STAREDECISISETNONQUIETAMOVERE

StareDecisis
o
Judgemadelaw
o
Standsbydecisionsanddisturbnotwhatissettled
o
Barsonlyissuesthatwerealreadylitigatedinpreviouscase
LawoftheCase
o
Whateverwasonceirrevocablyestablishedasthecontrollinglegalprincipleordecision
continuestobethelawofthecasebetweenthesameparties,inthesamecase
ResJudicata

xxxItisthebetterpracticethatwhenacourthaslaiddownaprincipleoflawasapplicabletoacertainstateoffacts,itwilladheretothatprincipleandapplyittoall
futurecaseswherethefactsaresubstantiallythesame.'Staredecisisetnonquietamovere.
J.M. Tuason vs.
Mariano, Aquial
&Cordova

PlaintiffsAquial(hereinRespondents):
o
Claimed ownership of a parcel of land located in QC
havinganareaof383hectares.
o
Alleged that said land had been fraudulently or
erroneouslyincludedinOCTNo.735oftheRegistryof
DeedsofRizalandthatitwasregisteredinthenamesof
Defendants Tuason (herein Petitioners) pursuant to a
decreeissuedonJuly6,1914inCaseNo.7681ofthe
CourtofLandRegistration.
o
Declare void OCT No. 735 and the titles derived
therefromcertainirregularitiesinthelandregistration
proceeding
Tuason:
o
Dismisspetition courthasnojurisdictionoverthecase,
impropervenue,prescription,lachesandpriorjudgment.

YES,valid.
ValidityofOCTNo.735wasalreadydecideduponbytheSCinthecasesof
Beninvs.Tuason,Alcantaravs.TuasonandPilivs.Tuason.Therulingin
thesecaseswasalsoappliedinothercasesinvolvingthevalidityofOCTNo.
735.
Principleofstaredecisis;Actiontoinvalidateanoriginalcertificateoftitle
cannotprosperduetosettledjurisprudencethatthetitleisvalidandnolonger
opentoattack.
It is against public policy that matters already decided on the merits be
relitigatedagainandagain,consumingthecourtstimeandenergiesatthe
expenseofotherlitigants:Interestreipublicaeutfinissitlitium.

Cordova spouses=intervernorsastheywereable topurchase11

hectaresfromtheAquials.

Negros
NavigationCo.vs
CA

ISSUE:W/NOCT.No.735isvalid
SameSituationonMecenasvs.CA
Privaterespondent,Miranda:
o
purchased tickets for family members, now suing for
damages
.
Petitioner,NegrosNavi:
Respondentdidpurchasethetickets
VesselleftthepieronApril22,1980andsankthatnight
X4relativesdidboardthevesselsincetheirbodieswere
neverfound
M:

RTC:

Yes,infindingpetitionerguiltyofnegligenceandinfailingtoexercisethe
extraordinarydiligencerequiredofitinthecarriageofpassengers,boththe
trial court and the appellate court relied on the findings of this Court in
Mecenasv.IntermediateAppellate Court,whichcase wasbroughtfor the
deathofotherpassengers.
Adherence to the Mecenas case is dictated by this Courts policy of
maintaining stability in jurisprudence in accordance with the legal maxim
stare decisis et non quieta movere (Follow past precedents and do not
disturbwhathasbeensettled.)

Victimsboardedthevesselandhestayedwiththemuntil
theshipleftthepier.
Edgardo Ramirez, a survivor, testified that the victims
wereonboardandtheytalkedforsometime.Hewaswith
Mrs.Miranda,herchildrenandniecefrom7:00pmuntil
10:00pmandhaddinnerwiththem.

In favor of the private respondents + petitioners pay

damages
ISSUE:W/NtheMecenasCaseisbindingonthematterathand
Tala Realty vs. Tala:
BancoFilipino
oOnthebasisofacontractofleaseexecutedonAugust25,1981.its
contractwithBancoFilipinoexpiredonAugust31,1992.
oBancoFilipinohascontinuedtooccupythepremisesevenafterthe
expirationofthelease.
oOnJune2,1993,TalaimposeduponBancoFilipinothefollowing
termsandconditions:thatthe bankshouldpayP70,050.00as
monthlyrentalretroactiveasofSeptember1,1992,withrental
escalationof10%peryear;andadvancedepositequivalentto
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION | Atty. Chip Pilapil | 2015-2016
of 11
Doctrines and Case Digests

11yearcontract=forgery
(1)TeodoroO.Arcenas,thenExecutiveVicePresidentofprivaterespondent
Banco Filipino, denied having signed the contract; (2) the records of the
notarypublicwhonotarizedthesaidcontract,Atty.GenerosoS.Fulgencio,
Jr.,donotincludethesaiddocument;and(3)thesaidcontractwasnever
submittedtotheCentralBankasrequiredbythelatter'srulesandregulations.
Withthis,the20yearleasecontractisstillsubsistingandwillexpirein2001
yet,BancoFilipinoisentitledtothepossessionofthesubjectpremisesforas
Page 1

rentsforfourmonths,plusagoodwillofP500,000.00.
BancoFilipino:
o
DidnotcomplyandinApril1994,stoppedpayingrents.
o
Deniedhavingexecutedtheleasecontractprovidingforaterm
ofeleven(11)years;claimingthatitscontractwithTalaisfor
twenty (20) years, citing the Contract of Lease executed on
August25,1981.
Castillo vs.
Sandiganbayan

ISSUE:W/N11yrcontractsuperseded20yrcontract?
It is alleged that Castillo acted as a dummy/agent of several
defendants in trying to conceal ownership of Silahis International
Hotel.Petitionerdiedinthecourseofproceedings.He,however,as
attorneyinfactofdefendants,invokedlawyerclientprivilegeasa
defense for the dismissalof the case prior to hisdemise.After a
motion for reconsideration on he matter, petitioners claim was
denied,hencethecaseatbar.HeinvokedthedecisiononRegalavs
Sandiganbayan where lawyerclient privilege was honored. It was
decidedthatbecausepetitionerwasnotamerewitnessbutrathera
partydefendant,aswell,itisonlypropertoaccordtohimhisright
againstselfincriminationandhisfundamentallegalrighttomaintain
attorneyclientconfidentiality.
ISSUE:W/NCastillosinvocationoftheRegalavs.Sandiganbayan
rulingmayapply

Ferminvs.People
ofthePhilippines

CristyFermin:publisher
BogsTugas:editorinchiefofGossipTabloid
o
TheJune14,1995headlineandleadstoryofthetabloidsays
thatitisimprobableforAnnabelleRamatogototheUSshould
itbetruethatsheisevadingherconvictioninanestafacase
hereinthePhilippinesforsheandhusbandEddiehavemore
problems/casestoconfrontthere.Thiswassaidtobedueto
their, especially Annabelle's, using fellow Filipinos money,
failuretoremitproceedstothemanufacturingcompanyofthe
cookwaretheyweresellingandnotbeingongoodtermswith
thelatter.
o
AnnabelleandEddiefiledlibelcasesagainstFerminandTugas
beforeRTCofQC,Br.218.
o
RTC:FerminandTugasfoundguiltyoflibel.
o
CA:Tugaswasacquittedonaccountofnonparticipationbut
Fermin'sconvictionwasaffirmed.
o
Fermin's motion for reconsideration was denied hence, this
petition. She argues that she had no knowledge and
participationinthepublicationofthearticle,thatthearticleis
notlibelousandiscoveredbythefreedomofthepress.

