JENNIFER C.

CARULLA
STATCON
D. STATUTE AS A WHOLE
2. JMM PROMOTIONS AND MANAGEMENT, INC. V. NLRC, GR NO. 109835, NOV. 22,
1993
ISSUE:
Is JMM Promotions still required to post the required appeal bond, as
required?
FACTS:
JMM Promotions paid license fee amounting to P30,000.00 and posted a cash
bond of P100,000.00 and a surety bond of P50,000.00 as required by the POEA
Rules.
When JMM Promotions appealed to NLRC regarding a decision rendered by
POEA, the NLRC dismissed the petition for failure to post the required appeal bond
as required by Art. 223 of the Labor Code.
HELD:
Yes. The POEA Rules regarding monetary appeals are clear. A reading of the
POEA Rules show that, in addition to the cash and surety bonds and the escrow
money, an appeal bond in an amount equivalent to the monetary award is required
to perfect an appeal from a decision of the POEA.

3. RADIOLA TOSHIBA PHILIPPINES, INC. V. IAC, GR NO. 75222, JULY 18, 1991
ISSUE:
WON the levy on attachment dissolved the insolvency proceedings against
respondent spouses even though it commenced four months after and attachment
FACTS:
The levy on attachment against the subject properties of spouses Carlos and
Teresita Gatmaytan was issued on March 4, 1980 by the CFI of Pasig. However, the
insolvency proceedings in the CFI of Angeles City was commenced more than four
months after the issuance of the said attachment. Under the circumstances,
petitioner contended that its lien on the subject properties overrode the insolvency
proceeding and was not dissolved thereby.
HELD:
No. Sec. 32 of the Insolvency Law is clear that there is a cut off period one
month in attachment cases and thirty days in judgments entered in actions
commenced prior to the insolvency proceedings. Also, there is no conflict between
Sec. 32 and Sec. 79.
Where a statute is susceptible to more than one interpretation, the court
should adopt such reasonable and beneficial construction as will render the
provision thereof operative and effective and harmonious with each other.

4. ALPHA INVESTIGATION AND SECURITY AGENCY v. NLRC, GR No. 111722, MAY 27,
1997
ISSUE:

FACTS
HELD:
The interpretation is not acceptable. It is a cardinal rule in statutory
construction that in interpreting the meaning and scope of a term used in the law, a
careful review of the whole law involved as well as the intendment of the law, must
be made. In fact, legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the
statute as a whole, and not of an isolated part or a particular provision alone.

B/GEN. JOSE COMMENDADOR ET.AL. V. B/GEN. DEMETRIO CAMERA, GR NO. 96948,

AUGUST 2, 1991
ISSUE:
WON the right to peremptory challenge provide by Art. 18 of CA No. 408 has
been continued under PD 39.
FACTS
Petitioners are members of the AFP and were charged with violations of
Articles of War in relation with their alleged participation in a failed coup detat.
Their case was referred to General Court Martial No. 14. At a hearing, petitioners
manifested their desire to exercise their right to raise peremptory challenges
against the President and the members of the general court martial invoking Art. 18
of CA No. 408, GCM No. 14 ruled that peremptory challenges had been discontinued
under PD 39.
HELD:
NO. Although PD 39 disallowed peremptory (challenged allowed under CA No.
408, PD 39 however was issued to implement General Order No. 8 issued during
martial law to create military tribunals. With the lifting of Martial Law, General
Order No. 8 was revoked and military tribunals were dissolved. As such, the reason
for the existence of PD 39 ceased automatically.
When the reason of the law ceases, the law itself ceases. Cessante rationale
legis, cessat ipsa lex.