SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW
COURSE SYLLABUS

COURSE CODE:

COURSE TITLE: STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

COURSE CREDIT: 2 UNITS

COURSE PREREQUISITE/S: N/A

FACULTY: Algie Kwillon B. Mariacos

EMAIL ADDRESS: akmariacos@sanbeda.edu.ph

TERM/ACADEMIC YEAR: FIRST SEMESTER SCHOOL YEAR 2020-2021

DAY/TIME/ROOM/SECTION:

COURSE DELIVERY MODE: FULL ONLINE

CONSULTATION DAY/TIME:

COURSE DESCRIPTION:

A study of the different rules of statutory construction to prepare the student as he

or she attempts to discover and understand the meaning of the provisions of the
Constitution, various statutes, and the latter’s implementing rules. Before studying
the different rules of construction, this course will first equip the student with
sufficient knowledge about the process of lawmaking and the hierarchy and
classification of laws.

COURSE GOALS: Expected College of Law Graduate Attributes (“ELGAs”)

(A) Know and understand the process of lawmaking, the hierarchy of laws, and the
classification and interrelation of laws; (B) know and understand the different rules
of statutory construction; and (C) Develop: (i) student’s ability to apply with ease
the different rules of construction, (ii) student’s critical and analytical thinking,
(iii) student’s proficiency in written and oral communication, and (iv) student’s
logical reasoning and sound judgment.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES (“LOs”):

1. Knowledge/Remembering: define, list, recognize

2. Comprehension/Understanding: describe, explain, identify, recognize
3. Application/Applying: choose, demonstrate, implement, perform
4. Analysis/Analyzing: analyze, categorize, compare, differentiate
5. Evaluation/Evaluating: assess, critique, evaluate, rank, rate
6. Synthesis/Creating: construct, design, formulate, organize, synthesize

Upon completion of the Statutory Construction course, the student is expected to be able to:

ELGAs LEARNING OUTCOMES (LOs)

Critical and analytical LO1. Explain the process of enacting a law, the hierarchy and
thinking classification of laws, and the different rules of statutory construction.

1
 Effective in written and LO2. Analyze/Criticize/Compare the application by the Court of the
oral communication different rules of construction in the cases assigned.
Logical reasoning LO3. Assess the applicability or inapplicability of a rule of
Sound judgment construction on a given hypothetical or actual situation.
Exercise of proper LO4. Apply the different rules of construction on a given situation.
professional and ethical
responsibilities

ASSESSMENT/GRADING SYSTEM:

The student will be graded according to the following:

Percentage
(Weight is based
Requirements Based on the Learning Outcomes Scope of Work
on the
(“LO”) (Individual)
importance of
the LO)
LO1 Class recitations, Quizzes, Case Digests, Individual
LO2 and Discussion Individual
LO3 Individual
LO4

Class standing before Midterms Individual 16.67%

Midterm Exams Individual 16.67%
Class Standing after Midterms Individual 33.33%
Final Exams Individual 33.33%
TOTAL 100%

LEARNING PLAN:

LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)

Course Introduction
 Course overview Syllabus 24 Aug. Lecture
 Course assignments 2020
 Course requirements Discussion

MODULE 1: LEGISLATIVE POWER

24 Aug. to
I. Legislative Power in General, Where Lodged Syllabus 29 Aug. Recitation
2020
1. David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006 Textbooks Case Study
2. Sanidad v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-44640,

2
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
October 12, 1976 Supreme Court Discussion
Decisions
II. Bicameralism

1. Liang v. People, G.R. No. 125865, 28 January

2000 Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R.
No. 202242, April 16, 2013

2. Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA

630

III. Extent of and Limitations on Legislative

Power

1. In re: Cunanan, 94 Phil. 534

2. Ang Nars Party List v. Executive Secretary, G.R.
No. 215746, [October 8, 2019]
3. Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566, November
19, 2013
4. Abakada Guro Party-list v. Purisima, G.R. No.
166715, August 14, 2008, 562 SCRA 251
5. Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate, G.R. No.
19671, October 18, 2011, 659 SCRA 270

MODULE 2: STATUTES AND THEIR

ENACTMENT

I. Title of Bills

1. Lidasan v. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 496

2. Giron v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 188179, January
22, 2013 Syllabus
Recitation
31 Aug. to
II. Formalities Textbooks
12 Sept. Case Study
2020
1. Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA Supreme Court
Discussion
630 Decisions
2. PHILJA v. Prado, G.R. No. 105371, November
11, 1993, 227 SCRA 203

III. Approval of Bills

1. Bolinao Electronics v. Valencia, G.R. No. L-

20740, June 30, 1964, 11 SCRA 486
2. Abakada Guro Party-list v. Purisima, G.R. No.

