 17
December 1955
7. Corporate Law

Home Insurance v. Eastern Shipping Lines, G.R. No. L-34382, 28 July 1983, 123
SCRA 425
8. Naturalization Laws
Lee Cho v. Republic, G.R. No. L-12408, 28 December 1959, 106 Phil. 775
9. Agrarian Reform Laws
Guerrero v. CA, G.R. No L-44570, 30 May 1986, 142 SCRA 136
10. Rules of Court
Bello v. CA, G.R. No. L-38161, 29 March 1947, 56 SCRA 509
Provincial Sheriff of Rizal v. CA, et.al., G.R. No. L-22606, 12 December 1975
11. Adoption Laws
Duncan v. Court of First Instance, G.R. No.L-30576, 10 February 1976
12. Expropriation Laws
City of Manila v. Chinese Community of Manila, G.R. No. 14355, 31 October 1919
13. Election Laws
Villanueva v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-54718, 4 December 1985, 140 SCRA 352
14. Wills
Tampoy v. Alberastine, G.R. No. L-14322, 25 February 1960, 107 Phil. 100
15. Local Government/Local Autonomy
San Juan v. CSC, G.R. No. 92299, 19 April 1991
V.

INTERPRETATION OF WORDS AND PHRASES

DANTE B. GATMAYTAN, Legal Method Essentials, University of the Philippines
College of Law 2012, pp. 192-220.
1. General and particular uses of words

Matuguina Integrated Wood Products, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 98310, 24 October
1996, 263 SCRA 490
Tan v. People, G.R. No. 115507, 19 May 1998, 290 SCRA 117
Malanyaon v. Lising, G.R. No. L-56028, 30 July 1981, 106 SCRA 237
2. Associated Words and Particular Latin Rules
A. Noscitur a sociis
Review Part II 2A: Aisporna v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-39419, 12 April
1982, 113 SCRA 459
Sanciangco v. Rono, G.R. No. L-68709, 19 July 1985, 137 SCR 671
People v. Delantar, G.R No. 169143, 2 February 2007
Dai-Chi Electronics Manufacturing Corporation v. Villarama, Jr., G.R. No. 112940,
21 November 1994, 238 SCRA 267
B. Ejusdem generis
Mutuc v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-32717, 26 November 1970, 36 SCRA 228
Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corporation, Inc., G.R. No. 111097, 20 July 1994, 234
SCRA 255
Philippine Basketball Association v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119112, 8 August
2007, 337 SCRA 358
Exceptions: Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Social Security Commission,
G.R. No. L-15045, 20 January 1961, 1 SCRA 10.
C. Expressio unius, est exclusio alterius
People v. Estenzo, G.R. No. L-35376, 11 September 1980, 99 SCRA 651
Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos, G.R. No. 113092, 1 September 2004, 236 SCRA 197
San Pablo Manufacturing Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R.
No. 147749, 22 June 2006
D. Dissimilum dissimilis est ratio
Garvida v. Sales, G.R. No. 124893, 18 April 1997, 271 SCRA 767
E. Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est
Commission on Audit of the Province of Cebu v. Province of Cebu, G.R. No. 141386,
29 November 2001, 371 SCRA 196
Spouses Delfino v. St. James Hospital, Inc., G.R. No. 166735, November 23, 2007

People v. Manantan, G.R. No. L-14129, 31 July 1962, 5 SCRA 684

F. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos
Ramirez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93833, 28 September 1995, 248 SCRA 590
MTRCB v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. G.R. No. 155282, January 17,
2005
Tiangco v. Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club, Inc. G.R. No. 168697, December 14,
2009
G. Reddendo singula singulis
People v. Tamani, G.R. Nos. L-22160-61, 31 January 1974, 55 SCRA 153
Amadora v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47745, 15 April 1988, 160 SCRA 315
H. Doctrine of necessary implication
Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 96663, 10
August 1999
Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 191818, June 7, 2011
I. Mens Legislatoris
Matabuena v. Cervantes, G.R. No. L-28771, 31 March 1971, 38 SCRA 284
3. Construction of Words and Phrases
A. May and Shall
Capati v. Ocampo, G.R. No. L-28742, 30 April 1982, 113 SCRA 799
Office of the Ombudsman v. Macabulos, G.R. No. 159395, 7 May 2008
B. Or and And
GMCR v. Bell Telecommunications, 30 April 1997, 271 SCRA 790
RMBSA v. HDMF, G.R. No. 131082, 19 June 2000
C. Principally and Exclusively
Alfon v. Republic, G.R. No. L-51201, 29 May 1980, 97 SCRA 859
D. Including
Sterling Selections Corporation v. LLDA, G.R. No. 171427, 30 March 2011

10

E. Verbal or Clerical Errors

Rufino Lopez & Sons v. CTA, G.R. No. 9274, 1 February 1957, 100 Phil. 850
F. Number, Gender and Tense
Santillon v. Miranda, G.R. No. 19281, 30 June 1965, 14 SCRA 563
G. Conjunctive and Disjunctive Words
Amon Trading Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 158585, 13 December 2005, 477 SCRA
552
H. Provisos, Exceptions, and Saving Clauses
See RUBEN E. AGPALO, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, pp. 236-246 (2003)

11