De Castro vs JBC

Art 7, Sec 15
-two months immediately before the next
preceding elections and up to the end of
his term, a president or acting president
shall not make appointments, except
temporary appointments to executive
positions
when
continued
vacancies
therein will prejudice public service or
endanger public safety
Art 8, Sec 4(1)
-the supreme court shall be composed of a
chief justice and 14 associate justice. It
may sit en banc or in its discretion, in
divisions of 3, 5, 7 members. Any vacancy
shall be filled within 90 days from
occurrence thereof.
usage of shall in sec 4(1) should not be
disregarded
- Imperative, operating to impose duty a
duty that may be imposed
- Imposes the president an imperative
duty, failure to do so is a clear
disobedience to the constitution
- It is a definite mandate for the
president as appointing power and
cannot be defeated by mere judicial
interpretation in Valenzuela case to
effect that Art 7 Sec 15 should prevail
because it was couched in a stronger
negative language
- Stat Con Principle, the court should
seek to avoid any conflict in the
provision of the statute by endeavoring
to harmonize and reconcile every part
as that each shall be effective
- reconcile conflicting provisions, the
construction that will leave every word
operative will be favored over one
which leaves some words or provisions
meaningless because of inconsistency
- Words should give effect to ascertain
legislative intent, not give effect if
contrary
- If irreconcilable, the one that expresses
legislative intent should prevail
- The provision last in order shall prevail
since it is the latest expression of
legislative will
- Art 7 Sec15 does not apply to the
judiciary
- Every part of the statute must be
interpreted in reference to the context
that every part must be considered

together with other parts, obedient to

the general intent
Eastern Telecom vs ICC (GR 135692)
- Court yielded great respect to the
interpretation
of
administrative
agencies of their own rules unless there
is an error of law, abuse of power, lack
of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion conflicting with the letter of
the law
- The interpretation of an agency of its
own rules should be given more weight
than the interpretation by that agency
of the law it is merely tasked to
administer
- In cases where the dispute concerns
the interpretation by the agency of its
own rules only these standards apply,
whether delegation of power is valid,
whether the regulation was within the
delegation, and if so, whether it was a
reasonable delegation under a due
process test
NTC vs ICC (GR 141667)
- Sec 49(g)of the Public Service Act not
amended by Sec 5(g) of RA 7925
- Implied repeal is predicated on a
substantial conflict between the new
and prior laws. In the absence of an
express repeal, a subsequent law
cannot be construed as repealing a
prior
one
unless
irreconcilable
inconsistency and repugnancy exist in
the terms of the old and new laws. The
2 must be absolutely incompatible such
that they cannot be made to stand
together
- Courts should reconcile first instead of
declaring the validity of one against the
other. Harmonize conflicting statutes or
provisions bearing in mind that they
are equally the handiwork of the same
legislature.
- Rationale: the will of the legislature
cannot be overturned by judicial
function
of
construction
and
interpretation
GSIS vs City Assessor of Iloilo (GR 147192)
- The abrogation/repeal of a law cannot
be assumed; the intention to revoke
must be clear and manifest, RA 8291
made no express repeal or abrogation

of the provisions of RA 9160,

particularly Sec 234(a)
Repeal by implication is not applicable;
the two laws must be absolutely
incompatible. They must be clearly
inconsistent in a way that the later law
(RA 8291) cannot exist without
nullifying the prior law (RA 7160)
The rule is that every statute must be
interpreted and brought into accord
with other laws in a way that will form
a uniform system of jurisprudence
A repealing statute must not impair the
obligation of contracts and must not
interfere with vested rights, the act
should not be construed so as to affect
rights vested under the old law