3
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
166715, August 14, 2008, 562 SCRA 251

IV. Evidence of Enactment of Laws

a.) Enrolled Bill Theory

1. Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, L-1223, March 5,

1947, 78 Phil. 1 (1947)
2. Arroyo v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255,
August 14, 1997, 277 SCRA 268

b.) Journal Entry Rule

1. Astorga v. Villegas, G.R. No. 23475, April 30,

1974, 56 SCRA 714

MODULE 3: CONSTITUTIONAL
CONSTRUCTION

I. Constitution, Definition and

Characteristics

1. Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156,

February 3, 1997, 267 SCRA 408

II. General Principles of Construction

Syllabus
Recitation
1. Gold Creek Mining Corp. v. Rodriguez, 66 Phil. 14 Sept. to
259 (1938) Textbooks
19 Sept. Case Study
2020
III. Aids to construction Supreme Court
Discussion
Decisions
1. Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary,
194 SCRA 317 (1991)
2. Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of
Agrarian Reform, 192 SCRA 51 (1990)
3. Tanada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051 (1957)
4. Galman v. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 294 (1985)

IV. Ordinary Sense v. Technical Sense

1. Ordillo v. Commission on Elections, 192

SCRA 100 (1992)

4
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
2. Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, 79 Phil. 461
(1947)

V. Self-Executing vs. Non-Self-Executing

1. Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No.

122156, 3 February 1997.
2. Pamatong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161872,
April 13, 2004

VI. Mandatory v. Directory

1. Tanada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051 (1957)

2. Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 28196,
November 9, 1967

VII. Prospective v. Retroactive

1. Filoteo v. Sandiganbayan, 263 SCRA 222

(1996)
2. Co v. Electoral Tribunal, 199 SCRA 692
(1991)

MODULE 4: EFFECTIVITY OF STATUTES

I. When the Constitution Becomes

Effective

1. Alfredo M. de Leon v. Hon. Benjamin B.

Esguerra, G.R. No. 78059, August 31, 1987

II. When Statute Becomes Effective Syllabus

21 Sept. to Recitation
3 Oct.
1. Civil Code, Article 2 Textbooks
2020 Case Study
2. Administrative Code, Book I, Chapter 5,
Supreme Court
Section 18 Discussion
Decisions
3. Administrative Code, Book I, Chapter 6,
Sections 24 – 25
4. Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 63915, 29
December 1986
5. Philippine Veterans Bank v. Vega, G.R. No.
105364, 28 June 2001

III. When Statute Becomes Effective

5
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
1. Administrative Code, Book VII, Sections 2 – 9
2. Tanada vs. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915 April
24, 1985
3. Commissioner of Customs v. Hypermix Feeds
Corporation, G.R. No. 179579, 1 February
2012
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Michel J.
Lhuillier Pawnshop, Inc., G.R. No. 150947, 15
July 2003

IV. When Local Ordinance Takes Effect

1. Local Government Code, Sections 54 – 59

2. Municipality Of Paranaque v. V.M. Realty
Corporation, G.R. No. 127820, 20 July 1998
3. Bagatsing v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 41631, 17
December 1976

V. Manner of Computing Time

1. Civil Code, Article 13

2. Administrative Code, Book I, Chapter 8,
Section 31
3. Administrative Code, Book I, Chapter 7, Section
28
4. National Marketing Corp. v. Tecson, G.R. No.
29131, 27 August 1969
5. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
Primetown Property Group, Inc., G.R. No.
162155, August 28, 2007
6. PNB v. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 134
(1993)
Yapdiangco v. Buencamino, G.R. No. 28841, 24
July 1983

VI. Effectivity of Laws Until Repealed

1. Concept of Temporary Statutes

2. Co Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh, G.R. No. L-
5, 17 September 1945
3. William F. Peralta v. The Director of Prisons,
G.R. No. L-49, 12 November 1945
4. Anastacio Laurel v. Eriberto Misa, G.R. No. L-
409, 30 January 1947

