I.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES
A. DEFINITION OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
It is the art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning and intention of the authors of the law
with respect to its application to a given case, where that intention is rendered doubtful, amongst others,
by reason of the fact that the given case is not explicitly provided for in the law.
Apply the law: When the law speaks in clear and categorical language
Interpret the law: When there is ambiguity in the language of the statute, ascertain legislative intent by
making use of intrinsic aids, or those found in the law itself
Construct the law: When the intent of the legislature cannot be ascertained by merely making use of
intrinsic aids, the court should resort to extrinsic aids, or those found outside the
language of the law.
INTRINSIC AIDS: (TP-WP-HL)
1. Title
2. Preamble
3. Words, Phrases, Sentences, and Context
4. Punctuation
5. Headings and Marginal notes
6. Legislative Definition and Interpretation
EXTRINSIC AIDS: (CP-LC-ELJ-C)
1. Contemporaneous circumstances
2. Policy
3. Legislative History of the Statute
4. Contemporaneous and Practical Construction
5. Executive Construction
6. Legislative Construction
7. Judicial Construction
8. Construction by the Bar and Legal Commentators
Three Cardinal Rules:
1. VERBA LEGIS (VL)
It means that whenever possible, the words used in the statute must be given their ordinary
meaning except where technical terms are employed.
2. RATIO LEGIS EST ANIMA (RLEA)
It means that in case of ambiguity, the words of the statute should be interpreted in accordance
with the intent of the framers.
3. UT MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PEREAT (UMVQP)
It means that the statute should be interpreted as a whole, but if the plain meaning of the word is
not found to be clear, resort to other aid if available.

Caltex Philippines, Inc. vs. Palomar

Principle: Statutory construction is the art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning and
intention of the authors of the law with respect to its application to a given case, where that
intention is rendered doubtful, amongst others, by reason of the fact that the given case is
not explicitly provided for in the law.
Noscitur a sociis – the term under construction shall be understood by the words
preceding or following it.
B. WHEN DOES STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION COMES IN?
National Federation of Labor vs. Eisma

Principle: The first and fundamental duty of courts, is to apply the law. Construction and interpretation
come only after it has been demonstrated that the application is impossible or inadequate
without them.

Paat vs. Court of Appeals

Principle: When the statute is clear and explicit, there is no room for construction and interpretation.
Before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the Court, it is a pre-condition that one
should have availed of all the means of administrative remedies.
People vs. Mapa
Principle: When the law is explicit and clear, there is no room for interpretation and construction.
Daoang vs. Municipal Judge of San Nicolas
Principle: When the statute is clear and unambiguous on its face, need not be interpreted. In other
words, only statutes with ambiguous or doubtful meaning may be the subject of statutory
construction and interpretation.
Paras vs. COMELEC
Principles: It is a rule in the statutory construction that every part of the statute must be interpreted
with reference to the context. That is that every part of the statute must be considered
together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole
enactment.
In the interpretation of a statute, the Court should start with the assumption that the
legislature intended to enact effective law.
It is a basic precept in statutory construction that a statute should be interpreted in harmony
with the Constitution.
Too literal interpretation of the law leads to absurdity which cannot be countenanced. It also
leads to constrict rather than to fulfil its purpose and defeat the intention of the authors.
“Intention is not found not in the letter that killeth, but the spirit that give it life.”

II. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION vs. JUDICIAL LEGISLATION

A. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, WHOSE JOB IS IT?
Floresca vs. Philex Mining
Principle: Interpretation and application made by the Court upon a law will be part of the law of the
land since the Court’s interpretation and application merely establishes the
contemporaneous legislature intent that the law purports to carry on.
Republic vs. CA and Molina
Principle: From the submission of amici curiae and the Courts own deliberation, the following are the
guidelines in the interpretation of and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code:
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its
dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws
cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family.
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically
identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly
explained in the decision.
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the
marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their "I do's."
The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the
illness itself must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume
the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, mood
changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness
must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, nor a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much
less ill will.
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the
Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the
same Code in regard to parents and their children.
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic
Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by
our courts.
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to
appear as counsel for the state.