Parayno vs Jovellanos and Municipality of

Calasiao, Pangasinan (GR 148408)
- Petitioner claimed that her gasoline
station was not covered by Sec 44 of
the Official Zoning Code since it was
not a gasoline service station but a
gasoline filling station governed by
Sec 21
- The ordinance intended the two terms
to be separate and distinct from each
other. Certain distinctions were made
by the municipality in the designation
of the two terms
- Respondent municipality thus could not
find solace in ejusdem generis (the
same kind, class or nature) where the
general words follow the enumeration
of particular classes of persons or
things, general words will apply only to
persons or things of the same or
general nature or class as those
enumerated
- Applicable in the case was the maxim
expression unius est exclusio alterius,
the express mention of one thing
implies the exclusion of others
- The distinct and definite meanings
were alluded by the two terms of the
zoning ordinance, respondent could not
insist that gasoline service station
under Sec
44 necessary included
gasoline filling station under Sec 21.
The activities undertaken in a gas
service station did not automatically
embrace those in a gas filling station
DAR vs PHILCOMSAT (GR 152640)

Sec 10 of the Comprehensive Agrarian

Reform Law (RA 6657) as amended,
provides that lands actually, directly
and exclusively used and found to be
necessary for national defense shall be
exempt from the coverage of the act
- The very purpose by which PD 1845
was passed declaring the area within a
radius of three kilometers surrounding
the satellite earth station in Baras,
Rizal a security zone is to protect and
insure the safety and uninterrupted
operations of the modern media of
international communications in the
said property. To subject said security
zone to the CARP of the govt would
negate the very purpose by which PD
1845, as amended by PD 1848, was
decreed. These laws have never been
repealed
- The law which decreed the areas as a
security zone is very clear in its
purpose. It is a principle in statutory
construction that where there are two
statutes that apply to a particular case,
that which was specifically designed for
the said case must prevail over the
other
Catiis vs CA et al (GR 153979)
- Petitioners interpretation that the term
any person in the first paragraph of
Sec 1 of PD 1689 means that even one
person can be indicted for syndicated
estafa is contrary to law. The law must
be considered as a whole, just as it is
necessary to consider a sentence in its
entirety to grasp its true meaning. PD
1689 is clear and free from ambiguity,
Sec 1 has defined what constitutes a
syndicate and such definition is
controlling. Where a requirement is
made in explicit and unambiguous
terms, no discretion is left to the
judiciary.
Laurel vs Abrogar, PLDT (GR 155076)
- The term personal property under Art
308 RPC cannot be interpreted beyond
its
scope
so
as
to
include
telecommunication
or
telephone
services or computer services. The
word service has a variety of
meaning depending o its context i.e.
sale, labor rendered. service is
generally not considered property and

a
theft
of
service
would
not,
therefore ,constitute theft
PLDT asserts that personal property
under Art 308 RPC comprehends
intangible property (gas, electricity
which are articles of merchandise
bought and sold). It asserts that the
business of international calls are
personal property because the same
are valuable articles of merchandise.it
further posits that revenue and income
derived from such services are
personal properties under Art 308 RPC
akin to electricity which can be
appropriated and subject to theft
The
international
telephone
calls
placed by Bay Super Orient card
holders provided by PLDT and its
business of providing said services are
not personal properties under Art 308
RPC. Respondents construction of Art
308 RPC to include international
telephone calls, telecommunication
services and business is contrary to
the letter and intent of the law. PLDT
does not acquire ownership/possession
of the voices of the telephone callers,
they merely transmit the electronic
voice signal thru their facilities and
equipment
Penal laws are to be construed strictly.
Such rule is to be founded on the
tenderness of the law for the rights of
the individuals and on the plain
principle that the power of punishment
is vested in the Congress, not in the
judicial department. The Congress
defines the crime and ordains the
punishment. The court must take head
to the language, legislative history and
purpose in order to strictly determine
the wrath and breathe of the conduct
the law forbids. However, when the
congressional purpose is unclear, the
court must apply the rule of lenity.
Penal statutes may not be enlarged by
implication or intent beyond the fair
meaning of the language used; and
may not be held to include offenses
other than those which are clearly
described. When interpreting a criminal
statute that does not explicitly reach
the conduct in question, the court
should not base an expansive reading

or inference from subjective and

variable understanding
If it was the intent of the Philippine
Legislature, 1930, to include services to
the subject of theft, it should have
incorporated the same in Art 308 RPC.
The legislature did not, in fact, it did
not even contain a definition of
services

Commissioner on Internal Revenue vs.