6
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)

MODULE 5: CONSTRUCTION AND

INTERPRETATION

I. Definition

1. Caltex (Phils.), Inc. v. Palomar, G.R. No.

19650, 29 September 1966

II. Purpose of Construction

1. City of Baguio v. Marcos, G.R. No. 26100, 28

February 1969

III. When construction is resorted to

1. Garcia v. Social Security Commission, G.R. No.

170735, 17 December 2007
Syllabus
IV. Executive Construction Recitation
Textbooks 5 Oct. to 9
1. Commissioner of Customs v. Hypermix Feeds, Case Study
Oct. 2020
G.R. No. 150947, 15 July 2003 Supreme Court
2. Victorias Milling Co. Inc. v. Social Security Discussion
and Court of
Commission, 4 SCRA 627 Appeals
Quiz
Decisions
V. Judicial Construction

A. Basis, Extent, and Limitations

1. Article VIII, Section 1 and Section 4 of the

1987 Constitution
2. Record of the Constitutional Commission, 434-
436 (1986)
3. Endencia v. David, 93 Phil. 696 (1953)
4. Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, 15
September 1989

B. Requisites for Judicial Review

1. Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network,

Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council, G.R. No.
178552, 5 October 2010

7
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
2. David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, 3 May
2006

C. Effect of Unconstitutionality

1. Article 7, New Civil Code

2. Peralta v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No.
95832, 10 August 1992
3. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San
Roque Power Corporation, G.R. No. 187485, 8
October 2013
Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, July 1,
2014

12 Oct to
MID-TERM EXAMINATIONS 17 Oct.
2020

MODULE 6: LITERAL INTERPRETATION

AND DEPARTURE THEREFROM

A. Literal Interpret ation

I. Verba Legis

1. TRADE AND INVESTMENT

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. CIVIL SERVICE Syllabus
Recitation
COMMISSION, G.R. No. 182249, March 5, 19 Oct. 19
2013 (Application of the rule) Textbooks
to Oct. 24 Case Study
2020
II. Dura l ex sed lex Supreme Court
Discussion
Decisions
1. OLYMPIO REVALDO v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 170589, April 16,
2009
2. ARNEL SAGANA v. RICHARD A.
FRANCISCO, G.R. No.161952, October 2,
2009

B. Departure from literal interpret ation

8
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
I. Statutes must be capable of
interp retation

1. MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 127325, March 19,
1997

II. Ratio l egis et anima

1. RODOLFO G. NAVARRO v. EXECUTIVE

SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, G.R.
No. 180050, April 12, 2011
2. ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No.
203766, April 2, 2013

III. Literal import must yield to

intent

1. AUTOMOTIVE PARTS & EQUIPMENT

COMPANY v. JOSE B. LINGAD, G.R. No.
L-26406, October 31, 1969
2. UNITED STATES v. TORIBIO, 15 Phil. 85
(1910)
3. SY TIONG SHIOU v. SY CHIM and
FELICIDAD CHAN SY, G.R. No. 174168,
March 30, 2009

IV. Cessante ratione legis, cessat et ipsa lex

1. B/GEN. JOSE COMENDADOR v. GEN.

RENATO S. DE VILLA, G.R. No. 93177,
August 2, 1991

V. Supplying legislative omission

1. GOVERNOR RODOLFO C. FARINAS v.

MAYOR ANGELO M. BARBA, G.R. No.
116763, April 19, 1996

9
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
VI. Constru ction to avoid absurdity

1. PARAS v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 123169, 4

November 1996
VII. Constru ction in favor of righ t
and justice
1. KAREN E. SALVACION v. CENTRAL
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, CHINA
BANKING CORPORATION and GREG
BARTELLI y NORTHCOTT, G.R. No.
94723, August 21, 1997
VIII. Law does not requi re the
impossible