B. HOW MUST LEGISLATIVE INTENT BE ASCERTAINED?

Aisporna vs. CA
Principle: Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute as a whole. The
particular words, clauses and phrases should not 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
construed so as to harmonize and effect to all its provisions wherever possible.
Every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context. This means that
every part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts and kept
subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment, not separately and independently.
Noscitur a sociis – provides that where a particular word or phrase in a statement is
ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various meanings, its true meaning may be
made clear and specific by considering the company in which it is found or with which it is
associated.
China Bank vs. Ortega
Principle: The Court relied on the discussion of the conference committee report of the Congress to
interpret the RA 1405 (Bank Secrecy Act) that the prohibition against examination of or
inquiry into a bank deposit does not preclude from garnishment for the satisfaction of a
judgement. (Legislative History of the Statute)
Board of Administrators of the PVA vs. Bautista
Principle: A veteran pension law is a governmental expression of gratitude and recognition of those
who rendered service for the country, especially during times of war and revolution, by
extending to them regular monetary aid.
It is a general rule that a liberal construction is given to pension statutes in favor of those
entitled to pensions.

no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation
shall control.
Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa vs. Manila Railroad Company
Principle: When a statutory norm speaks unequivocally, there is nothing for the courts to do but apply
it.
Abellana vs. Marave
Principle: Too literal interpretation of the statute will impair the substantive right of recovery and
indemnification arising from a transgression of the law. It is a well-settled doctrine that a
court is to avoid construing a statute or legal norm in such a manner it would give rise to a
constitutional doubt.
Paras vs. COMELEC
Principles: Too literal interpretation of the law leads to absurdity which cannot be countenanced. It also
leads to constrict rather than to fulfil its purpose and defeat the intention of the authors.

IV. EXECUTIVE CONSTRUCTION

A. BASIC RULE ON EXECUTIVE CONSTRUCTION
PAFLU vs. Bureau of Labor Relations
Principle: The principle that the contemporaneous construction of a statute by the executive officers of
the government whose duty is to execute it, is entitled to great respect, and should
ordinarily control the construction of the statute by the courts.
Courts will and should respect the contemporaneous construction places upon a statute by
the executive officers whose duty is to enforce it, unless such interpretation is clearly
erroneous.
B. WHEN EXECUTIVE CONSTRUCTION IS NOT GIVEN WEIGHT
Philippine Apparel Workers’ Union vs. NLRC
Principle: The construction and explanation of the Undersecretary is not only wrong as it is was purely
based on a misapprehension of facts, but also unlawful as it goes beyond the scope of law.
The Department of Labor has the right to construe. The rule is that great weight shall be
given to the construction given a statute by the government agency called upon to
implement the statute; in this case, the weight in favor of the Department of Labor should
be greater because the Department is not interpreting or construing a statute, but it had
explained the extent of its own rule.
IBAA Employees’ Union vs. Inciong
Principle: Although administrative interpretation of statutes are generally given weight, they should
not be applied if such interpretation is in effect amending or enlarging the scope of exclusion
found in the law itself.
Chartered Bank Employees’ Association vs. Ople
Principle: Contemporaneous construction placed upon a statute by executive officers must be given
great weight, if such construction is clearly erroneous, it must be declared null and void.

C. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RULE AND AN OPINION

Victoria’s Milling vs. Social Security Commission

Principle: When an administrative agency promulgates rules and regulations, it makes a new law with
the force and effect of a valid law while when it renders an opinion or gives a statement of
policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing law.
V. SUBJECTS OF CONSTRUCTION
A. THE CONSTITUTION
Constitution is the fundamental organic law of the State which contains the principles on which the
government is founded, and regulates the division and exercise of sovereign powers.

