statutory construction digests (atty. sy's class, '12-'13)

7/31/2019 Statutory Construction Digests (Atty. Sy's class, '12-'13)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statutory-construction-digests-atty-sys-class-12-13 1/10

Luis ARANETA v. HON. CONCEPCION and Emma Araneta

Action for legal separation on the ground of adultery

Omnibus petition of wife

o Custody of 3 kids

o Support of 5000/month

o Return of passport

o Stop husband’s hirelings from harassing and molesting

o Pay for attorney’s fees

Husband’s response

o Wife abandoned kids therefore not entitled to custody of kids

o Conjugal properties only worth 80,000

o Denied taking of passport and harassment

o Wife committed adultery

o No conjugal assets = not entitled to support

RTC and judge’s decision

o Custody of kids to wife

o Monthly allowance of 2300; 2000 for attorney’s fees

Judge denied submission of evidence based on Art. 103 of CC no trial of case w/in 6 mos. after

filing of petition for legal separation

o Submission of evidence will deter “cool-off” period/chance for reconciliation bet. Spouses

o Court must act as if nothing happened

Give custody to traditional holder – wife

Disregard adultery and harassment issues

ISSUE: W/N Art. 103 can override other provisions of the CC.

HELD: No.

Rule: all provisions of law even if contradictory should be allowed to stand and given effect by

reconciling with other provisions if necessary.

statute is passed as a whole and interpretation should be done by construing one section

with every other part of section to produce a whole meaning

not proper to confine interpretation to just 1 section

Determination of other issues should be given effect so long as not affect the policy of cooling

off period

Evidence not affecting cause [legal sep] should be allowed

Proceed with decision on custody and pendente lite



ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORP. v. CITY of CEBU

Ordinance No. 207 – enacted by Municipal Board, Aug. 1956, approved by Mayor

o Authority under Sec. 17(W) of charter of Cebu City

Plaintiffs paid wharfage fees since Sept 1956

o Filed action against validity of ordinance May 1957 court a quo dismissed

ISSUE 1: W/N under CA 58, City of Cebu may provide ordinance to collect wharfage from public wharves

of piers in city but owned by National Govt.

Right to impose wharfage dues rests on ownership

o Right to collect wharfage owned by National Govt – didn’t surrender ownership to city

just because wharf is located in Cebu

o Wharves owned by National Govt under exclusive control, direction and management of

Bureau of Customs

Wharfage – charged against vessel, as rent or compensation, for being allowed to lie beside

wharf for loading or unloading

Sec. 17(W) in charter only authorizes collection of taxes from public wharves -- constructed and

owned by City of Cebu as indicated in Sec. 17(V)

ISSUE 2: W/N “public” means wharf owned by National Govt or by province or municipality.

legislative intent must be ascertained from the consideration of the statute as a whole and not by

part

word or phrase may convey a diff meaning from intended w/c is evident when it is considered

alongside those w/ which it is associated

general provision may have limited application if viewed alongside other provisions

“public” refers to use rather than ownership

Public wharves – used generally by the public, free or charge or for compensation

Private wharf – owner or lessee has exclusive enjoyment or use of

ISSUE 3: W/N city’s power to tax is inherent. NO.

Power to tax an attribute of sovereignty

To be exercised, needs express delegation by means of charter or general enabling statute

o Even if Sec. 17(W) grants power to tax, must be public wharves or those owned by City

NOT inherent in municipal corp.



Mayor MAGTAJAS and CDO v. PRYCE PROP. CORP. and PAGCOR

1992, PAGCOR wanted to expand operations to CDO

o Leased property from Pryce Corp. and planned to open on Christmas ‘92

Ordinance No. 3353 – by Sangguniang Panlungsod of CDO

o Prohibiting issuance of business permit

o Cancel permit of any that allows use of premises or portion for casino operations

o Effective 10 days from publication

Ord. No. 3375-93

o Prohibiting operation of casino and penalty for violation thereof

o To protect moral values and general welfare of community

Pryce brought to courtWON

o CA declared ordinance invalid

o Writ prohibiting enforcement

o Reconsideration denied

ISSUE 1: W/N “gambling and other prohibited games of chance” in RA 7160 only means “illegal

gambling”

