1.

General Principles
 Definition of Statutory Construction
1. Caltex v. Palomar (GR L-19650, 29 September 1966)
 haystack
 digest
 When does Statutory Construction come in?

2. National Federation of Labor (NFL) v. Eisma (GR L-61236, 31

January 1984)
 haystack
 digest
3. Paat v. CA (GR 111107, 10 January 1997)
 haystack
 digest
4. People v. Mapa (GR L-22301, 30 August 1967)
 haystack
 digest
5. Daoang v. Municipal Judge of San Nicolas (GR L-34568, 28
March 1988)
 haystack
 digest
6. Paras v. Comelec (GR 123169, 4 November 1996)
 haystack
 digest
2. Statutory Construcion vs. Judicial Legislation
 Statutory Construction, whose job is it?

7. Floresca v. Philex Mining (GR L-30642, 30 April 1985)

 haystack
 digest
8. Republic v. CA and Molina (GR 108763, 13 February 1997)
 haystack
 digest
 How must Legislative Intent be ascertained

9. Aisporna v. CA (GR L-39419, 12 April 1982)

 haystack
 digest
10. China Bank v. Ortega (GR L-34964, 31 January 1973)
 haystack
 digest
11. Board of Administrators of the PVA v. Bautista (GR L-37867, 22
February 1982)
 haystack
 digest
2. Literal Construction
  Case

12. Salvatierra v. CA (GR 107797, 26 August 1996)

 haystack
 digest
13. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa v. Manila Railroad Company (GR
L-25316, 28 February 1979)
 haystack
 digest
 When not favored

14. Abellana v. Marave (GR L-27760)

 haystack
 digest
15. Paras vs. Comelec, 264 SCRA 49, supra
2. Executive Construction
 Basic rule on Executive Construction

16. PAFLU v. Bureau of Labor Relations (GR L-43760, 21 August

1976)
 haystack
 digest
 When Executive Construction is not given weight

17. Philippine Apparel Workers’ Union v. NLRC (GR L-50320, 31

July 1981)
 haystack
 digest
18. IBAA Employees Union v. Inciong (GR L52415, 23 October
1984)
 haystack
 digest
19. Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople (GR L-44717, 28
August 1985)
 haystack
 digest
 What is the difference between a rule and an opinion

20. Victorias Milling v. Social Security Commission (GR L-16704, 17

March 1962)
 haystack
 digest
2. Subjects of Construction
 The Constitution

 How should the constitution be construed

 21. Sarmiento v. Mison (GR 79974, 17 December 1987)
 haystack
 digest
22. Perfecto v. Meer (GR L-2348, 27 February 1950)
 haystack
 digest
23. Endencia v. David (GR L-6355-56, 31 August 1953)
 haystack
 digest
24. Nitafan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (GR L-
78780, 23 July 1987)
 haystack
 digest
 May the preamble be referred to in the construction of
Constitutional Provisions?

21. Aglipay v. Ruiz (GR 45459, 13 March 1937)

 haystack
 digest
 Are the provisions of the Constitution self-executing?

21. Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS (GR 122156, 3 February

1997)
 haystack
 digest
 Statute
 Requirements for the publication of laws

27. Tanada v. Tuvera (GR L-63915, 24 April 1985)

 haystack
 digest
28. Tanada v. Tuvera (GR L-63915, 29 December 1986)

 haystack
 digest
 Ordinances

 Rule on Construction of ordinances vis-a-vis Statute

29. Primicias v. Urdaneta (GR L-26702, 18 October 1979)
 haystack
 digest
2. Interpretation of specific types of statutes
 Tax Laws

 How are tax refunds construed?

 30. La Carlota Sugar Central v. Jimenez (GR L-12436, 31 May
1961)
 haystack
 digest
 Who has the burden of proof intax cases?

31. CIR v. CA (GR 115349, 18 April 1997)

 haystack
 digest
32. Mactan Cebu (MCIAA) v. Marcos (GR 120082, 11
September 1996)
 haystack
 digest
 Tax Sales construed

33. Serfino v. CA (GR L-40858, 15 September 1987)

 haystack
 digest
 Labor Laws

 Rule on the construction of labor laws

34. Manahan v. ECC (GR L-44899, 22 April 1981)

 haystack
 digest
35. Villavert v. ECC (GR L-48605, 14 December 1981)
 haystack
 digest
36. Del Rosario & Sons v. NLRC (GR L-64204, 31 May 1985)
 haystack
 digest
 Insurance

 Rule in the interpretation of insurance provisions

37. Ty v. First National Surety (GR L-16138, 29 April 1961)

 haystack
 digest
38. De la Cruz v. Capital Insurance (GR L-21574, 30 June
1966)
 haystack
 digest
 Ambiguous provision interpreted against insurer

<
 39. Qua Chee Gan v. Law Union and Rock Insurance (GR L-
4611, 17 December 1955)
 haystack
 digest
 Corporate Law

 Rule on the interpretation of Corporate Law provisions?