De Castro vs. Judicial Bar and Council

Principle: When construction is proper, the whole constitution is to be examined in order to determine
the meaning of any provision. That construction should be used which would give effect to
the entire instrument and not one which would raise any conflict between provisions. A
construction which raises a conflict between different parts of the constitution is not
permissible when by reasonable construction, the parts may be made to harmonize.
Effect is to be given, if possible, to the whole instrument, and to every section and clause. If
different portions seem to conflict, the courts must harmonize them, if practicable, and must
lean in favor of a construction which will render every word operative, rather than which
may make some words idle and nugatory. The framers of the Constitution should have
presumed to have expressed themselves in careful and measured terms. Corresponding with
the immense importance of the power delegated to the rules, leaving as little as possible to
the implication.
B. HOW SHOULD THE CONSTITUTION BE CONSTRUED
Sarmiento vs. Mison
Principle: The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is to give effect to the intent of the
framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it, the intention to which force is to be
given is that which is embodied and expressed in the constitutional provisions themselves.
Perfecto vs. Meer
Principle: The SC held that unless and until the legislature approved an amendment to the Income Tax
Law expressly taxing the salaries of the judges, salaries of judges are not included in the
word “income” taxed by the income tax law, to the effect that the collection of income tax
on the salary of judicial officer is a diminution thereof and so violates the Constitution.

Endencia vs. David

Principle: The SC declared RA 590 as unconstitutional. It construed that the law is clear in its provision
that compensation of judicial officers shall not be diminished in their continuance of their
office and the imposition of the taxes on their salaries is a clear diminution thereof. It held
that when a statute transgresses the authority vested in the legislature, it is the duty of the
court to declare it unconstitutional.
It further explained that the action of legislative body as stated by the Solicitor General is a
violation of separation of powers among branches of the government. The enactment of the
statute because the legislative is not in favour of SC’s decision shows that the former also
interpreted the Act. It was ruled by the Court that it is only the SC that has the power to
interpret the law and Congress shall not interfere as the latter’s function is to enact the law.
Nitafan vs. Commissioner on Internal Revenue
Principle: It is the fundamental principle of constitutional construction that the intent of the framers of
the organic law and of the people adopting it, should be given effect. The primary task in
constitutional construction is to ascertain and thereafter assure the realization of the
purpose of the framers and of the people in the adoption of the Constitution.

C. MAY THE PREAMBLE BE REFERRED TO IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF

CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION?
Aglipay vs. Ruiz
Principle: When the Filipino people, in the preamble of the Constitution, “implored the Aid of Divine
providence, in order to establish a government that shall embody their ideals, conserve and
develop the patrimony of the nation, promote the general welfare, and secure for
themselves and their posterity the blessings of independence under of regime of justice,
liberty and democracy”, and thereby manifested their intense religious nature and placed
unfaltering upon Him who guides the destinies of men and nations. The elevating influence
of religion in human society is recognized here or elsewhere.
D. ARE THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION SELF-EXECUTING
Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS
Principle: A constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the right conferred and
the liability imposed are fixed by the Constitution itself, so that they can be determined by
an examination and construction of the terms, and there is no language indicating that the
subject is referred to the legislature for action. The presumption is that all provisions of the
Constitution are self-executing. Otherwise, the legislature will have the power to ignore and
practically nullify the mandate of the fundamental law.
E. STATUTES - REQUIREMENTS OF THE PUBLICATION OF LAWS
Statute is an act of legislature commanding or prohibiting something a particular law enacted
and
established by the will of legislative department of the government.
Tañada vs. Tuvera (1985)
Principle: It was explained that such publication is essential as it gives to the legal maxim “ignorantia
legis non excusat”. Thus failure to publish would create injustice as would it would punish
the citizen for transgression of the law which he had no notice.

Tañada vs. Tuvera (1986)

Principle: The court held that all statute including those of local application shall be published as
condition for their effectivity, which shall begin 15 days after publication unless a different
effectivity date is fixed by legislature.