Sec. 458 of LGC – local govt units authorized to prevent and suppress gambling and other

prohibited games of chance

o Recall: noscitur a sociis – interpret in relation to words it is associated

o “gambling” associated with “and other prohibited games of chance” = only means illegal

gambling

ISSUE 2: W/N Sangguniang Panlungsod of CDO has the power and authority to prohibit establishment

and operation of PAGCOR

CDO empowered to enact ordinances for purposes detailed in LGC

Expressly vested in police power – General Welfare Clause (Sec. 16)

Sec. 458 of LGC: Sangguniang Panlungsod can enact ordinances and resolutions for general

welfare of city and inhabitantso Authorizes LGUs to regulate properties and businesses w/in territory

Art. 2 Sec. 25 and Art. 10 of Consti – policy of local autonomy

o Even if casinos permitted by PD 1869, govt of CDO still has authority to prohibit w/in

territory as permitted by LGC



o LGC recognizes competence to determine and adopt measures to secure general

welfare of citizens

ISSUE 3: W/N ordinance in effect annul PD 1869

PAGCOR created directly by PD 1869

o To centralize and regulate all games of chance, casinos on land and sea w/in RP

o Basco, et al. v PAGCOR – benefits of PAGCOR and 3rd

highest revenue-earner in govt

PD 1869 not repealed by clause in Sec. 534 – no sufficient indication of implied repeal

implied repeals are not lightly presumed in the absence of clear and unmistakable showing of

such intention

intention to repeal a former law will not be imputed to Legislature when it appears that the

statutes have the relation of general to special

PAGCOR is mentioned as a source of funding charter not repealed by LGC

instead of pitting two statutes against each other, courts must exert every effort to reconcile

them

o Both laws deserve respect as handiwork of coordinate branches of govt

Harmonize PD 1869 and LGC local govt units may prevent and suppress all kinds of gambling w/in

their territory except those allowed in statutes like PD 1869

Casino gambling is authorized by PD 1869

PD 1869 – statute that can’t be amended or nullified by a mere ordinance

ISSUE 4: W/N ordinances are valid

Tests of valid ordinance:

o Must not contravene constitution or any statute

o Must not be unfair or oppressive

o Not be partial or discriminatory

o Not prohibit but regulate trade

o General and consistent with public policy

o Not be unreasonable

Ordinance should not contravene a statute Ordinances 3353 and 3375-93 are contrary to PD1869

Municipal govts are only agents of the national govt – only exercise delegated legislatuve powers

conferred on them by the Congress

o Cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those granted

o National govt still the principal of the local govt units which cannot deft its will or modify or

violate it



LAGUNA LAKE DEVT AUTHORITY v. CA

Certiorari and prohibition with injunction

RA 4850 – created Laguna Lake Development Authority

o To moderate growth and development of Laguna Lake area and surroundings

o Amended by PD 813 – rapid expansion of MM’s impact on Laguna Lake

o EO No. 927 – defined and enlarged functions and powers of LLA

Enumerated towns and cities part of Laguna de Bay Region

Sharing of fees – Authority has jurisdiction over issuance of permit for use of surface

water

Sharing of fees with other govt agencies and political subdivisions, subject

to approval of President upon recommendation of Board

RA 7160, Local Govt Code of 1991, Sec. 149

o Municipalities have authority to grant fishery privileges and impose rental fees

o Caused 1/3 of surface water to be occupied by unregulated fishpens and fish cages

o Mayor’s permit to construct fish pens and cages in violation of policies of Authority

Authority sent notice to fish pen owners to dismantle w/in 10 days from receipt

o Owners - filed injunction cases

o Authority- filed motions to dismiss denied

CA dismissed Authority’s consolidated cases

ISSUE: W/N the LLA has jurisdiction over Laguna Lake and issuance of fishery privileges

Sec. 4(k) of LLA charter; RA 4850, PD 813 and EO No. 927 Sec. 2

o Specifically provide that LLA has exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for all use of

surface water

o Navigation, construction, operation of pens enclosures and others

RA 7160, LGC

o Granted to municipalities exclusive authority to grant fishery privileges in municipal

waterso Only within definite zone of municipal waters

o Sec. 149 – issuance of permits only for revenue purposes

Provisions of RA 7160 DO NOT necessarily repeal the laws creating LLA

o No express repeal of charter of LLA

o No intent on part of legislature to repeal RA 4850 and its amendments



Enactment of a later legislation which is a general law cannot be construed to have repealed a special

law – IMPLIED REPEAL NOT FAVOURED

a special statute can’t be MAR by a subsequent general law by mere implication

even though terms in the general law are broad enough to include those in special statute

When there is conflict between a special law and a general statute = SPECIAL STATUTE PREVAIL

Reflects legislative intent clearer than the general statute

Special law taken as exception to general law in absence of specified contrary

Charter of LLA must prevail over LGC valid exercise of police power

o Every indication that legislature intended for Authority to proceed with its purpose

ISSUE 2: W/N Laguna Lake Authority is a quasi-judicial agency YES.