longasitpaystheagreedrentalanddoesnottheothertermsandconditions
thereof. The validity of the twenty (20) year lease contract was further
reinforcedonpreviouscasesinvolvingthesameparties

Yes.
The Court adopted its own ruling in theRegalacase: an argument is
advancedthattheinvocationbypetitioneroftheprivilegeofattorneyclient
confidentiality at this state of the proceedings is premature and that they
shouldwaituntiltheyarecalledtotestifyandexamineaswitnessesasto
matters learned in confidence before they can raise their objection. But
petitioners are not mere witnesses. They are coprincipals in the case for
recoveryof allegedillgottenwealth.Theyhave made their position clear
fromtheverybeginningthattheyarenotwillingtotestifyandtheycannotbe
compelled to testify in view of their constitutional right against self
incriminationandoftheirfundamentallegalrighttomaintaininviolatethe
privilege

of

attorneyclient

confidentiality.

Proofofknowledgeofandparticipation inthepublication is not

required, iftheaccused hasbeenspecificallyidentifiedas author,
editor,orproprietororprinter/publisherofthepublication.
o
Petitioner was not only the publisher, but also the
presidentandchairperson.

Petitioners criminal guilt should be affirmed,

whether or not she had actual knowledge and
participation.

Theelementsoflibelwerepresent.
o
Evident imputation of the crime of malversation
(converting money for personal use), of vices or
defects for being fugitives from the law (evading
prosecutioninAmerica)andofbeingawastrel
o
Attribution made publicly. Gossip Tabloid had a
nationwidecirculation.
o
Thevictimswereidentifiedandidentifiable.
o
Thearticle reeksof malice,asittendstocausethe
dishonor,discredit,orcontemptofthecomplainants.

Maliceinlawthearticlewasmaliciousin
itself;theimputationswerefalse.

Maliceinfacttherewasmotivetotalkill
against complainants during the electoral
campaign as Fermin is a close friend of
Eddie'sopponentintheCongressionalrace

While complainants are considered public figures for being

personalitiesintheentertainmentbusiness,mediapeopledonot
havetheunbridledlicensetomaligntheirhonoranddignityby
indiscriminately airing fabricated and malicious comments,
whetherinbroadcastmediaorinprint,abouttheirpersonallives.

Note:CAerredinacquittingTugas,hebeingtheeditorinchief.ButtheSC
cannotreinstatetherulingofthetrialcourtconvictingBogsTugasbecause
withhisacquittalbytheCAasthatwouldrunafoulofhisconstitutionalright
againstdoublejeopardy.
Ting vs. Velez
Ting

In1972,BenjaminTingandCarmenVelezmeteachotherinmedical
school.In1975,theymarriedeachother.
B and C had 6 children during their marriage. After 18 years of
marriage,Carmenwenttocourttohavetheirmarriagebedeclared
voidonthegroundthatBenjaminwaspsychologicallyincapacitated
drunkard; gambler, violent, and would rather spend on his
expensivehobby;thatherarelystayedhomeandevenneglectedhis

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION | Atty. Chip Pilapil | 2015-2016

of 11
Doctrines and Case Digests

No.TheSupremeCourtfoundtheevidencepresentedtobelackinginorderto
supportafindingofpsychologicalincapacityonthepartofBenjamin.Said
theSupremeCourt.
Anent the issue that Benjamin was not personally evaluated by the
psychologistswhichdeviatesfromtheMolinaGuidelines,theSupremeCourt
ruledthatasearlyasthecaseofTevsTe,theMolinaGuidelineswerealready
Page 2

childrenandfamilyobligations.
ISSUE:Whether or not Benjamin Tings psychological incapacity
wasproven.

J.R.A. Phils. Inc.

vs.CIR

Petitioner, a PEZA Corporation, filed applications for tax

credit/refundofunutilizedinputVATonitszeroratedsalesforthe
taxable quarters of 2000. The claim for credit/refund, however,
remained unacted by the respondent. Hence, petitioner was
constrainedtofileapetitionbeforetheCTA.
TheCTAeventuallydeniedthepetitionforlackofthewordzero
ratedontheinvoices/receipts.
Issue: WON the failure to print the word zerorated on the
invoices/receiptsisfataltoaclaimforcredit/refundofinputVATon
zeroratedsales

relaxed.CasesinvolvingArticle36mustbetriedonacasetocasebasis.Each
caseinvolvingthe applicationofArticle36mustbetreateddistinctlyand
judged not on the basis ofa prioriassumptions, predilections or
generalizations but according to its own attendant facts. Courts should
interpret the provision on a casetocase basis, guided by experience, the
findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by
decisionsofchurchtribunals.TheSupremeCourthoweveremphasizedthat
theMolinacasewasnotabandoned,itsapplicationwasmerelyrelaxed.
Yes.Theabsenceofthewordzeroratedontheinvoices/receiptsisfataltoa
claim for credit/refund of input VAT. This has been squarely resolved
inPanasonic Communications Imaging Corporation of the Philippines
(formerly MatsushitaBusinessMachineCorporationofthePhilippines)v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue (G.R. No. 178090, 612 SCRA 28,
February8,2010).Inthatcase,theclaimfortaxcredit/refundwasdeniedfor
noncompliance with Section 4.1081 of Revenue Regulations No. 795,
whichrequiresthewordzeroratedtobeprintedontheinvoices/receipts
coveringzeroratedsales.
Fromtheabovementioneddecision,theCourtruledthattheappearanceofthe
wordzeroratedonthefaceofinvoicescoveringzeroratedsalesprevents
buyersfromfalselyclaiminginputVATfromtheirpurchaseswhennoVAT
wasactuallypaid.If,absentsuchword,asuccessfulclaimforinputVATis
made,thegovernmentwouldberefundingmoneyitdidnotcollect.
Staredecisisetnonquietamovere.Courtsareboundbypriordecisions.
Thus,onceacasehasbeendecidedoneway,courtshavenochoicebutto
resolvesubsequentcasesinvolvingthesameissueinthesamemanner

LAWOFTHECASE
Zarate vs. The ProceedingtoregisterthetitletolandwhichPHgovtwasclaimingto
DirectorofLands
bepartofthepublicdomainandwasoccupiedbyApolonioGamido
and Bibiana Olivite by virtue of applications made by them for
homesteadsNos.2061and5626,respectively.
Landinquestion:
o
Belongs to applicant who has shown by a strong
preponderance of the evidence that he is the owner
thereof.
o
Notbeingpublicand,theGovernmentofthePhilippine
Islandshadnoauthoritytodeclareitopenforhomesteads
UnderActNo.926apatentissuedundertheHomesteadLawhasall
theforceandeffectofaTorrenstitleacquiredunderActNo.496;
andthatbeingthecase,andnoquestionhavingbeenraisedhereorin
thecourtbelowastothevalidityofthatActinconnectionwiththe
proceedingsforhomesteadsmentionedinthiscase,wemustrespect
the title so secured, provided it be a fact that a patent has been
securedinanyofsaidhomesteadproceedings.
Itclearlyappearsthattheapplicantandhispredecessorsininterest
weretheownersofandhadagoodtitlethereto.
Issue:WONtheapplicanthastherighttoregisterthetitledescribed
intheapplication
Padillovs.Court
ofAppeals

Petitioner Padillo prayedfor the issuance of aninjunctive writto

place her in the possession and use of her said property, and
prohibiting respondents from disturbing the same; and ultimately,
thatjudgmentberenderedorderingrespondentstopaycertainfees.
ItappearsthatpriortotheinstitutionofCivilCaseNo.9114,there
werealreadythree(3)actionswhichinvolvedthesaidproperty.