F. ORDINANCES – RULES ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ORDINANCE VIS-À-VIS STATUTE

Ordinance is an act passed by a municipal council, in the exercise of its law-making authority.
Primicias vs Urdaneta
Principle: Act No. 3992 has been explicitly repealed by RA No. 4136. By the express repeal, the general
rule is that a later law prevails and earlier law. The validity of the ordinance must therefore
be determined vis-à-vis RA 4136 and not act RA 3992. It is a fundamental principle that
municipal ordinances are inferior in status and subordinate to the laws of the State.
VI. INTERPRETATION OF SPECIFIC TYPE OF STATUTES
A. TAX LAWS
1. HOW ARE TAX REFUNDS CONTRUED
La Carlota Sugar Central vs. Jimenez
Principle: Exempting provision is to be construed liberally in favor of the government or the taxing
authority and strictly against the taxpayer.
2. WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN TAX CASES
CIR vs. CA
Principle: In case of doubt, such tax statutes are to be construed most strongly against the
government and in favor of the subjects or citizen because burdens are not to be imposed
nor presumed to be imposed beyond what statutes expressly and clearly import.
Mactan Cebu vs. Marcos
Principle: Since taxes are the lifeblood of the nation, the law frowns against exemptions from taxation
and statutes granting tax exemptions are thus construed strictissimi juris against the
taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. A claim of exemption from tax
payments must be clearly shown and based on language in the law too plain to be mistaken.
Taxation is the rule, exemption is exception. However, if the grantee of the exemption is a
political subdivision or instrumentality, the rule of construction does not apply because the
practical effect of the exemption is merely to reduce the amount of money that has to be
handled by the government in the course of its operations.
3. TAX SALES CONSTRUED
Serfino vs. CA
Principle: The prescribed procedure in auction sales of property for tax delinquency, being in
derogation of property rights, should be followed properly. Strict adherence to the statutes
governing tax sales is imperative not only to the taxpayers, but also to ease any possible
suspicion and collusion between the buyer and the public officials called upon to enforce
such laws. Notice of sale to the delinquent landowners and to the public in general is an
essential requirement of law, the non-fulfillment of which vitiates the sale.
B. LABOR LAWS
1. Rule on the Construction of Labor Laws
Manahan vs. ECC
Principle: In case of doubt, the claiming of death benefits should be resolved in favor of the worker,
and that social legislations should be liberally construed to attain their laudable objective
that is to give relief to the workman and/or his dependents in the event that the former
should die or sustain an injury. The presumption of compensability subsists in favor of the
claimant.
Villavert vs. ECC
Principle: All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the Labor Code, including its
implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor.
Del Rosario & Son Logging vs. NLRC
Principle: In any proceeding before the NLRC or any of the Labor Arbiters, the rules of
evidence
prevailing in Courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention
of the Labor Code that the NLRC and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and
an reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and
without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.

1. Rule in the interpretation of insurance provisions

Ty vs. First National Surety
Principle: In case there is no doubt as to the terms of an insurance policy, the provisions must be
construed in their plain, ordinary and popular sense.
As the terms of the policies are clear, express and specific that only amputation of the left
hand should be considered as a loss thereof, an interpretation that would include the mere
fracture or other temporary disability not covered by the policies would certainly be
unwarranted.
Dela Cruz vs. Capital Insurance
Principle: In case there is no doubt as to the terms of an insurance policy, the provisions must be
construed in their plain, ordinary and popular sense.
The terms “accident” and “accidental” as used in the insurance contracts, have not acquired
any technical meaning, and are construed by the courts in their ordinary and common
acceptation. The terms mean that which happens by chance or fortuitously, without
intention and design and which is unexpected, unusual and unforseen.

2. Ambiguous provision interpreted against insurer

Qua Chee Gan vs. Law Union and Rock Insurance
Principle: Any ambiguity in the terms of the policy contract must be construed strictly against the
insurer and liberally in favor of the insured.

D. CORPORATE LAW
Home Insurance vs. Eastern Shipping Lines
Principle: The Corporation Code must be given a reasonable, not an unduly harsh interpretation which
does not hamper the development of trade relations and which foster friendship and
commercial intercourse among countries.
E. NATURALIZATION LAWS
Co vs. Republic of the Philippines
Principle: Naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and strictly construed in favor of the
government and against the applicant.
Lee Cho vs. Republic of the Philippines
Principle: Naturalization law should be strictly construed in order that its laudable and nationalistic
purpose may be fully fulfilled.
F. AGRARIAN REFORM LAWS
Guerrero vs. Court of Appeals
Principle: The legislative intent of Agrarian Reform Laws is to uplift the farmers from
poverty,
ignorance and stagnation to make them dignified, self-reliant, strong and responsible
citizens. Agricultural share tenants are given the right of leasehold tenancy as a first step
towards the ultimate status of owner cultivator, a goal sought to be achieved by the
government program of land reform.

Agrarian reform laws all provide for the security of tenure lf agricultural tenants.