Reyes (GR 159694)
- Sec 228 of the Tax Code is clear and
mandatory
- Sec 228. Protesting of Assessment,
The taxpayers shall be informed in
writing of the law and the facts on
which assessment is made. Otherwise,
the assessment shall be void.
- Reyes was not informed of the of the
writing of the law and the facts on
which the assessment of the estate
taxes has been made. She was merely
notified on which CIR relied upon Sec
229 prior to its amendment by RA 8242
(The Tax Reform Act of 1997)
- General rule is that statutes are
prospective,
however,
remedial
statutes, or that do not create new
rights or take vested rights do not fall
under the general rule. Sec 228 clearly
provides for the procedure in case and
assessment is protested, thus can be
applied retroactively
- Neither
Sec
229
nor
Revenue
Regulation 12-85 can prevail over Sec
228 of the Tax Code. The law must be
followed even though and existing tax
regulation at that time provided for a
different procedure
- This
provision
applies
to
all
compromises, whether government
initiated or not. where the law does
not
distinguish,
we
should
not
distinguish
- Tax laws are civil in nature, acts
executed
against
the
mandatory
provisions of law are void except when
the law authorizes it validity
Twin Ace Holdings Corp vs Rufina Company
(GR 160191)
- Twin Ace Tanduay Distillers asserts
that Rufina cannot avail the protection
of RA 623 as amended by RA 5700,

because it is not a small scale industry,

and thus filed complaint for recovery of
marked bottles and for damages
Sec. 6. The provisions of this Act shall
not be interpreted as prohibiting the
use of bottles as containers for sisi,
bagoong, patis, and similar native
products.
Republic Act No. 623, An Act to
Regulate the Use of Duly Stamped or
Marked Bottles, Boxes, Casks, Kegs,
Barrels and Other Similar Containers,
as amended by RA No. 5700, was
meant to protect the intellectual
property rights of the registrants of the
containers and prevent unfair trade
practices and fraud on the public.
However, the exemption granted in
Sec. 6 thereof was deemed extremely
necessary to provide assistance and
incentive to the backyard, cottage and
small-scale
manufacturers
of
indigenous native products such as
patis, sisi and toyo who do not have the
capital to buy brand new bottles as
containers nor afford to pass the added
cost to the majority of poor Filipinos
who use the products as their daily
condiments or viands. If the contention
of petitioner is accepted, i.e., to
construe the exemption as to apply to
criminal liability only but not to civil
liability, the very purpose for which the
exemption was granted will be
defeated.
A basic rule in statutory construction
that when the law is clear and free
from any doubt or ambiguity, there is
no
room
for
construction
or
interpretation. RA 623 speaks in clear
and categorical language, there is no
occasion for interpretation; there is
only room for application.
The exemption contained in Section 6
of RA 623 applies to all manufacturers
of sisi, bagoong, patis and similar
native products without distinction or
qualification as to whether they are
small, medium or large scale.

Francisco vs House of Representatives (GR

160261)
- The constitutionality of the second
impeachment complaint against CJ
Davide as it violates the provision of

Section 5 of Article XI of the

Constitution that "[n]o impeachment
proceedings shall be initiated against
the same official more than once within
a period of one year.
Section
3
(1)
The
House
of
Representatives
shall
have
the
exclusive power to initiate all cases of
impeachment.
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall
be initiated against the same official
more than once within a period of one
year, (Emphasis supplied)

refers to two objects, "impeachment

case" and "impeachment proceeding."