Tolentinovs.Roy
Loyola,et.al.

RESJUDICATA
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION | Atty. Chip Pilapil | 2015-2016
of 11
Doctrines and Case Digests

Itisdeclaredthattheapplicanthastherighttoregistertitletoallofthelands
describedintheapplication,withtheexceptionofthatportionclaimedasa
homesteadbyA.G,whichhomesteadshallbeexcludedfromregistrationby
theapplicantprovidedtheCourtofLandRegistrationshallfindthatsaidA.G.
hasobtainedapatentforsaidland;butiftheCourtofLandRegistrationfinds
thatA.G.hasnotyetobtainedapatenttherefor,thenthecourtshallregister
titleinfavoroftheapplicanttoallthelandsdescribedintheapplication.

A wellknown legal principle is that when an appellate court has once

declaredthelawinacase,suchdeclarationcontinuestobethelawofthat
caseevenonasubsequentappeal.Therulemadebyanappellatecourt,while
it maybe reversedinother cases,cannot be departedfrominsubsequent
proceedingsinthesamecase.The"LawoftheCase,"asappliedtoaformer
decisionofanappellatecourt,merelyexpressesthepracticeofthecourtsin
refusingtoreopenwhathasbeendecided.Sucharuleis"necessarytoenable
anappellatecourttoperformitsdutiessatisfactorilyandefficiently,which
wouldbeimpossibleifaquestion,onceconsideredanddecidedbyit,wereto
belitigatedanewinthesamecaseuponanyandeverysubsequentappeal."
Again,theruleisnecessaryasamatterofpolicytoendlitigation."There
wouldbenoendtoasuitifeveryobstinatelitigantcould,byrepeatedappeals,
compelacourttolistentocriticismsontheiropinions,orspeculateofchances
fromchangesinitsmembers.
Lawofthecasehasbeendefinedastheopiniondeliveredonaformerappeal.
Morespecifically,itmeansthatwhateverisonceirrevocablyestablishedas
thecontrollinglegalruleordecisionbetweenthesamepartiesinthesame
case continues to be the law of the case,whether correct on general
principlesornot,solongasthefactsonwhichsuchdecisionwaspredicated
continuetobethe factsofthecase beforethe court.Asageneralrule,a
decision on a prior appeal of the same case is held to be the law of the
casewhetherthatquestionisrightorwrong,theremedyofthepartydeeming
himselfaggrievedbeingtoseekarehearing.
Thelawofthecasedoctrineappliesinasituationwhereanappellatecourthas
madearulingonaquestiononappealandthereafterremandsthecasetothe
lowercourtforfurtherproceedings;thequestionsettledbytheappellatecourt
becomesthelawofthecaseatthelowercourtandinanysubsequentappeal

Page 3

Confederation of
Sugar Producers
Association, Inc.
vs.DAR
DEFINITIONOFSTATUTORYCONSTRUCTION
Constructiondefined
Constructionistheartorprocessofdiscoveringandexpoundingthemeaningandintentionoftheauthorsofthelaw,wherethatintentionrendereddoubtfullyreasonof
ambiguityinitslanguageorofthefactthatthegivencaseisnotexplicitlyprovidedforinthelaw.
Constructionisdrawingofwarrantedconclusionsbeyonddirectexpressionofthetextexpressionswhichareinspiritthoughnotwithinthetext.
xxxinevitably,thereentersintotheconstructionofstatutestheplayofjudicialjudgmentwithinthelimitsoftherelevantlegislativematerials
involvestheexerciseofchoicebythejudiciary
Caltex

vs. Petitioner:
Palomar
oCaltexHoodedPumpContest:participantshavetoestimatethe No,saidcontestisnotagiftenterprise.
actualnumberoflitersahoodedgaspumpcandispenseduringa
specificperiodoftimenofeeorconsiderationrequiredtobe Lottery a game of chance where the elements of which are (1)
paid, nor anypurchase of anyCaltexproductsto be made in consideration,(2)chance,and(3)prize.
Gift Enterprise & Scheme in the provision of the Postal Law making
ordertojointhecontest.
oForeseeing the extensive use of mail for advertising and unmailable any lottery, gift, enterprise, or scheme for the distribution of
communications, Caltex requested clearance for Respondent moneyoranyrealorpersonalpropertybylot,chance,ordrawingofany
kindmeanssuchenterpriseaswillrequireconsiderationasanelement.
PostmasterGeneral
Respondent:
oContesisagiftenterprise:deemedasanonmailablematterunder The intent of the prohibition is to suppress the tendency to inflame the
gambling spirit and to corrupt public morals. There being no element of
theantilotteryprovisionsofthePostalLaw.
considerationinsaidcontest,thespiritofthelawispreserved.
Petitionerfiledapetitionfordeclaratoryrelief.
ISSUE:W/NtheCaltexHoodedPumpContestfallsundertheterm
giftenterprisewhichisbannedbythePostalLaw
CONSTITUTIONALCONSTRUCTION
Afoolproofyardstickinconstitutionalconstructionistheintentionunderlyingtheprovision.
VerbaLegis
Whereverpossible,wordsusedintheConstitutionmustbegiventheirordinarymeaningexceptwheretechnicaltermsareemployed.
RatioLegisEstAnima
Wherethereisambiguity,thewordsoftheConstitutionshouldbeinterpretedinaccordancewiththeintentofitsframers.
UtMagisValeatQuamPereat
Constitutionistobeinterpretedaswhole.
Civil Liberties Petitioners:
No.
Union

vs.
o
AssailsE.O.284:allowsmembersoftheCabinet,their
Executive
undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold other Sec.13,Art.7,PCmeanttolaydownthegeneralruleofholdingmultiple
Secretary
government offices or positions in addition to their offices applicable to all elective public officials and employees while the
latterismeantfortheexceptionofthePresident,VicePresident,membersof
primarypositions.
theCabinet,theirdeputiesandassistants.
This runs counter to Art. 7, Sec. 13 of the Constitution which
provides that the President, VicePresident, the Members of the ConstructiongiventoSec13,Art7inrelationtoSec7,par.(2),ArtIXBof
Cabinet,andtheirdeputiesandassistantsshallnot,unlessotherwise the1987Constitution,EO284isunconstitutional.Byrestrictingthenumber
providedbytheConstitution,holdanyotherofficeoremployment thataforementionedpositionsmayholdinadditiontotheirprimaryposition
tonotmorethan2positionsinthegovernmentandgovernmentcorporations,
duringtheirtenure.
EO284actuallyallowsthemtoholdmultipleofficesoremploymentindirect
ISSUE: Does EO 284, which authorizes a cabinet member, contravention of the express mandate of Sec 13, Art 7 of the 1987
undersecretary and assistant secretary to hold not more than two Constitutionprohibitingthemfromdoingso,unlessotherwiseprovidedinthe
positions in the government and GOCCs and to receive 1987Constitutionitself.
correspondingcompensationtherefore,violatesSec.13,Art.7ofthe
Evidentpurposeoftheframersofthe1987Constitutionistoimposeastricter
1987Constitution
prohibitiononthePresident,VicePresident,membersoftheCabinet,their
deputiesandassistantswithrespecttoholdingmultiplegovernmentofficesor
employment in the Government during their tenure, the exception to this
prohibitionmustbereadwithequalseverity
LEGISINTERPRETATIONLEGISVIMOBTINET(Theconstructionofthelawobtainstheforceoflaw)
Theinterpretationplaceduponthewrittenlawbyacompetentcourthastheforceoflaw(legisinterpretadolegisvimobtinet)
Peoplevs.Jabinal