G. RULES OF COURT
Bello vs. CA
Principle: The Rules of Court shall be liberally construed in order to promote their object and to assist
the parties in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and
proceeding.
It is the duty of the court, in construing the Rules of Court, to construe the rules liberally to
avoid injustice, discrimination and unfairness.
H. EXPROPRIATION LAWS
City of Manila vs. Chinese Community of Manila
Principle: The exercise of the right of eminent domain, whether directly by the State, or its authorized
agents, is necessarily in derogation if private rights, and the rules in this case is that the
authority must be strictly construed.

I. ELECTION LAWS
Villanueva vs. COMELEC
Principle: The will of the people cannot be frustrated by a technicality that the certificate of candidacy
had not been properly sworn to. This legal provision is mandatory and non-compliance
therewith before the election would be fatal to the status of the candidate before the
electorate, but after the people have expressed their will, the result of the election cannot
be defeated by the fact that the candidate has not sworn to his certificate of candidacy.
J. WILLS
In re: TAMPOY
Principle: Statutes prescribing the formalities to be observed in the execution of wills are very strictly
construed. A will must be executed in accordance with the statutory requirement; otherwise
it is entirely void. All these requirements stand as of equal importance and must be
observed.

VII. LATIN RULES

Mens Legislatores (intention of
the lawmaker)

- Legislative intent or intent of

the legislature or mens
legislatoris is a controlling factor
in the construction and interpretation of a law. The
letter of the law gives way to
the true intent of the
legislature. And
when a statute is susceptible of
more than one construction, the
Courts shall adopt the
construction
which will most tend to give effect to the intent of the
legislature
K. MENS LEGISLATORES (intention of the lawmaker)
-Legislative intent or intent of the legislature or mens legislatoris is a controlling factor in the
construction
and interpretation of a law. The letter of the law gives way to the true intent of the legislature.
And
when a statute is susceptible of more than one construction, the Courts shall adopt the
construction
which will most tend to give effect to the intent of the legislature

Matabuena vs Cervantes
It is a fundamental principle in
statutory construction that what
is within the spirit of the law is as much a part of
the law as what is written. Since
the reason for the
ban on donations between
spouses during the marriage
is to prevent the
possibility of undue influence
and improper pressure being
exerted by one spouse
on the other, there is no reason
why this prohibition shall not apply also to

common-law relationships.

If there is ever any occasion

where the principle of statutory
construction that
what is within the spirit of the
law is as much a part of it as
what is written, this is it. Otherwise the basic purpose
discernible in such codal
provision would not be
attained. Whatever omission
may be apparent in an
interpretation purely literal of
the language used must be
remedial by an adherence to its
avowed objective.

Matabuena vs Cervantes

Principle: It is a fundamental principle in statutory construction that what is within the spirit
of the law is as much a part of the law as what is written. Since the reason for the
ban on donations between spouses during the marriage is to prevent the
possibility of undue influence and improper pressure being exerted by one spouse
on the other, there is no reason why this prohibition shall not apply also to
common-law relationships.

If there is ever any occasion where the principle of statutory construction that
what is within the spirit of the law is as much a part of it as what is written, this is
it. Otherwise, the basic purpose discernible in such codal provision would not be
attained. Whatever omission may be apparent in an interpretation purely literal of
the language used must be remedial by an adherence to its avowed objective.
L. DURA LEX SED LEX

People vs Mapa
(Abandoned the ruling of
Macarandang)
People vs Mapa (Abandoned the ruling of Macarandang)
Principle: The fact that a person, found in possession of an unlicensed firearm, is a secret
agent of a provincial governor does not exempt him from criminal liability. The
law does not contain any exception for a secret agent

The first and fundamental duty of the courts is to apply the law.
Construction and interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that
application is impossible or inadequate without them. It is not within the power of
a court to set aside the clear and explicit mandate of a statutory provision.
People vs Santayana
Principle: At the time of the accused’s apprehension, the doctrine then prevailing is
enunciated in the case of People vs. Macarandang, holding that the appointment
of a civilian as “secret agent to assist in the maintenance of peace and order
campaigns and detection of crimes sufficiently puts him within the category of a
‘Peace officer’ equivalent even to a member of the municipal police expressly
covered by Section 879.”