Authority has express powers as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body w/ respect to pollution cases

o Authority to ‘cease and desist’ in case re. illegal construction of structures in Laguna de Bay

o Exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for fishery privileges in Laguna de Bay

Excludes municipalities around the area

Authority is vested by its charter

Removal of authority will render nugatory the purpose of LLA

o Sec. 4 of RA 4850; Sec. 4 of EO No. 927

Administrative agency has powers expressly granted to it by law

but also has powers as necessarily implied in the exercise of its express powers

But NOT co-equal to the RTC such that all actions against it may only be instituted before the Court

of Appeals

o Resolution of legal issue in charter still under jurisdiction of RTC



NATIONAL TOBACCO ADMIN v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

EO No. 116, amended by EO No. 245 – National Tobacco Administration (NTA)

o Govt-owned and controlled corporation to supervise and improve viability of tobacco

industry

Aug 1989 - RA 6758 – Act Prescribing Revised Compensation And Position Classification In The Govt

And For Other Purposes

o Prior to effectivity, officials and employees of NTA already getting Mid-Year Social

Amelioration Benefit

1 ½ month of salary

o Oct 1989 – Dept of Budget and Management issued Corp. Compensation Circular No. 10

Implementing rules of RA 6758

1989 – 1993 : reduction of benefit to 1 month of basic salary due to financial constraints

May 1993 : “social amelioration benefit” changed to “educational assistance”

o Encourage to pursue graduate studies or finance schooling of kids

Feb 1994 – Ms. Aracan, Resident Auditor of NTA issued Notice of Disallowance of payment of

educational assistance funds for 1993

o NTA has no statutory authority to grant the incentive

Feb 1995 – Commission on Audit’s decision

o Disallowance is in order

o Sec. 5.6 of CCC No. 10 – allowances/fringe benefits granted on top of basic salary considered

illegal disbursement of public fundso Read in conjunction with Sec. 12 – all allowances not specified determined by DBM and

deemed included in standardized salary rates

Other add’l compensation not integrated into standardized salary rates continue to

be authorized

ISSUE 1: W/N social amelioration or educational assistance benefit given prior to enactment of RA 6758

is authorized.

Issue in interpretation of Sec. 12 first sentence and Sec. 12 second sentence – must be resolved

o Sec. 12, 1

st

sen. – all salaries deemed integrated except enumerated No. 7 is a Catch-all proviso – all are allowances, usually granted to officials of

govt to defray or reimburse expenses incurred in performance of duties

“Allowances” supported in 5.4 and 5.5 of CCC No. 10 not integrated into

basic salary and continued after June 1989

o Sec. 12, 2nd sen. – add’l compensation received as of July 1989 not integrated into

standardized salary rates continue to be authorized



Challenged financial incentive is awarded by govt to encourage further studies or for education

of their children

o Considered as financial assistance [no reimbursement] and not allowance

[reimbursement required]

o An incentive wage – bonus/payment on top of guaranteed hourly wages

particular words, clauses and phrases shouldn’t be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but

the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and

in order to produce a harmonious whole. A statute must be so construed as to harmonize and give

effect to all its provisions whenever possible.

conflicting provisions should be reconciled and harmonized, if possible

intent of legislature controlling factor in interpretation of the statute

The “catch-all proviso” – legislative intent to just include fringe benefits w/c are in nature of

allowances

o Benefit in question is NOT an allowance educational assistance NOT included in list of

fringe benefits mentioned in 1st

sentence of Sec. 12

o Part of 2nd

sentence of Sec. 12 in relation to Sec. 17 of RA 6758

Recipients incumbents when RA was passed

Receiving benefits at such time

Benefit is different from specific allowances mentioned and NOT included in

standardized salary rate

Non-inclusion of “educational assistance in 5.4 and 5.4 of CCC No. 10 expected because does not

belong to genus “allowance”

o CCC No. 10 cannot go beyond terms and provisions of statute to prohibit something already

allowed by law (RA 6758)

o CCC No. 10 cannot MAR a statute

ISSUE 2: W/N disallowance of benefit is tantamount to diminution of pay. NO

2nd

sentence of Sec. 12 of RA 6758 intention of Congress to prevent any diminution of pay and

benefits received by incumbents during effectivity of Salary Standardization Law

Disallowing benefit would go against spirit of statute

ISSUE 3: W/N petitioners have acquired a vested right over receipt of benefit. NO.

