City of Manila vs Genaro Teotico

Whenever there is a conflict between an ordinance and statute, the ordinance must
give way.
Juan primicias vs municipality of urdaneta pangasinan
Where a special statute refers to a subject in general, which the general statute
treats in particular, the provision of the latter, in case of conflict will prevail.
Ramon Bagatsing vs judge Ramirez
Ordinance should not contravene a statute. In case of conflict between an ordinance
and a statute, the latter will prevail.
Mayor Pablo magtajas city of Cagayan vs pryce properties
It is a basic rule of statutory construction that enactment of later legislation which is
a general law cannot be construed to have repealed a special law.

Laguna lake development authority vs CA

It is elementary in statutory construction that san administrative circular cannot
supersede, abrogate , modify or nullify a statute. A statute is superior to an
administrative circular, thus the later cannot repeal or amend it.

Judge Tomas leynes vs. COA

Where the instrument is susceptible of two interpretation, one which will make it
invalid and illegal and another which will make it valid and legal, the latter
interpretation should be adopted.
Francisco Lim vs CA
In case of conflict between an administrative order and the provisions of the
constitution, the latter prevails.

DAR vs della Sutton

Reinstatement of the Rule
It is always presumed that legislature, in drafting and enacting any particular
statute, had full knowledge and took full cognizance of all existing laws on the same
subject or relating thereto.

LLDA v. CA

Issue: which agency of the government, LLDA or the towns and municipalities
compromising the region should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake and its
environs insofar as the issuance of permits for fishery privileges is concerned.
The LLDA statute specifically provides that the LLDA shall have exclusive
jurisdiction to issue permits for the use of all surface water for any projects in or
affecting the said region, including the operation of fish pens.
RA 7160 the LGC of 1991 grants the municipalities the exclusive authority to
grant fishery privileges in municipal waters.
Held: two laws should be harmonized, and that the LLA statute, being a special
law, must be taken as an exception to RA 7160 a general law,
Bagatsing v. Ramirez

A charter of a city, which is a special law, may be impliedly modified or

superseded by a later statute, and where a statute is controlling, it must be read
into the charter, notwithstanding any of its particular provisions.
A subsequent general law similarly applicable to all cities prevails over any
conflicting charter provision, for the reason that a charter must not be
inconsistent with the general laws and public policy of the state.
Statute remains supreme in all matters not purely local.
A charter must yield to the constitution and general laws of the state.
NAPOCOR v. Arca

Issue: whether Sec. 2 of Com. Act 120 creating the NAPOCOR, a governmentowned corporation, and empowering it to sell electric power and to fix the rates
and provide for the collection of the charges for any services rendered: Provided,
the rates of charges shall not be subject to revision by the Public Service Act has
been repealed by RA 2677 amending the Public Service Act and granting the
Public Service Commission the jurisdiction to fix the rate of charges of public
utilities owned or operated by the government or government-owned
corporations.
Held: a special law, like Com. Act 120, providing for a particular case or class of
cases, is not repealed by a subsequent statute, general in its terms, like RA 2677,
although the general statute are broad enough to include the cases embraced in
the special law, in the absence of a clear intent to repeal.
There appears no such legislative intent to repeal or abrogate the provisions of
the earlier law.
The explanatory note to House Bill 4030 the later became RA 2677, it was explicit
that the jurisdiction conferred upon the Republic Service Commission over the
public utilities operated by government-owned or controlled corporations is to be
confined to the fixing of rates of such public services
The harnessing and then distribution and sale of electric power to the consuming
public, the contingency intended to be met by the legal provision under
consideration would not exist.
The authority of the Public Service Commission under RA 2677 over the fixing of
rate of charges of public utilities owned or operated by GOCCs can only be
exercised where the charter of the government corporation concerned does not
contain any provision to the contrary.

General law does not repeal special law, generally

A general law on a subject does not operate to repeal a prior special law on the same
subject, unless it clearly appears that the legislature has intended by the later
general act to modify or repeal the earlier special law.
Presumption against implied repeal is stronger when of two laws, one is special and
the other general and this applies even though the terms of the general act are broad
enough to include the matter covered by the special statute.
Generalia specialibus non derogant a general law does not nullify a specific or
special law
The legislature considers and makes provision for all the circumstances of the
particular case.
Reason why a special law prevails over a general law: the legislature considers and
makes provision for all the circumstances of the particular case.
General and special laws are read and construed together, and that repugnancy
between them is reconciled by constituting the special law as an exception to the
general law.
General law yields to the special law in the specific law in the specific and particular
subject embraced in the latter.
Applies irrespective of the date of passage of the special law.