Father Bernas explains that in these

two provisions, the common verb is "to
initiate." The object in the first
sentence is "impeachment case." The
object in the second sentence is
"impeachment proceeding." Following
the principle of reddendo singuala
sinuilis, the term "cases" must be
distinguished
from
the
term
"proceedings." An impeachment case is
the legal controversy that must be
decided by the Senate. Above-quoted
first provision provides that the House,
by a vote of one-third of all its
members, can bring a case to the
Senate. It is in that sense that the
House has "exclusive power" to initiate
all cases of impeachment. No other
body can do it. However, before a
decision is made to initiate a case in
the Senate, a "proceeding" must be
followed to arrive at a conclusion. A
proceeding must be "initiated." To
initiate, which comes from the Latin
word initium, means to begin. On the
other hand, proceeding is a progressive
noun. It has a beginning, a middle, and
an end. It takes place not in the Senate
but in the House and consists of
several steps: (1) there is the filing of a
verified complaint either by a Member

of the House of Representatives or by a

private citizen endorsed by a Member
of the House of the Representatives;
(2) there is the processing of this
complaint by the proper Committee
which may either reject the complaint
or uphold it; (3) whether the resolution
of the Committee rejects or upholds the
complaint, the resolution must be
forwarded to the House for further
processing; and (4) there is the
processing of the same complaint by
the House of Representatives which
either affirms a favorable resolution of
the Committee or overrides a contrary
resolution by a vote of one-third of all
the members. If at least one third of all
the Members upholds the complaint,
Articles of Impeachment are prepared
and transmitted to the Senate. It is at
this point that the House "initiates an
impeachment case." It is at this point
that an impeachable public official is
successfully impeached. That is, he or
she is successfully charged with an
impeachment "case" before the Senate
as impeachment court.
-

Father Bernas further explains: The

"impeachment proceeding" is not
initiated when the complaint is
transmitted to the Senate for trial
because that is the end of the House
proceeding and the beginning of
another proceeding, namely the trial.
Neither
is
the
"impeachment
proceeding" initiated when the House
deliberates on the resolution passed on
to it by the Committee, because
something prior to that has already
been done. The action of the House is
already
a
further
step
in
the
proceeding, not its initiation or
beginning. Rather, the proceeding is
initiated or begins, when a verified
complaint is filed and referred to the
Committee on Justice for action. This is

the initiating step which triggers the

series of steps that follow.
Validity of the Second Impeachment Complaint
-

Having concluded that the initiation

takes place by the act of filing of the
impeachment complaint and referral to
the House Committee on Justice, the
initial action taken thereon, the
meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI
becomes clear. Once an impeachment
complaint has been initiated in the
foregoing manner, another may not be
filed against the same official within a
one year period following Article XI,
Section 3(5) of the Constitution.

In fine, considering that the first

impeachment complaint, was filed by
former President Estrada against Chief
Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., along with
seven associate justices of this Court,
on June 2, 2003 and referred to the
House Committee on Justice on August
5, 2003, the second impeachment
complaint filed by Representatives
Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William
Fuentebella against the Chief Justice on
October
23,
2003
violates
the
constitutional prohibition against the
initiation of impeachment proceedings
against the same impeachable officer
within a one-year period.

*additional statcon principles found in the case

-

verba legis, the words used in the

Constitution must be given their
ordinary
meaning
except
where
technical terms are employed

where there is ambiguity, ratio legis est

anima. The words of the Constitution
should be interpreted in accordance
with the intent of its framers

ut magis valeat quam pereat. The

Constitution is to be interpreted as a
whole
In cases of conflict, the judicial
department is the only constitutional
organ which can be called upon to
determine the proper allocation of
powers
between
the
several
departments and among the integral or
constituent units thereof.

the court must harmonize them, if

practicable, and must lean in favor of a
construction which will render every
word operative, rather than one which
may make the words idle and nugatory

If, however, the plain meaning of the

word is not found to be clear, resort to
other aids is available.