Not a vested right but must be given when available

Disallowance of benefits even if there are funds available would go against principle of equity



Hubert Tan CO and Arlene Tan CO v. CIVIL REGISTER OF MANILA

Hubert Co (1974) and Arlene Co (1975)

o Parents both Chinese citizens in birth certif

o Earned degrees in Phil. Schools

Co Boon Peng filed application for naturalization

o Letter of Instruction No. 270

o Application granted – naturalized under PD 1055

o Feb 1977 – Certificate of Naturalization No. 020778 issued by Chairman

o Took oath as Philippine citizen Feb 1977

Aug. 1998 – Hubert and Arlene filed with RTC Manila petition

o Rule 108 of RoC for correction of entries in birth certificate

o Born in Phils. but became naturalized citizens

o Naturalization Law, as amended by CA No. 473 minor children naturalized under law

considered citizens

o Naturalization of Co Boon Peng act/event concerning their civil status

Must be recorded in the Civil Register

Birth certificates must be corrected to reflect citizenship of Co Boon Peng as “Filipino”, not Chinese

1st

Ruling: court a quo DENIED

o Co Boon Peng naturalized under LOI No. 270 and PD 1055, not CA 473

2nd Ruling: RTC DENIED

o CA 473 and LOI 250 relate to same subject, not same benefits

o Sec. 25 of CA 473 – effect of naturalization on wife and children of applicant

o LOI No. 260 – no proviso of effects; refers to qualified individuals only

o Sec. 15 of CA 473 not be deemed incorporated in and applied to LOI No. 270

o “Pari materia” not apply; strict construction of legislative grants

Legislative grants, whether property, rights or privileges, to corps or individuals,

must be strictly construed against the grantee and in favor or grantor

ISSUE: W/N the petitioners should be granted the change in citizenship on account of CA No. 473.

Trial court directed to reinstate petition and continue with proceedings

In pari materia – statutes should be read and construed together because enactments of the same

legislature on the same subject are supposed to form part of 1 uniform system

later statutes are supplementary or complimentary to earlier one

passage of new statutes, legislature should have in mind existing statutes with same subject

and enact new ones with reference thereto



in absence of any express repeal or amendment, new provision enacted in accord with the

legislative policy embedded in prior statutes

although in apparent conflict, are so far reasonably possible construed in harmony with other

LOI 270 and CA 473 – laws governing naturalization of qualified aliens

o Different procedures, same purpose and objective grant citizenship to aliens

permanently residing in Phils.

o CA 473 naturalization by judicial decree

o LOI 270 naturalization by presidential decree

LOI 270 : quicker, easier, cheaper

LOI 270 and CA 473 statutes in pari material

o No express repeal of Sec. 15 of CA 473 in LOI, therefore provision should be read into latter

law as integral part and consistent with its purpose

o Sec. 15 of CA 473: extends grant of citizenship to minor children

Should also be applied to minor children of those naturalized under LOI 270

Recourse to Rule 108 of RoC appropriate – procedure to implement the law

o Art. 412 of NCC, no entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected w/o judicial order

o Covers not only status but also nationality

o Art. 407 NCC – include events occur after birth

Entries in birth certificate not changed, decision of court annotated in the certif.

“TO CORRECT” – to make or set right, remove faults or errors

“TO CHANGE” – replace with something else or same kind or substitute

Art. 412 of NCC – not entry to be changed or corrected or distinguish on basis of effect of change or

correction

o Clerical errors or substantial errors

Trial court erred in dismissing petition on ground on Rule 108 of RoC

o Must follow procedure – petition, trial, judge’s decision reflected in annotated copy of birth

certif.

statutory construction digests (atty. sy's class, '12-'13)

Documents