Jabinal was found guilty of the crime of Illegal Possession

ofFirearmandAmmunition.Theaccusedadmittedthathe was in
possession

of

the

revolver

and
theammunitiondescribedinthecomplaint withoutthe requisite
licenseorpermit.Hehoweverclaimedtobeentitledtoexoneration
becausealthoughhehadnolicensepermit,hehadanappointmentas
Secret Agent from the Provincial Governor ofBatangas
andanappointmentasConfidential

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION | Atty. Chip Pilapil | 2015-2016

of 11
Doctrines and Case Digests

Whenadoctrineisoverruledandadifferentviewisadopted,thenewdoctrine
shouldbeappliedprospectivelyandshouldnotprejudicepartieswhorelied
ontheolddoctrine

Page 4

AgentfromthePCProvincialCommanderandthesaid
appointmentsexpressly carriedwith themthe authority topossess
andcarrythefirearminquestion.Theaccusedcontendedbeforethe
court

quo

that

in

view
ofhisabovementionedappointmentsasSecretAgentand
Confidential Agent withauthority topossessthefirearm subject
matteroftheprosecution,hewasentitledtoacquittalonthebasisof
theSupremeCourtsdecisioninPeoplevs.MacarandangandPeople
vs. Lucero and not on the basis of the latest reversal and
abandonmentinPeopleMapa.
ISSUE:
Wappellantshouldbeacquittedonthebasisofthecourtsrulingsin
MacarandangandLucero?
Pescavs.Pesca

LornaPescafiledforannulmentagainstherspouseZosimoPescaon
the ground of psychological incapacity. Respondent denied the
allegationthathewaspsychologicallyincapacitated
RTC:declaredthemarriagenullandvoidabinitioonthebasisof
psychologicalincapacity.
RespondentappealedtotheCourtofAppealswherethedecision
wasreversed.
Petitioner arguedthat the doctrine enunciated inSantos v. CA
(promulgatedonJanuary1995),aswellastheguidelinessetoutin
Republic v. CA and Molina (February 1997) should have no
retroactiveapplication.

The intent of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological
incapacitytothemostseriouscasesofpersonalitydisordersthatareclearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significancetothemarriage.

ISSUE: WON the decision in the Santos and Molina cases have
retroactiveapplication
WHENISTHEREROOMFORINTERPRETATIONORCONSTRUCTION?
Songcovs.NLRC
Amores vs.
HRET
WHENCANCOURTSCONSTRUEORINTERPRETTHELAW?
RCBCvs.IAC
Go Ka Toc Sons
vs.RiceandCorn
Board
Peoplevs.Mapa
Mapa:
oAccusedofillegalpossessionoffirearms
oSayshewasanappointedSecretAgentoftheprovincialGovernorof
Batangas.
oSeekstobeacquittedasthecaseofPeoplev.Macarandangusedthe
samedefenseprovidingevidencesofhisappointment.
ISSUE:W/NaSecretAgentfallsamongthoseauthorizedtopossess
firearms.
PUNCTUATIONANDGRAMMAR:ANAIDTOCONSTRUCTION
USvs.Hart
Hart:
oCaughtinagamblinghouse
oPenalizedunderActNo.519whichpunisheseverypersonfound
loiteringabout saloons or dram shopsor gambling houses,or
trampingorstrayingthroughthecountrywithoutvisiblemeans
ofsupport.
Thesaidportionofthelawisdividedintotwoparts,separatedbythe
comma, separating those caught in gambling houses and those
strayingthroughthecountrywithoutmeansofsupport.
ThoughitwasproventhatHartandtheotherDefendantshadvisible
meansofsupport,itwasunderthefirstpartoftheportionoflawfor
whichtheywerechargedwith.The prosecution persistedthatthe
phrasewithoutvisiblemeansofsupportwasinconnectiontothe
secondpartofthesaidportionofActNo.519,thereforewasnota
viabledefense.
ISSUE:Howshouldtheprovisionbeinterpreted?
INTERNAL,EXTERNALAIDSINCONSTRUCTION
Floresca vs. Petitioners surviving family of deceased employees of
PhilexMining
Respondent Corporation who died as a result of a cavein while
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION | Atty. Chip Pilapil | 2015-2016
of 11
Doctrines and Case Digests

No.The courtheld that the law cannotbe anyclearer.The law doesnot

containanyexceptionforsecretagentthereforeholdingthispositionwould
not constitute a sufficient defense to a prosecution for a crime of illegal
possession of firearm and ammunitions. Wherefore the conviction of the
accused must stand. The Courts ruling overturned that of People v.
Macarandang.

The construction of a statute = something more substantial than mere

punctuation.
Ifthepunctuationgivesitameaningwhichisreasonableandisinapparent
accordwithlegislativewill,itmaybeasanadditionalargumentforadopting
theliteralmeaningofthewordsinthestatuteasthuspunctuated.
Anargumentbasedonpunctuationsaloneisnotconclusiveandthecourtwill
not hesitate tochange the punctuationwhennecessarytogive the actthe
effect intended by the legislature, disregarding superfluous and incorrect
punctuationmarks,orinsertingotherswhennecessary.Inasmuchasdefendant
had,visiblemeansofsupportandthattheabsenceofsuchwasnecessary
fortheconvictionforgamblingandloiteringinsaloonsandgamblinghouses,
defendantsareacquitted.

Page 5

workinginundergroundminingoperations.
PetitionersrecovereddamagesundertheWorkmensCompensation
Act. However, a later report on the accident showed there was
negligence on the part of Respondent Corporation. Thereafter,
Petitioners filed a civil suit to recover damages for Respondent
Corporationsrecklessandwantonnegligence.
ISSUE:W/NPetitionershavetherighttochoosebetweenavailingof
theworkersrightundertheWorkmensCompensationActorsuing
intheregularcourtsundertheCivilCodeforhigherdamages.
HOWMUSTLEGISLATIVEINTENTBEASCERTAINED
Aispornavs.CA
Petitioners surviving family of deceased employees of
Respondent Corporation who died as a result of a cavein while
workinginundergroundminingoperations.
PetitionersrecovereddamagesundertheWorkmensCompensation
Act. However, a later report on the accident showed there was
negligence on the part of Respondent Corporation. Thereafter,
Petitioners filed a civil suit to recover damages for Respondent
Corporationsrecklessandwantonnegligence.
ISSUE:W/NPetitionershavetherighttochoosebetweenavailingof
theworkersrightundertheWorkmensCompensationActorsuing
intheregularcourtsundertheCivilCodeforhigherdamages.
CONSTITUTIONALCONSTRUCTIONvisvisJUDICIALLEGISLATION
Floresca vs. Petitioners surviving family of deceased employees of
PhilexMining
Respondent Corporation who died as a result of a cavein while
workinginundergroundminingoperations.
PetitionersrecovereddamagesundertheWorkmensCompensation
Act. However, a later report on the accident showed there was
negligence on the part of Respondent Corporation. Thereafter,
Petitioners filed a civil suit to recover damages for Respondent
Corporationsrecklessandwantonnegligence.

