GENERAL PRINCIPLE IN THE CONSTRUCTIOF STATUTES

I. LEGISLATIVE INTENT MUST BE ASCERTAINED FROM THE STATUTE AS A

WHOLE

OPTIMA STATULI INTERPRETATIX EST IPSUM STATUTUM. The best

interpreter of the statute is the statute itself. Hence, in the construction of statutes, what

is of prevailing importance is to discover the legislative intent why the law is enacted.

This intent is primarily determined from the language of the statute.

The court's honest belief that the legislature intended to enact a law different to

what it actually enacted is of no moment. Neither can the courts determine whether the

statute is wise for that is not its duty. Its duty is to find out the legislative intent, and this

can be done by construing the statute as a whole, by considering one part of the statute

in relation to the other parts, and by harmonizing all the provisions of the statute

whenever possible.

It is to be presumed that the purpose of the legislature is to make every part of

the statute effective.

The basis of this rule is the Latin Maxim — UT RES MAGIS QUAM PEREAT.

This means that it is not enough that a statute should be given effect as a whole but that

effect should be given to each of the provisions in the statute.

This rule applies to amendments because it is presumed that the legislature, in making

changes in the law, finds that there is a necessity for said amendments. This is a

legislative function which is beyond the domain of the courts.

The cases below illustrate the principles herein discussed.

New Case:

LORENZO T. TANGGA-AN v.

PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., et al.,

G.R. No. 180636, March 13, 2013

FACTS:

This is a case for illegal dismissal with a claim for the payment of salaries

corresponding to the unexpired term of the contract, damages and attorney's fees filed

by Lorenzo Tangga-an against the Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., Universe

Tankship Delaware LLC, and Carlos C. Salinas.

It was alleged that Tangga-an entered into an overseas employment contract

with Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (PTC) for and in behalf of its foreign

employer, Universe Tankship Delaware, LLC. Under the contract, he was to be

employed for a period of six months as chief engineer of the vessel S.S. "Kure" with

US$5,000 as basic salary, vacation leave pay of US$2,500 per month, and US$700

tonnage bonus a month.

On February 11, 2002, he was deployed. On or about Mar. 13, 2002, the vessel

berthed at a port in Japan to discharge its cargo.

Thereafter, it sailed to the U.S.A. While the vessel was still at sea, the master

required him and the rest of the Filipino Engineer Officers to report to his office where

they were informed that they would be repatriated on account of the delay in the cargo

discharging in Japan.

Tangga-an filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for payment of

salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract, leave pay, exemplary and moral

damages, attorney's fees and interest.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a decision finding the petitioner to have been

illegally dismissed. As regards to the claim for back salaries, it ruled that he is not
entitled to four months which is equivalent to the unexpired portion of his contract, but

only to three months, inclusive of vacation leave pay, and tonnage bonus pursuant to

Section 10 of RA No. 8042 or The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 2005.

The NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA. Respondent's motion for

reconsideration was denied.

The CA modified the NLRC decision, as to monetary awards, it considered only

basic monthly salary and disregarded; the monthly vacation leave pay and tonnage

bonus and likewise held that the "unexpired portion of contract" for which he is entitled

to back salaries should only be three months pursuant to Section 1017 of RA No. 8042.

Petitioner filed a Motion for (Partial) Reconsideration, but was denied. Thus, he

filed the instant Petition.

ISSUE:

Whether the indemnity awarded by the CAin petitioner's favor consisting only of

three months basic salaries conforms with the proper interpretation of Section 10 of RA

No. 8042.

RULING:

The Supreme Court held that in resolving petitioner's monetary claims, the CA

utterly misinterpreted the Court's ruling in Skippers Pacific, Inc. v. Skippers Maritime

Services, Ltd., using it to support a view which the latter case precisely ventured to

strike down. In that case, the employee was hired as the vessel's Master on a six-month

employment contract, but was able to work for only two months, as he was later on

illegally dismissed. The Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and the CA all took the view that the

complaining employee was entitled to his salary for the unexpired portion of his

contract, but limited to only three months pursuant to Section 1024 of RA No. 8042. The

Court did not agree and hence modified the judgment in said case. It held that, following

the wording of Sec. 10 and its ruling in Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. v. National

Labor Relations Commission, when the illegally dismissed employee's employment

contract has a term of less than one year, he shall be entitled to recovery of salaries

representing the unexpired portion of his employment contract. Indeed, there was

nothing even vaguely confusing in the Court's citation therein of Marsaman:

In Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. v. NLRC, involving Section 10 of RA No.

8042, it was held:

"[The Court] cannot subscribe to the view that private respondent is entitled to

three (3) months salary only. A plain reading of Section 10 clearly reveals that the

choice of which amount to award an illegally dismissed overseas contract worker, i.e.,

whether his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or three (3)

months salary for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less, comes into play

only when the employment contract concerned nas a term of at least one (1) year or

more. This is evident from the [wording] "for every year of the unexpired term" which

follows the [wording] "salaries x x x for three months." To follow petitioners' thinking that

private respondent is entitled to three (3) months salary only simply because it is the

lesser amount is to completely disregard and overlook some words used in the statute

while giving effect to some. This is contrary to the well-established rule in legal

hermeneutics that in interpreting a statute, care should be taken that every part or word

thereof be given effect since the law making body is presumed to know the meaning of

the words employed in the statute and to have used them advisedly. Ut res ma-gis

valeat quam pereat" (Emphasis supplied)

It is not disputed that private respondent's employment contract in the instant

case was for six (6) months. Hence, no reason to disregard the ruling in Marsaman that

private respondent should be paid his salaries for the unexpired portion of his

employment contract.