40. Home Insurance v. Eastern Shipping Lines (GR L-34382,

20 July 1983)
 haystack
 digest
 Naturalization Laws

 Rule on the construction of Naturalization Laws

41. Co v. Republic (GR L-12150, 26 May 1960)

 haystack
 digest
42. Lee Cho (@ Sem Lee) v. Republic (GR L-12408, 28
December 1959)
 haystack
 digest
 Agrarian Reform Laws

 Rule on the construction of Agrarian Reform Laws

43. Guerrero v. CA (GR L-44570, 30 May 1986)

 haystack
 digest
 Rules of Court

 Rule on the construction of the provisions of the Rules of Court

44. Bello v. CA (GR L-38161, 29 March 1974)

 haystack
 digest
 Expropriation Laws

45. City of Manila v. Chinese Community of Manila (GR 14355, 31

October 1919)
 haystack
 digest
 Election Laws

45. Villanueva v. Comelec (GR L-54718, 4 December 1985)

  haystack
 digest

 Wills

 Rule on the interpretation of wills

47. In RE Tampoy (GR L-14322, 25 February 1960)
 haystack
 digest
2. Particular Latin Rules
 Mens legislatoris

48. Matabuena v. Cervantes (GR L-28771, 31 March 1971)

 haystack
 digest
 Dura Lex Sed Lex

48. People vs. Mapa, 20 SCRA 1164, supra

49. People v. Santayana (GR L-22291, 15 November 1976)

 haystack
 digest
 Expressio Unius est exclusio alterius

48. People v. Estenzo (GR L-35376, 11 September 1980)

 haystack
 digest

 Ejusdem generis

 When do we apply this rule?

52. Mutuc v. Comelec (GR L-32717, 26 November 1970)
 haystack
 digest
 Casus Omissus

 Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est (restrictive rule)

52. People v. Manantan (GR L-14129, 31 July 1962)

 haystack
 digest
 Permissive rule

52. Lopez v. CTA (GR L-9274, 1 February 1957)

 haystack
  digest
 Noscitur a sociis

55. Sanciangco v. Rono (GR L-68709, 19 July 1985)

 haystack
 digest
56. Caltex Phil. vs. Palomar, 18 SCRA 247, supra
2. Construction of words and phrases
 “May” and “Shall”

55. Capati v. Ocampo (GR L-28742, 30 April 1982)

 haystack
 digest
 “Of” and “May”

55. GMCR vs. Bell Telecommunications, 271 SCRA 790 [1]

 “Principally” and “Exclusively”

55. Alfon v. Republic (GR L-51201, 29 May 1980)

 haystack
 digest

 “Previously”

55. Rura v. Lopena (GR L-69810-14, 19 June 1985)

 haystack
 digest

 “Every”

55. NHA vs. Juco, 134 SCRA 172 [2]

 Surplusages

55. Demafiles vs. Comelec, GR L-28396, 29 December 1987 [3]

 Punctuations

55. Arabay vs. CFI of Zamboanga del Norte, 66 SCRA 617 [4]
 Other examples

55. People vs. Mejia, 275 SCRA 127 [5]

2. Special over general
 What is the rule regarding conflicting provisions of the same statute?
 55. Manila Railroad Co. v.Collector of Customs (GR 30264, 12 March
1929)

 haystack
 digest
56. Almeda vs. Florentino, 15 SCRA 514 [6]

 What is the rule regarding conflicting provisions of different statutes?

55. Laxamana v. Baltazar (GR L-5955, 19 September 1952)

 haystack
 digest
56. Butuan Sawmill v. City of Butuan (GR L-21516, 29 April 1966)

 haystack
 digest
56. Arayata vs. Joya, 51 PHIL 654 [7]

 What is the rule in case of conflict between a special provision of a

general law and a general provision of a special law?

55. City of Manila vs. Teotico, 2 SCRA 267 [8]

56. David vs. Comelec, 271 SCRA 90 [9]

3. External Aids


 Origin of the State

71. US vs. De Guzman [10]
 Legislative debates

71. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. SSC (GR L-

15045, 20 January 1961)
 haystack
 digest
 Contemporaneous acts of the legislature

71. David vs. Comelec, 271 SCRA 90, supra

2. Presumptions

 In favor of validity of legislative acts

74. NHA vs. Reyes, 125 SCRA 245 [11]

 In favor of beneficial operation of statutes
 74. Paat vs. CA, 265 SCRA 167, supra

2. Repeals

 Rule on retroactivity of repeals

74. Tac-an vs. CA, 137 SCRA 803 [12]

 Implied Repeals

74. Villegas v. Subido (GR L-31711, 30 September 1987)

 haystack
 digest