*grabe ni nga case ngdugo ako ilong

pgbasa, almost all cases sa Consti 1
naa dri

Maceda-Macatangay vs De Guzman vda de

Macatangay (GR 164947)
- Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure. Priorities in Modes
of Service and Filing Whenever
practicable, the service and filing of
pleadings and other papers shall be
done personally. Except with respect to
papers emanating from the court, a
resort to other modes must be
accompanied by a written explanation
why the service or filing was not done
personally. A violation of this rule may
cause to consider the paper as not
filed.
- personal service and filing is the
general rule, and resort to other modes
of service and filing, the exception
- the address of respondents counsel is
Lopez, Quezon, while petitioners
counsels is Lucena City. Lopez, Quezon
is 83 kilometers away from Lucena City.
Such distance makes personal service
impracticable
- the rule is so worded with the use of
may, signifying permissiveness, a

violation thereof gives the court

discretion whether or not to consider
the paper as not filed
Section 11, Rule 13 is a directory,
rather than a mandatory rule

Munoz vs COMELEC, et al. (GR 170678)

- Section 9, Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules
of Procedure provides that when an
action or proceeding involves a
question of law and fact which is
similar to or common with that of
another action or proceeding, the same
may be consolidated with the action or
proceeding bearing the lower docket
number, this rule is only permissive,
not mandatory. The consistently held
that the term may is indicative of a
mere possibility, an opportunity or an
option. The grantee of that opportunity
is vested with a right or faculty which
he has the option to exercise
Lambino vs Comelec (GR 174153)
- Art 7, Sec. 1. Any amendment to,
or revision of, this Constitution
may be proposed by: (1) The
Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths
of
all
its
Members,
or
(2) A
constitutional convention.
- Sec. 2.
Amendments to this
Constitution may likewise be directly
proposed by the people through
initiative
- the framers of the Constitution
intended, and wrote, a clear
distinction between amendment and
revision of the Constitution. The
framers intended, and wrote, that
only Congress or a constitutional
convention may propose revisions to
the Constitution.
The framers
intended, and wrote, that a peoples
initiative
may
propose
only
amendments to the Constitution.
- The express intent of the framers
and the plain language of the
Constitution contradict the Lambino
Groups theory. Where the intent of the
framers and the language of the
Constitution are clear and plainly
stated, courts do not deviate from such
categorical intent and language
Orceo Vs COMELEC (GR 190779)

COMELEC Resolution No. 8714, the

term firearm includes airgun, airsoft
guns, and their replica/imitation in
whatever form that can cause an
ordinary person to believe that they are
real. Hence, airsoft guns and their
replicas/imitations are included in the
gun ban during the election period
from January 10, 2010 to June 9, 2010
Petitioner claims that he is a real party-in-interest,
because he has been playing airsoft since the year
2000. The continuing implementation of
Resolution No. 8714 will put him in danger of
sustaining direct injury or make him liable for an
election offense if caught in possession of an
airsoft gun and its replica/imitation in going to
and from the game site and playing the sport
during the election period.
Petitioner contends that under R.A. No.
7166, the term firearm connotes real
firearm. Moreover, R.A. No. 7166 does
not mention airsoft guns and their
replicas/imitations.
Hence,
its
implementing rules and regulations
contained in Resolution No. 8714

should not include airsoft guns and

their
replicas/imitations
in
the
definition of the term firearm.
petition is Partly Granted insofar as the
exclusion of replicas and imitations of
airsoft guns from the term firearm is
concerned. Airsoft guns and airguns are
covered by the gun ban during the
election period.
Where a rule or regulation has a
provision not expressly stated or
contained
in
the
statute
being
implemented, that provision does not
necessarily contradict the statute. A
legislative rule is in the nature of
subordinate legislation, designed to
implement a primary legislation by
providing the details thereof. All that is
required is that the regulation should
be germane to the objects and
purposes of the law; that the regulation
be not in contradiction to, but in
conformity
with,
the
standards
prescribed by the law.