Thus, petitioner must be awarded his salaries corresponding to the unexpired

portion of his six-month employment contract, or equivalent to four months. This

includes all his corresponding monthly vacation leave pay and tonnage bonuses which

are expressly provided and guaranteed in his employment contract as part of his
 monthly salary and benefit package. These benefits were guaranteed to be paid on a

monthly basis, and were not made contingent.

II. VERBA LEGIS

The "plain meaning rule" or verba legis in statutory construction is that if the

statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and

applied without interpretation.

Verba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be

no departure.

Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation (GMRC), Petitioner

Vs.

National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Imelda Salazar, Respondents

G.R. No. 82511, March 3, 1992

Facts:

Private Respondent, "Imelda Salazar" was employed as general systems analyst

of Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. (GMRC) While Delfin Saldivar, her close

friend, was employed as technical operations' support manager in May 1982.

Petitioner GMRC investigated Saldivar's activities due to the reports indicating

that the company equipment and spare parts were in custody of Saldivar. The internal

audit report also indicated that Saldivar entered into a partnership with Richard A.

Yambao, owner and manager of Eledon Engineering Services (Elecon), a supplier often

recommended by Saldivar to the petitioner. It also appeared in the course of

Maramara's investigation that Imelda Salazar violated company regulations by involving

herself in transactions with conflict of interest with the company. Evidence showed that

she signed as a witness to the articles of partnership between Yambao and Saldivar,
and that she had full knowledge of the loss and whereabouts of the missing air

conditioner but she failed to inform her employer.

The Company placed Salazar under 1 month preventive suspension, allowing

her 30 days within which to explain her side. However, Salazar instead filed a complaint

against petitioner for illegal suspension, which was later modified to illegal dismissal.

The Labor arbiter ordered the company to reinstate Salazar to her former and

equivalent position and to pay her full back wages and benefits, plus moral damages.

National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the labor arbiter's decision but

limited back wages for only two years and deleted the award of moral damages.

Issue:

Whether or Not the action of dismissal would constitute a violation of Art. 279 of

the Labor Code, which protects the security of tenure of an employee.

Held:

Positive. The Court did not agree on the petitioner's action of suspension and

eventual dismissal of Salazar due to lack of evidence to show that Salazar was involved

with the malicious activities of Saldivar.

The wordings of the Labor Code is clear and unambiguous "An employee who is

unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement and full back wages."

Under the principle of Statutory Construction, if a statute is clear, plain and free from

ambiguity. It must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted

interpretation. The plain meaning rule or Verba Legis derived from the maxim "Speech

is the index of intention" should be applied in this case.

Since there is no evidence to show an authorized or legal dismissal, and GMRC

only relied to an internal audit findings, Salazar, according to the Labor Code, is entitled

to reinstatement and full back wages allowed by the Court.

III. STATUTES AS A WHOLE

The statute as a whole, the previous state of the law, other statutes in pari

materia, the general scope of the statute, and the mischief it is to remedy, is the basic

context of any statute. The elementary rule states that the intention of the Legislature

must be found by reading the statute as a whole. Every clause needs to be construed

with reference to the context and other clauses of the Act, to make a consistent

enactment of the whole statute or series of statutes relating to the subject-matter. It is

the most natural and genuine exposition of a statute.

The conclusion that the language is plain or ambiguous can only be truly arrived

at by studying the statute as a whole. How far and to what extent each component

influences the meaning of the other , would be different in each given case. Each word,

must however, be allowed to play its role, however significant or insignificant it may be.

in achieving the legislative intent. Each section must be construed as a whole, whether

or not one of the parts is a saving clause or a proviso. They may be interdependent,

each portion throwing light, if need be on the rest.

A question of construction only arises when one side submits that a particular

provision of an Act covers the facts of the case and the other submits that it does not or

it may be agreed it applies, but the difference arises to its application.

IV. SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE LAW

Spirit of the law refers to ideas that the creators of a particular law wanted to

have effect. It is the intent and purpose of the lawmaker, or framer of the Constitution,

as determined by a consideration of the whole context thereof.

 V. Implications

Legal implications are the results or consequences of being involved in

something according to the law.

VI. CASUS OMISSUS

Case omitted. A legal issue or situation not governed by statutory or

administrative law or by the terms of a contract. The resolution of any legal dispute

arising from such an issue or situation is governed by the case law or, if it is a case of

first impression, by whatever guidance the court finds in the common law.

VII. STARE DECISIS

Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases

when making a ruling on a similar case. Stare decisis ensures that cases with similar

scenarios and facts are approached in the same way. Simply put, it binds courts to

follow legal precedents set by previous decisions.

Stare decisis is a Latin term meaning "to stand by that which is decided."