1. PEDRO T. SANTOS, JR. v. PNOC, G.R.

No. 170943, September 23, 2008
IX. Number and gend er of words

1. SANTILLON v. MIRANDA, G.R. No.

19281, June 30, 1965

MODULE 7: IMPLICATIONS

I. Necessary Implications

1. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND

NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR) v.
UNITED PLANNERS CONSULTANTS,
INC., G.R. No. 212081, February 23, 2015 Syllabus
Recitation
26 Oct. to
2. SUGBUANON RURAL BANK, INC. v. Textbooks
Oct. 30 Case study
HON. UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO 2020
E. LAGUESMA, G.R. No. 116194, February Supreme Court
Discussion
2, 2000 Decisions

II. Grant of power includes incidental

power

1. CARMELO F. LAZATIN v. HRET, G.R. No.

84297, December 8, 1988

10
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
2. CEMCO HOLDINGS, INC. v. NATIONAL
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE
PHILIPPINES, INC., G.R. No. 171815,
August 7, 2007

III. What cannot be done directly cannot be

done indirectly

1. TAWANG MULTI-PURPOSE
COOPERATIVE v. LA TRINIDAD WATER
DISTRICT, G.R. No. 166471, March 22, 2011

MODULE 8: INTERPRETAION OF WORDS

AND PHRASES

I. In General

1. JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA v.

SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 148560, 19
November 2001.

2. JOSE JESUS M. DISINI, JR. v.

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, G.R. No.
203335, 11 February 2014.

II. General rules of interpretation Syllabus

Recitation
1. ATTY. REYNANTE B. ORCEO v. 3 Nov. to
Textbooks
COMELEC, G.R. No. 190779, 26 March 20 Nov. Case Study
2010 2020
Supreme Court
Discussion
Decisions
2. MUSTANG LUMBER, INC. v. HON.
COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 104988, 18
June 1996.

III. Where the law does not distinguish

1. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

DAISY R. YAHON, G.R. No. 201043, June
16, 2014

2. VISAYAS COMMUNITY MEDICAL

CENTER (VCMC) v. ERMA YBALLE, G.R.
No. 196156, January 15, 2014

11
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
IV. Disjuntive and Conjunctive Words

1. ANTONIO D. DAYAO v. COMELEC, G.R.

No. 193643, January 29, 2013

2. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

ANTONIO COMADRE, G.R. No. 153559,
June 8, 2004

3. GONZALES v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 28196,

November 9, 1967

V. Noscitur a sociis

1. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ISIDRO

FLORES, G.R. No. 188315, August 25, 2010

2. CESAR M. CARANDANG v. VICENTE

SANTIAGO, G.R. No. L-8238, May 25, 1955

VI. Ejusdem generis

1. EMETERIA LIWAG v. HAPPY GLEN

LOOP HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
INC., G.R. No. 189755, July 4, 2012

2. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. COURT

OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 33471, January 31,
1972.

VII. Expressio unius est exclusion alterius

and casus omissus

1. SAN PABLO MANUFACTURING

CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, G.R. No. 147749,
June 22, 2006
2. COCONUT OIL REFINERS ASSN., INC. v.
TORRES, G.R. No. 132527, July 29, 2005
3. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT OF THE
PROVINCE OF CEBU v. PROVINCE OF
CEBU, G.R. No. 141386, November 29, 2001

VIII. Reddendo singula singulis

12
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
1. MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ v. THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, G.R. No.
193459, February 15, 2011

2. CITY OF MANILA v. LAGUIO, G.R. No.

118127, April 12, 2005

IX. Provisos, Exceptions and Saving Clauses

1. RICARDO FERNANDEZ v. NLRC, G.R. No.

106090, February 28, 1994

2. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE v. FILIPINAS COMPANIA DE
SEGUROS, G.R. No. L-14880, April 29, 1960

3. ARENAS v. CITY OF SAN CARLOS, G.R.

No. 34024, April 5, 1978

4. CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA v. C. A.

IMPERIAL, G.R. No. L-17222, March 15,
1921

5. ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO v. COURT OF

APPEALS, G.R. No. 125359, September 4,
2001

6. BALAGTAS MULTI-PURPOSE
COOPERATIVE, INC. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, G.R. No. 159268, October 27,
2006

MODULE 9: STATUTES CONSTRUED AS A

WHOLE AND IN RELATION TO OTHER
STATUTES Syllabus
Recitation
23 Nov. to
Textbooks
28 Nov. Case Study
I. Statutes construed as a whole 2020
Supreme Court
Discussion
1. AQUINO v. QUEZON CITY, G.R. No. Decisions
137534, August 3, 2006

2. LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO v.

13
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION,
G.R. No. 141309, June 19, 2007

3. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUISITO

D. BUSTINERA, G.R. No. 148233, June 8,
2004

MODULE 10: MANDATORY AND DIRECTORY

STATUTES

1. Article 5, New Civil Code

2. ACOSTA v. ADAZA, G.R. No. 168617,

February 19, 2007

3. LUIS K. LOKIN, JR. v. COMELEC, G.R.

Nos. 179431-32, June 22, 2010

4. FLORANTE S. QUIZON v. COMELEC, G.R.

No. 177927, February 15, 2008

MODULE 11: STRICT OR LIBERAL

CONSTRUCTION

I. Statutes strictly construed

A. Penal laws

1. INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA Recitation

GONZALES VDA. DE CARUNGCONG v. Syllabus
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 1 Dec. to 9 Case Study
181409, February 11, 2010 Textbooks
Dec. 2020
2. GERARDO R. VILLASEÑOR v. Discussion
SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 180700, March Supreme Court
4, 2008 Decisions
Quiz

B. Statutes in derogation of rights

1. HEIRS OF ALBERTO SUGUITAN v.

MANDALUYONG, G.R. No. 135087, March
14, 2000
2. PHILACOR CREDIT CORPORATION v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

14
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
REVENUE, G.R. No. 169899, February 06,
2013
3. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE v. KUDOS METAL
CORPORATION, G.R. No. 178087, May 5,
2010
4. MAPULO MINING ASSOCIATION v. HON.
FERNANDO LOPEZ, G.R. No. L-30440,
February 7, 1992

C. Statutes granting privileges

1. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE v. PHILIPPINE LONG
DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, G.R.
No. 140230, December 15, 2005
2. RAOUL B. DEL MAR v. PAGCOR, G.R. No.
138298, November 29, 2000
3. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. KERRY
LAO ANG, G.R. No. 175430, June 18, 2012

D. Exceptions and provisos

1. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE v. THE COURT OF APPEALS,
CENTRAL VEGETABLE
MANUFACTURING CO., INC., G.R. No.
107135, February 23, 1999
2. GEOLOGISTICS, INC. v. GATEWAY
ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, G.R. Nos.
174256-57, March 25, 2009

II. Statutes Liberally Construed

1. RE: APPLICATION FOR SURVIVORSHIP

PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC
ACT NO. 9946, A.M. No. 14155-Ret.,
November 19, 2013
2. MARIA OBRA v. SSS, G.R. No. 147745, April
9, 2003

15
 LEARNING
WEEK/ METHODS
LEARNING
DATE (activities
RESOURCES
(Schedule designed or
(print and
TOPIC/CONTENT of each deployed by
non-print
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is Topic, the teacher
materials and
based on a logical order) Assign, to bring
online/
Exam for about, or
open-access
the entire create the
resources)
semester) conditions
for learning)
3. IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF
MICHELLE P. LIM, G.R. Nos. 168992-93,
May 21, 2009
4. THE COCA-COLA EXPORT
CORPORATION v. CLARITA P. GACAYAN,
G.R. No. 149433, December 15, 2010
5. REGIONAL AGRARIAN REFORM
ADJUDICATION BOARD v. COURT OF
APPEALS, G.R. No. 165155, Apr 13, 2010
6. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE v. BASF COATING, G.R. No.
198677, November 26, 2014
7. RAMON A. SYHUNLIONG v. TERESITA
RIVERA, G.R. No. 200148, June 4, 2014

Dec. 10-
FINAL EXAMINATIONS 17, 2020

TEXTBOOKS:

1. Statutory Construction by Ruben Agpalo (latest Edition)

2. Canons of Statutory Construction by Dennis B. Funa

POLICIES:

1. Attendance will be checked every meeting.

2. Students who are called to recite but are absent/disconnected shall get a grade of 60.
3. Students who missed a quiz will get a grade of 60.
4. Students are strictly prohibited from recording the online class.

Prepared by:

Algie Kwillon B. Mariacos

Faculty, College of Law

Approved by:

Atty. Marciano G. Delson

Dean, College of Law

Date Prepared by the Faculty: 10 August 2020

16