Petitioners maysue in the regular courtsunder the Civil Code for higher
damages. However, in light of the fact that they have already recovered
damages from the Workmens Compensation Act, if they are awarded a
greateramountintheregularcourts,theamountreceivedfromthisActshall
be deducted to prevent the instance of double recovery. An injured party
cannotpursuebothcoursesofactionsimultaneously.
InallowingPetitionerstosueinregularcourts,theCourtstatedthatitdidnot
legislateinthiscasebutrather,appliedandgaveeffecttotheconstitutional
guaranteesofsocialjustice.

Petitioners maysue in the regular courtsunder the Civil Code for higher
damages. However, in light of the fact that they have already recovered
damages from the Workmens Compensation Act, if they are awarded a
greateramountintheregularcourts,theamountreceivedfromthisActshall
be deducted to prevent the instance of double recovery. An injured party
cannotpursuebothcoursesofactionsimultaneously.InallowingPetitioners
tosueinregularcourts,theCourtstatedthatitdidnotlegislateinthiscasebut
rather, applied and gave effect to the constitutional guarantees of social
justice.

ISSUE:W/NPetitionershavetherighttochoosebetweenavailingof
theworkersrightundertheWorkmensCompensationActorsuing
intheregularcourtsundertheCivilCodeforhigherdamages.
DEFINITIONOFSTATUTORYCONSTRUCTION
STATUTES,ORDINANCESandADMINISTRATIVEREGULATION
WhatisaStatute?
Statutes,generally:
o
ActsofLegislature(Phil.Commission,Phil.Legislature,BatasangPambansa,Congress)
o
PDsofMarcosduringtheperiodofmartiallaw1973Constitution
o
EOofAquinoRevolutionaryPeriod,FreedomConstitution
PartsofaStatute
o
TitleofStatute
o
EnactingClause
o
Preamble
o
PurviewoftheStatute
o
SeparabilityClause
KindsofStatute
PublicPrivate|PermanentTemporary|ProspectiveRetroactive|Declaratory|Curative|Mandatory|Directory|Remedial|Penal
AstoScopeofApplication:
GENERALOnewhichaffectsallofthepeopleoftheStateorallpersonsorthingsofa
particularclass
SPECIALOnewhichrelateseithertoparticularpersonsorthingsofaclassorwhich
operatesonaportionofaclassinsteadofalltheclasses.
LOCALOnewhichoperatesoveraparticularlocalityinsteadofoverthewhole
territoryoftheState
AstoInterestedParties:
PUBLICOnewhichconcernstheinterestofthepublicatlarge
PRIVATEOnewhichrelatesto,concernsandaffectsparticularindividuals
AstoEffect(InTime):
PROSPECTIVEOnewhichanticipatestheregulationoffutureconduct
RETROSPECTIVEOnethataffectsactsalreadycommittedandoperateson
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION | Atty. Chip Pilapil | 2015-2016
of 11
Doctrines and Case Digests

Page 6

transactionscompleted
AstoPurpose:
REMEDIALStatuteswhichaffordaremedy,orimproveorfacilitateexistingremedies
fortheenforcementofrightsandofredressofinjuries
PENALThosewhichimposeapunishmentfortheviolationofitsprovisions
CURATIVEThosewhichareenactedtocuredefectsinapriorlaw
AstoCoerciveForceApplied:
MANDATORYAstatuteismandatoryifnoncompliancetherewithrendersthe
proceedingstowhichitrelatesnullandvoid.
DIRECTORYAstatuteoranyofitsprovisionsisdirectoryifnoncompliancetherewith
doesnotinvalidatetheproceedingstowhichitrelates.
AstoPeriodofEffectivity:
PERMANENTOnewhoseoperationoractivityisnotlimitedtosomeparticulartermor
period,butcontinuesinforceuntilrepealedoramended.
TEMPORARYOnewhoseoperationoreffectivityislimitedtoafixedperiodorterm.It
continuesinforceuptotheexpirationofsaidperiodorterm,unless
earlierrepealedoramended.
AstoStageofEnactment:
ORIGINALOnewhichpurportstobeindependentofexistingstatutoryprovision.
AMENDATORYOnewhichexpresslyaddstoorsupplements,orworksoutan
improvementintheoriginallaw.
REPEALINGOnewhichrevokesorterminatesanotherstatute.
ADOPTEDThosewhichareadoptedwhollyorinpartbyanotherstate.
REENACTEDThesearepreexistingstatueswhicharepassedbythelegislature
whichoriginallyenactedtheminthesametermsorinsubstantiallythe
samelanguageandforthesamepurposeandobjectastheoriginal
statute.

ConstitutionalLimitationonthePassageandOperationofStatutes
LegislativeProcess:HowabillbecomesaLaw
1.
Proposal
o
1subject,1Title|FilewithSecretaryoftheHouse|BillsmayoriginateeitherfromSenateorCongress
o
SubjectslimitedtoCongress:Appropriation,Revenue/Tariffbills,Publicdebtincrease,Billsoflocalapp,PrivateBills
o
Sec.reportsbillforfirstreading
2.
FirstReading
o
Number+Titlereferraltotheappropriatecommitteeforstudyandrecommendation
3.
SecondReading
o
Billisreadinfull+amendmentsproposedbythecommittee
o
Alt:Copiesaredistributed,nomorereadingrequired
o
Debates,Motions,Amendmentsapproval3rd
4.
ThirdReading
o
YeaysandNays
5.
Approvedbillotherhouseforconcurrence
o
Sameprocedure#24|||IfapprovedPresident|||Ifnot+amendmentsConferenceCommitteeswillsettle
6.
President
o
ApprovesandSigns+Vetoes(w/in30daysofreceipt)+Inaction
o
IfPres.VetoesSendbacktohouseoforiginw/recommendationIf2/3ofallmemberapproves:sendtootherhouseIf2/3approves:Bill
becomesalaw
o
Otherwise,vetoedbillisrepassedbyCongressby2/3votesofallitsmembers,eachhousevotingseparately
ENROLLEDBILLTHEORY
SigningofabillbytheSpeakeroftheHouseandthePresidentoftheSenateandthecertificationbythesecretariesofbothHousesofCongressthatsuchbillwaspassedare
conclusiveofitsdueenactment
EnrolledbillConclusive

Officialcopyofapprovedlegislationandbearsthecertificationofthepresidingofficerofthelegislativebody

BillspassedbycongressauthenticatedbytheSpeakerandtheSenatePresidentandapprovedbythePresident

Importingabsoluteverityandisbindingonthecourts

Itcarriesonitsfaceasolemnassurancethatitwaspassedbytheassemblybythelegislativeandexecutivedepartments.