The case of People vs. Mapa revoked the doctrine in the Macarandang case only
on August 30, 1967.

Under the Macarandang rule therefore obtaining at the time of the accused’s
appointment as secret agent, he incurred no criminal liability for possession of
the pistol.
M. EXPRESSIO UNIUS, EST EXCLUSION ALTERIUS (the explicit mention of one is the exclusion
of another)
- This statutory construction principle states that: where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to

certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to others. The rule
proceeds from the premise that the legislature would not have made specified enumerations in a statute had
the intention been not to restrict its meaning and to confine its terms to those expressly mentioned

Exceptions:
1) When adherence to such will lead to incongruities and in a violation of the equal protection clause of
the Constitution
2) When enumeration not intended to be exclusive
3) No reason exists why a person or thing is excluded
City Government of San Pablo, Laguna v. Reyes

Principle: It is a basic precept in statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing,
act, or consequence excludes all others. categorized under the phrase
“and the like”, could not merit
the court’s approval
by principle of Ejusdem Generis.

It is quite apparent that what was contemplated in the Act was the distribution of gadgets of the kind referred
to as a means of inducement to obtain a favorable vote for the candidate responsible for its distribution
categorized under the phrase “and the like”, could not merit the court’s approval by principle of Ejusdem
Generis.

It is quite apparent that what was contemplated in the Act was the distribution of gadgets of the kind referred
to as a means of inducement to obtain a favorable vote for the candidate responsible for its distribution Green
Star vs Nissin-Universal
In the past, the Court upheld service of summons upon a construction project

Green Star vs Nissin-Universal Universal

In the past, the Court upheld service of summons upon a construction project manager, a corporation’s
assistant manager, ordinary clerk of a corporation, private secretary of corporate executives, retained counsel,
and officials who had control over the operations of the corporation like the assistant general manager or the
corporation’s Chief Finance and Administrative Officer. The Court thenconsidered said persons as “agent”
within the contemplation of the old rule. Notably, under the new Rules, service of summons upon an agent of
the corporation is no longer authorized. The rule now likewise states “general manager” instead of manager”;
“corporate secretary” instead of merely “secretary”; and “treasurer” instead of “cashier.”

Green Star vs Nissin-

Universal
Principle: In the past, the Court upheld service of summons upon a construction project manager, a
corporation’s assistant manager, ordinary clerk of a corporation, private secretary of corporate executives,
retained counsel, and officials who had control over the operations of the corporation like the assistant
general manager or the corporation’s Chief Finance and Administrative Officer. The Court then considered
said persons as “agent” within the contemplation of the old rule. Notably, under the new Rules, service of
summons upon an agent of the corporation is no longer authorized. The rule now likewise states “general
manager” instead of “manager”; “corporate secretary” instead of merely “secretary”; and “treasurer” instead
of “cashier.” It has now become restricted, limited, and exclusive only to the persons enumerated in the
aforementioned provision, following the rule in statutory construction that the express mention of one person
excludes all others, or expressio unios est exclusio alterius.

N. EJUSDEM GENERIS ("of the same kind")

- Under the well-known principle of ejusdem generis, the general words following any
enumeration being applicable only to things of the same kind or class as those specifically
referred to

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. SSS

Principle: The rule of ejusdem generis applies only when there is uncertainty. It is not controlling where
the plain purpose and intent of the lawmaking body would thereby hindered and defeated.

Mutuc vs COMELEC
Principle: The Court held that “the general words following any enumeration being applicable only to things
of the same kind or class as those specifically referred to”. The COMELEC’s contention that a candidate’s
jingle form part of the prohibition, categorized under the phrase “and the like”, could not merit the court’s
approval by principle of Ejusdem Generis.

It is quite apparent that what was contemplated in the Act was the distribution of gadgets of the kind referred
to as a means of inducement to obtain a favorable vote for the candidate responsible for its distribution.

O. Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est

People v. Manantan
Principle: The rule of casus omissus pro omisso habendus est can operate and apply only if and when
the omission has been clearly established.

