People v Manantan
aN ARGUment based only on
1. Cassius Omissus
-an addition in a statute or provision
is a deliberately intended to omit
person, thing, object
-when 2 or more statutes or
provisions talk about the same thing
People v Tamani
1. Deadline for another appeal should
be 15 days from promulgation or
notice of the judgment or order
2. Each to each
- promulgation = refers to judgment
-notice – refers to order
-a or b of x or y  a:x ; b;y
-In this case, promulgation does not
refer to judgment and order.
Mapa v Arroyo
1. Relative and qualifying terms
Paras v COMELEC
1. They cannot hold the recall election
because it preceded the sk elections
2. NO. SK election is not within the
purview of the regular elections
accdg to LGC
3. Context and Related clauses
-Regular local elections
- looking at it generally, SK elections
are covered by the provision
-but court said that SK elections are
not necessarily held at the same
time as other local elections or not
held simultaneously
-if you are to include SK elections,
there will be no recall election
-hence, this is not the intention of
the legislature
US v Hart
1. Use of punctuation marks
2.
punctuations must be supported by
other arguments
-punctuations are used to interpret
the actual legislative will
Mercado et al v NLRC
1. proviso (words & phrases)
-as a general rule, proviso only
qualifies the statement that only
precedes it
Sterling Selections Corporation v LLDA
1. CA misinterpreted the provision in
which the section used the word
“including”
- If there is enumeration which is
preceded by including or
involving, this means that it is an
example
not intended to be an
exclusive list if it is an example
In re Mcgee v Republic
1. SC ruled that the correct
interpretation of the provision,
applied the rule that negative words
and provisions are considered as
mandatory while those that are in
affirmative are considered as
directory
-negative terms = prohibition
-affirmative sense = directory
- if there is conflict with the terms
Director of Lands v CA
Bersabal v Salvador
Diokno v Rehab Finance Corp
1. Shall – mandatory
2. Court: even if shall is usually used as
mandatory, you should also look at
the intent of the law
 3. Court: shall is not mandatory but
directory

RMBSA v HDMF
1. Both and/or shall be effective
-and = conjunctive; must be existing
together
-or = any of them
-and/or = can use both bec it is
disjunctive; either conjunctive or
disjunctive
2. if law uses and/or, implementing rules
and regulations must also use and/or

Microsoft Corp v Manansala

1. plural includes the singular and vice
versa
2. if the law says child, it also includes
children unless the context state otherwise