Courtscannotgobehindtheenrolledacttodiscoverwhatreallyhappened

Ifonlyforrespecttothelegislativeandexecutivedepartments

Thus,iftherehasbeenanymistakeintheprintingofthebillbeforeitwascertifiedbytheofficeroftheassemblyandapprovedbytheChiefExecutive,the
remedyisbyamendmentbyenactingacurativelegislationnotbyjudicialdecree.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION | Atty. Chip Pilapil | 2015-2016
of 11
Doctrines and Case Digests

Page 7

JournalEntry

ConclusivewithrespecttoothermattersthatarerequiredbytheConstitution

Disputablewithrespecttoallothermatters

Byreasonofpublicpolicy,authenticityoflawsshouldrestuponpublicmemorialsofthemostpermanentcharacter

Shouldbepublic
Ifthereisdiscrepancybetweenenrolledbillandjournal,enrolledbillprevails.
Record:Verbatimtranscription
Mabanagvs.Vito
Casco Phil.
Chemical Co. vs.
Gimenez

Petitioner:
o
Engagedinthemanufactureofsyntheticresinglues.
o
SoughttherefundofthemarginfeesrelyingonRA2609
(Foreign Exchange Margin Fee Law) stating that the
CentralBankofthePhilippinesfixedauniformmargin
feeof25%onforeignexchangetransactions.
AuditoroftheBankrefusedtopassinauditandapprovedthesaid
refundsuponthe groundthatPetitionersseparate importationsof
ureaandformaldehydeisnotinaccordwiththeprovisionsofSec.2,
par.18ofRA2609.

The term urea formaldehyde used in Sec. 2 of RA 2609 refers to the

finished product as expressed by the National Institute of Science and
Technology,andisdistinctandseparatefromureaandformaldehydewhich
areseparatechemicalsusedinthemanufactureofsyntheticresin.Theone
mentionedinthelawisafinishedproduct,whiletheonesimportedbythe
Petitioner are raw materials. Hence, the importation of urea and
formaldehydeisnotexemptfromtheimpositionofthemarginfee.

RA2609:ThemarginestablishedbytheMonetaryBoardshall
beimposeduponthesaleofforeignexchangefortheimportationof
the following: XVIII.Urea formaldehyde for the manufacture of
plywoodandhardwoodwhenimportedbyandfortheexclusiveuse
ofendusers.
ISSUE:W/Nureaandformaldehydeareexemptbylawfromthe
paymentofthemarginfee.
Morales vs.
Subido
JOURNALENTRYRULE
Astorga vs. HouseBillNo.9266waspassedfromtheHouseofRepresentatives
Villegas
totheSenate.
SenatorArturoTolentinomadesubstantialamendmentswhichwere
approvedbytheSenate.
The House, without notice of said amendments, thereafter
signeditsapprovaluntilallthepresidingofficersofbothhousescerti
fiedandattestedtothebill.
ThePresidentalsosigneditandthereuponbecameRA4065.Senator
TolentinomadeapressstatementthattheenrolledcopyofHouse
Bill No.9266 was a wrong version of the bill because it did not
embody the amendments introduced by him and approved by the
Senate.BoththeSenatePresidentandthePresidentwithdrewtheir
signaturesanddenouncedRA4065asinvalid.Petitionerarguedthat
the authentication of the presiding officers of the Congress is
conclusiveproofofabillsdueenactment
VOIDFORVAGUENESSDOCTRINE
Estrada vs.
Sandiganbayan
Davidvs.Arroyo
Sps. Romualdez DennisGarayfiledacaseallegingthatpetitionersmadefalseand
vs.COMELEC
untruthfulrepresentationsinviolationofSection10[11]ofRepublic
ActNos.8189.

Thepetitionerscontended,interaliathatSection45(j)oftheVoters
RegistrationActwasvoidforbeingvagueasitdidnotrefertoa
definiteprovisionofthelaw,theviolationofwhichwouldconstitute
anelectionoffense.
For resolution is the MoR filed by petitioner Spouses Carlos
Romualdez and Erlinda Romualdez on 26 May 2008 from the
DecisionofthisCourtdated30April2008.
ISSUE: WONcriminalstatutemaybechallengedconsideringand
followingthevoidforvaguenessdoctrine.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION | Atty. Chip Pilapil | 2015-2016
of 11
Doctrines and Case Digests

Thevoidforvaguenessdoctrineholdsthatalawisfaciallyinvalidifmenof
commonintelligencemustnecessarilyguessatitsmeaninganddifferastoits
application.However,thisCourthasimposedcertainlimitationsbywhicha
criminalstatute,asinthechallengedlawatbar,maybescrutinized. This
Court has declared that facial invalidation or an onitsface
invalidationofcriminalstatutesisnotappropriate.
Indeed,anonitsfaceinvalidationof criminalstatuteswouldresultina
massacquittalofpartieswhosecasesmaynothaveevenreachedthecourts.
Suchinvalidationwouldconstituteadeparturefromtheusualrequirementof
actualcaseandcontroversyandpermitdecisionstobemadeinasterile
abstractcontexthavingnofactualconcreteness.Theruleestablishedinour
jurisdictionis,onlystatutesonfreespeech,religiousfreedom,andother
fundamental rights may be facially challenged. Under no case may
ordinarypenalstatutesbesubjectedtoafacialchallenge.
Page 8

WHENDOESASTATUTEBECOMEEFFECTIVE
Art2CCxxxlawstobeeffectivemustbepublishedeitherintheOfficialGazetteorinanewspaperofgeneralcirculationinthecountry
oTheeffectivityprovisionreferstoallstatutes,includingthoselocalandprivate,unlesstherearespeciallawsprovidingadifferenteffectivitymechanismforparticular
statutes
Sec18Chapter5Book1ofAdministrativeCode
Effectivityoflaws
oDefaultrule15dayperiod
oMustbepublishedeitherintheOGornewspaperofgeneralcirculationinthecountry;publicationmustbefull
Theclauseunlessitisotherwiseprovidedsolelyreferstothe15dayperiodandnottotherequirementofpublication
Tanada
vs. Due process was invoked by the Petitioners in demanding the Codepertainstothenecessityofpublication.
Tuvera
disclosureofanumberofPresidentialDecreeswhichtheyclaimed No,theclauseotherwiseprovidedreferstothedateofeffectivityandnotto
hadnotbeenpublishedasrequiredbylaw.Thegovernmentargued therequirementofpublicationperse,whichcannotinanyeventbeomitted.
thatwhilepublicationwasnecessaryasarule,itwasnotsowhenit Publication in full should be indispensable. Without such notice or
wasotherwiseprovidedaswhenthedecreesthemselvesdeclared publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim
thattheyweretobecomeeffectiveimmediatelyupontheirapproval.
ignorantiaLegisnonexcusat.Thecourt,therefore,declaresthatpresidential
issuancesofgeneralapplicationwhichhavenotbeenpublishedshallhaveno
ISSUE:WONtheclauseotherwiseprovidedinArticle2ofCivil
force and effect, and the court ordered that the unpublished decrees be
publishedintheOfficialGazetteimmediately.
WHENDOESAREGULATIONBECOMEEFFECTIVE
Sec.29,BookVIIofEO292
People vs. Que QuePoLay,whowasinpossessionofforeignexchangeconsisting
PoLay
ofU.S.dollars,U.S.checksandU.S.moneyorders,failedtosellthe
sametotheCentralBankthroughitsagentswithinonedayfollowing
thereceiptofsuchforeignexchangeasrequiredbyCentralBank
CircularNo.20.Appellantappealsontheclaimthatthesaidcircular
hadnoforceoreffectbecausethesamewasnotpublishedinthe
officialGazettepriortotheactoromissionimputedtosaidappellant.
TheSolicitorGeneralcountersthatCommonwealthAct.No.638and
2930donotrequirethepublicationintheOfficialGazetteofsaid
circularissuedfortheimplementationofalawinordertohaveforce
andeffect.