Permissive Rule

Lopez v. CTA
Principle: Under the rules of Statcon, it is not the letter but rather the spirit of the law and intention of the
Legislature that is important. When the interpretation based on its exact and literal import of words would
lead to absurd or mischievous results, or would contravene the clear purposes of the Legislature, it should
be construed according to its spirit and reason, disregarding the letter of the law. Court rules that under RA
1125 and the Customs Law, the Court of Tax Appeals has no jurisdiction to review the decisions of the
Collector of Customs. Appealed order of dismissal is affirmed. Costs against petitioner.
P. NOSCITUR A SOCIIS
- The meaning of an unclear or ambiguous
word as in a statute or contract should be
determined by considering the words with which it is associated in the context

Sanciangco vs. Rono

Principle: It is a rule of statutory construction that “when the language of a particular section
of a statute admits of more than one construction, that construction which gives
effect to the evident purpose and object sought to be attained by the enactment of
the statute as a whole, must be followed.”

“A statute’s clauses and phrases should not be taken as detached and isolated
expressions, but the whole and every part thereof must be considered in fixing the
meaning of any of its parts.

Caltex Philippines, Inc. vs. Palomar

Principle: Statutory construction is the art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning and
intention of the authors of the law with respect to its application to a given case, where that
intention is rendered doubtful, amongst others, by reason of the fact that the given case is
not explicitly provided for in the law.

Noscitur a sociis – the term under construction shall be understood by the words
preceding or following it.

Q. REDDENDO SINGULA SINGULIS

Reddendo singula singulis is a Latin term that means by referring each to each; referring each
phrase or expression to its corresponding object. In simple words “reddendo singula singulis”
means that when a list of words has a modifying phase at the end, the phrase refers only to the last.
An appeal must be taken within 15 days from promulgation or notice of judgement or
order
appealed from
Q. REDDENDO SINGULA SINGULIS
Reddendo singula singulis is a Latin term that means by referring each to each; referring each
phrase or expression to its corresponding object. In simple words “reddendo singula singulis”
means that when a list of words has a modifying phase at the end, the phrase refers only to the last.
An appeal must be taken within 15 days from promulgation or notice of judgement or
order
appealed from
Q. REDDENDO SINGULA SINGULIS
Reddendo singula singulis is a Latin term that means by referring each to each; referring each
phrase or expression to its corresponding object. In simple words “reddendo singula singulis”
means that when a list of words has a modifying phase at the end, the phrase refers only to the last.
An appeal must be taken within 15 days from promulgation or notice of judgement or
order
appealed from

Q. REDDENDO SINGULA SINGULIS

Reddendo singula singulis is a Latin term that means by referring each to each; referring each
phrase or expression to its corresponding object. In simple words “reddendo singula singulis”
means that when a list of words has a modifying phase at the end, the phrase refers only to the last.
An appeal must be taken within 15 days from promulgation or notice of judgement or
order
appealed from
Q. REDDENDO SINGULA SINGULIS
Reddendo singula singulis is a Latin term that means by referring each to each; referring each
phrase or expression to its corresponding object. In simple words “reddendo singula singulis”
means that when a list of words has a modifying phase at the end, the phrase refers only to the last.
An appeal must be taken within 15 days from promulgation or notice of judgement or
order appealed from

Mens Legislatores (intention of the lawmaker)

- Legislative intent or intent of the legislature or mens legislator is is a controlling factorin the construction
and interpretation of a law. The letter of the law gives way to the true intent of the legislature. And when a
statute is susceptible of more than one construction, the Courts shall adopt the construction which will most
tend to give effect to the intent of the legislature.

Q. REDDENDO SINGULA SINGULIS

Reddendo singula singulis is a Latin term that means by referring each to each; referring each
phrase or expression to its corresponding object. In simple words “reddendo singula singulis”
means that when a list of words has a modifying phase at the end, the phrase refers only to the last.
An appeal must be taken within 15 days from promulgation or notice of judgement or
order
appealed from
Q. REDDENDO SINGULA SINGULIS
Reddendo singula singulis is a Latin term that means by referring each to each; referring each
phrase or expression to its corresponding object. In simple words “reddendo singula singulis”
means that when a list of words has a modifying phase at the end, the phrase refers only to the last.
An appeal must be taken within 15 days from promulgation or notice of judgement or
order
appealed from