Yes,circularsandregulationsespeciallylikeCircularNo.20oftheCentral
Bankwhichprescribesapenaltyforitsviolationshouldbepublishedbefore
becomingeffective.Beforethepublicisboundbyitscontents,especiallyits
penalprovisions,alaw,regulationorcircularmustfirstbepublishedandthe
peopleofficiallyandspecificallyinformedofsaidcontentsanditspenalties.

ISSUE:Whetherornotcircularsandregulationsshouldbepublished
inordertohaveforceandeffect.
Tanada
Tuvera

vs.

Due process was invoked by the Petitioners in demanding the

disclosureofanumberofPresidentialDecreeswhichtheyclaimed
hadnotbeenpublishedasrequiredbylaw.Thegovernmentargued
thatwhilepublicationwasnecessaryasarule,itwasnotsowhenit
wasotherwiseprovidedaswhenthedecreesthemselvesdeclared
thattheyweretobecomeeffectiveimmediatelyupontheirapproval.
ISSUE:WONtheclauseotherwiseprovidedinArticle2ofCivil

Yaokasin vs.
Commissioner of
Customs

The Philippine Coast Guard seized 9000 sacks of refined sugar

ownedbypetitionerYaokasin,whichwerethenbeingunloadedfrom
the M/V Tacloban, and turned them over to the custody of the
Bureau of Customs. On June 7, 1988, the District Collector of
Customsorderedthereleaseofthecargotothepetitionerbutthis
orderwassubsequentlyreversedonJune15,1988.Thereversalwas
by virtue of Customs Memorandum Order (CMO) 2087in
implementationoftheIntegratedReorganizationPlanunderP.D.1,
whichprovidesthatinprotestandseizurecaseswherethedecisionis
adversetothegovernment,theCommissionerofCustomshasthe
powerofautomaticreview.
Petitionerobjectedtotheenforcementof Sec.12ofthe Planand
CMO2087contendingthatthesewerenotpublishedintheOfficial
Gazette.ThePlanwhichwaspartofP.D.1washoweverpublished
intheOfficialGazette.

Issue:WONcircularorderssuchasCMO2087needtobepublished
intheOGtotakeeffect
WHENDOESANORDINANCETAKEEFFECT
Sec.5459,RA7160
Bagatsing vs. In1974,theMunicipalBoardofManilaenactedOrdinance7522,
Ramirez
regulatingtheoperationofpublicmarketsandprescribingfeesfor
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION | Atty. Chip Pilapil | 2015-2016
of 11
Doctrines and Case Digests

Codepertainstothenecessityofpublication.
No,theclauseotherwiseprovidedreferstothedateofeffectivityandnotto
therequirementofpublicationperse,whichcannotinanyeventbeomitted.
Publication in full should be indispensable. Without such notice or
publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim
ignorantiaLegisnonexcusat.Thecourt,therefore,declaresthatpresidential
issuancesofgeneralapplicationwhichhavenotbeenpublishedshallhaveno
force and effect, and the court ordered that the unpublished decrees be
publishedintheOfficialGazetteimmediately.
NO.
Article2oftheCivilCodedoesnotapplytocircularslikeCMO2087which
isanadministrativeorderoftheCommissionerofCustomsaddressedtohis
subordinates, the custom collectors. Said issuance requiring collectors of
customstocomplystrictlywithSection12ofhePlan,isaddressedonlyto
particularpersonsoraclassof persons(the customscollectors),henceno
generalapplicability.AsheldinTanadav.Tuvera,Itneednotbepublished,
ontheassumptionthatithasbeencircularizedtoallconcerned.
Moreover,CommonwealthAct.638providesanenumerationofwhatshallbe
published in the Official Gazette. It provides that besides legislative acts,
resolutionsofpublicnatureofCongress,executive,administrativeordersand
proclamations shall be published except when these have no general
applicability

TheLocalTaxCodeprevails.ThereisnoquestionthattheRevisedCharterof
theCityofManilaisaspecialactsinceitrelatesonlytotheCityofManila
Page 9

therentalsofstallsandprovidingpenaltiesforviolationthereof.The
FederationofManilaMarketVendorsInc.assailedthevalidityofthe
ordinance, alleging among others the noncompliance to the
publication requirement under the Revised Charter of the City of
Manila.CFIManiladeclaredtheordinancevoid.Thus,thepresent
petition.
ISSUE:
1.

whereastheLocalTaxCodeisagenerallawbecauseitappliesuniversallyto
all local governments. The fact that one is special and the other general
createsapresumptionthatthespecialistobeconsideredasremainingan
exceptionofthegeneral,oneasagenerallawoftheland,theotherasthelaw
ofaparticularcase.However,therulereadilyyieldstoasituationwherethe
specialstatutereferstoasubjectingeneral,whichthegeneralstatutetreatsin
particular. The Revised Charter of the City prescribes a rule for the
publicationofordinanceingeneral,whiletheLocalTaxCodeestablishesa
ruleforthepublicationofordinancelevyingorimposingtaxesfeesorother
chargesinparticular.

What law should govern the publication of a tax

ordinance, the Revised City Charter, which requires
publication

of

the
ordinancebeforeitsenactmentandafteritsapproval,or
the Local Tax Code, which only demands publication
afterapproval?
EQUITYOFTHESTATUTERULE
Art.9and10,CivilCode
LEGESPOSTERIORESPRIORESCONTRARIASABROGANT(Laterlawsabrogatepriorcontrarylaws)
ManilaTrading&
AnactpassedApril16thandinforceApril21stwasheldtoprevailoveran
Supply Co. vs.
actpassedApril9thandineffectJuly4thofthesameyear.
Philippine Labor
Andanactgoingintoeffectimmediatelyhasbeenheldtoprevailoveranact
Union
passedbeforebutgoingintoeffectlater.
Whenevertwostatutesofdifferentdatesandofcontrarytenorareofequal
theoretical application to a particular case, the statute of later date must
prevail,beingalaterexpressionoflegislativewill.
THEDOCTRINEOFPOSLIMINUMANDOPERATIVEFACT
CoKimChanvs.
ValdezTanKeh
League of Cities
ofthePhilippines
vs.COMELEC
ASPECIALLAWPREVAILSOVERTHEGENERALLAW
Butuan Sawmill ThePetitionerwasgrantedalegislativefranchiseunderRA399for No.theinclusionofthefranchisebusinessoftheButuanSawmill,Inc.bythe
vs. City of anelectriclight,heat,andpowersysteminButuanandCabadbaran, CityofButuanisbeyondthebroadpoweroftaxationofthecityunderits
Butuan
Agusan, together with the issuance of a certificate of public charter.
convenience and necessity by the Public Service Commission.
However,theCityofButuanissuedOrdinancesnumbered11,131 Neither could the latters power therein granted be taken as an authority
and148imposinga2% taxonthegrosssalesorreceiptsof any delegatedtothecitytoamendoralterthefranchise,consideringtheabsence
businessoperatedinthecity.ButuanSawmill,Inc.questionedthe ofanexpressorspecificgrantofpowertodoso.Wheretherearetwostatutes,
validityofthetaxingordinancewhichisdeemedtohaveimpaired theearlierspecialandthelattergeneralandthetermsofthegeneralare
theobligationofcontracttherebydeprivingthePetitionerofproperty broadenoughtoincludethematterprovidedforinthespecialthefactthat
without due process of law. On the other hand, Respondent oneisspecialandtheotherisgeneralcreatesapresumptionthatthespecialis
maintainedthatitwasvestedwiththepowertoprovideforthelevy tobeconsideredasaremainingexceptiontothegeneralasagenerallawof
andcollectionoftaxesforgeneralandspecialpurposesasstipulated theland,whiletheotherasthelawofaparticularcase.
initscharterwhichwasgrantedin1950.

The Manila
Railroad
Company vs.
Rafferty

ISSUE:WONtheinclusionofthefranchisebusinessofPetitioners
fallswithinthecoverageof the taxingordinancespursuanttothe
cityspoweroftaxation
The Defendant assessed and collected against Manila Railroad
internalrevenuetaxesuponoilandcoalmaterialsimportedintothe
Philippine by virtue of an act of Congress in 1913. The latter
contendedthatthetaxeshadbeenillegallycollectedpursuanttoa
privatechartergrantedbythelegislaturein1906.Ontheotherhand,
Rafferty asserts that the 1913 Act of Congress repealed the 1906
privatecharter.
ISSUE:WONthe1913ActofCongressrepealedthe1906private
charter.

No. A special law (including private charters) having the character of a

privatecontract,supposesthatthelegislatorsintendedtoattendtothespecial
facts and circumstances, the consideration of such being embodied in the
speciallaw.Agenerallawsubsequentlyenactedbythelegislaturecannotbe
takentohavemodifiedoralteredthecharter,unlesstheintenttomodifyor
alterismanifest.Wherethegeneralactislater,thespecialstatutewillbe
construedasremaininganexceptiontoitsterms,unlessrepealedexpresslyor
bynecessaryimplication.

EXPRESSorIMPLIEDREPEALS
Powertorepeal
Powertorepealalawisascompleteasthepowertoenactone.
Thelegislaturecannotinandofitselfenactirrepealablelawsorlimititsfuturelegislativeacts.
Generally,
o
Totalrepealrevokedcompletely
o
Partialrepealleavestheunaffectedportionsofthestatuteinforce.
o
Expressrepealaparticularorspecificlaw,identifiedbyitsnumberoftitle
o
Impliedrepealsallotherrepeals
o
Failuretoaddaspecificrepealingclauseindicatesthattheintentwasnottorepealanyexistinglaw,unlessanirreconcilableinconsistencyandrepugnancyexist
inthetermsofthenewandoldlaws,lattersituationfallsunderthecategoryofanimpliedrepeal.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION | Atty. Chip Pilapil | 2015-2016
10 of 11
Doctrines and Case Digests

Page

Repealedonlybytheenactmentofsubsequentlaws.
Thechangeintheconditionandcircumstancesafterthepassageofalawwhichisnecessitatedtheenactmentofastatutetoovercomethedifficultiesbrought
aboutbysuchchangedoesnotoperatetorepealthepriorlaw,normakethelaterstatutesoinconsistentwiththeprioractastorepealit.
Repealbyimplication
o
Whereastatuteoflaterdateclearlyrevealsanintentiononthepartofthelegislaturetoabrogateaprioractonthesubject,thatintentionmustbegiveneffect.
o
Theremustbeasufficientrevelationofthelegislativeintenttorepeal.
o
Intentiontorepealmustbeclearandmanifest
o
Generalrule:thelatteractistobeconstruedasacontinuationnotasubstituteforthefirstactsofarasthetwoactsarethesame,fromthetimeofthefirst
enactment.
o
Twocategoriesofrepealsbyimplication
o
Whereprovisionsinthetwoactsonthesamesubjectmatterareinanirreconcilableconflictandthelateracttotheextentoftheconflictconstitutesan
impliedrepealoftheearlier
o
Ifthelateractcoversthewholesubjectoftheearlieroneandisclearlyintendedasasubstitute,itwilloperatesimilarlyasarepealoftheearlieract.
Irreconcilableinconsistency
Impliedrepeal brought aboutbyirreconcilable repugnancybetweentwolawstakesplace whenthe twostatutescover the same subject matter;theyare soclearly
inconsistentandincompatiblewitheachotherthattheycannotbereconciledorharmonizedandbothcannotbegiveneffect,oncecannotbeenforcedwithoutnullifyingthe
other.
o
o

Iloilo Palay and

Corn Planters
Association Inc.
vs.Feliciano

PrivaterespondentFeliciano,theChairmanandGeneralManagerof
the Rice and Corn Administration, wrote the President of the
Philippines urging the immediate importation of rice, thru a
governmentagencywhichthePresidentmaydesignate,pursuantto
therecommendationoftheNationalEconomicCouncilasembodied
in its Resolution No. 70, series of 1964. It was approved. The
President designated the Rice and Corn Administration as the
governmentagencyauthorizedtoundertaketheimportationpursuant
towhichChairmanFelicianoannouncedaninvitationtobidforsaid
importation and set the bidding date. Petitioners contend that the
importationiscontrarytoRA3452whichprohibitsthegovernment
fromimportingriceandthatthereisnolawappropriatingfundsto
financethesame.

Theimportationmaybeillegalonthegroundthatsuchimportationbelong
exclusively to private parties, thereby prohibiting any government agency
fromdoingso.RA2207providesthatshouldtherebeanexistingorimminent
shortageinthelocalsupplyofriceofsuchgravityastoconstituteanational
emergency, and this is certified by the National Economic Council, the
Presidentmayauthorizesuchimportationthruanygovernmentagencythathe
maydesignate.Thetwolaws,althoughwithacommonobjective,referto
differentmethodsapplicable todifferentcircumstances.The twolawscan
thereforebeconstruedasharmoniouspartsofthelegislativeexpressionofits
policytopromote ariceandcornprogram.Inordertoeffectarepealby
implication, the latter statute must be irreconcilably inconsistent and
repugnanttothepriorexistinglaw,hencetherewasnorepeal

ISSUE:WONRA2207wasrepealedbyRA3452.
OVERBREADTHDOCTRINE
Estrada vs.
Sandiganbayan

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION | Atty. Chip Pilapil | 2015-2016

11 of 11
Doctrines and Case Digests

Page