CASE ISSUE BP 22 1 Alonto V. People The accused had deliberately issued the checks in question to cover accounts. RULING Acquitted. BP 22 applies even in cases where dishonored checks are issued merely in the form of a deposit or a guarantee. The law does not make any distinction. PP KEYWORD TOPIC (BOOK) 297 BP 22 Where the law does not distinguish. The legislative intent is to make the prohibition all embracing. (Catch All) 2 Canet V. Decena Whether respondent Decena can issue business permits without ordinance Aquino V. Quezon City Whether or not the auction sales of two properties for failure to pay property taxes are valid. 8 G 3 No. An ordinance is a sine qua non requirement before the issuance of business permit. Where a provision of the law expressly limits its application to certain transactions, it cannot be extended to others by interpretation. It is valid. The owner of real property subject to tax is supposed to be given a Notice of Tax Delinquency stating that if the property tax is not paid, the local government would sell the real property to satisfy the tax in arrears. 152 Cockfightin g Limitations on power to construe. 352 Property Tax Statutes construed as a whole 145 En Banc The meaning of the law is not to be extracted from a single part, portion or section but as a whole. Petitioner is charged for corruption. G 4. Buencamino V. CA Whether or not the rulings of the Court in Lapid v. Court of Appeals ; Lopez v. Court of Decisions of the Ombudsman on disciplinary or administrative cases are final and executory, whether the Judicial rulings have no Appeals , and Ombudsman v. Laja were violated G 5. Celestial Mining V. MicroAsia Whether or not the Secretary of the DENR has the jurisdiction to cancel mining contracts and privileges If the law is ambiguous, the history of the enactment of the laws may be used as an aid to determine import of the legal provisions. retroactive effect 174 DENR Cancel Contracts Legislative history must be considered to discover the legislative intent. NO. SEC’S authority is purely administrative. G 6. J penalty is more than one month suspension or dismissal from the service. YES. It is only the Secretary of the DENR who has jurisdiction to cancel mining contracts and privileges. Cemco Holdings V. NLI Whether or not the SEC has jurisdiction over respondent’s complaint and to require Cemco to make a tender offer for respondent’s UCC share 7. Construction given to a statute by an administrative agency charged with the interpretation and application of that statute is entitled to great weight by the courts. As the administrative agency has experience and capabilities in implementing a statute. 196 SEC / SHARES SC granted the reopening of proceedings. Baguio V. Marcos WON the reopening of the petition was filed outside the 40-year period provided in RA No. 931, which was ENACTED on June 20, 1953 The title of RA 931 was “An Act to Authorize the Filing in Proper Court under Certain Conditions, of Certain Claims of Title to Parcels of Land that have been Declared Public Land, by Virtue of Judicial Decisions. RENDERED within the 40 Years Next Preceding the Approval of this Act. 158 LAND TITLE over provision; title prevails 40 YEARS Legislative History Contempora enous Constructio n (Executive is the first implementer and interpreter of the law) The title is an indispensabl e part of a statute, and what may adequately be omitted in the text maybe supplies or remedied by its title. J 8 256 COA V. Cebu J J 9 CIR V. AmEx WON the law which authorizes the opening of extension classes includes the payment of Salaries and Other benefits of extensions of the teachers. WON the Amex Phils. is entitled to a refund. 10. Coconut Oil V. Torres WON there is a violation of equal protection clause YES. The salaries and personnelrelated benefits of teachers appointed for extension classes can be charged against the Special Education Fund. Every statute is understood, by implications, to contain all such provisions as maybe necessary to effectuate its object and purpose, or to make effective rights , powers, privileges or jurisdiction which it grants, including all such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred from its term. YES. AMEX received a refund because they do not fall to manufacturing, repacking and processing of goods. The SC ruled negative. The Phrase ‘‘tax and duty-free importation of raw materials, capital and equipment” was merely cited as an example of incentives that may be given to entities operating within the zone. Public respondent SBMA correctly argued that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, on which petitioners impliedly rely to support their restrictive interpretation, does not apply when Special Education Fund (extension classes) 134 201 316 Tax Refund 323 336 SBMA, SUBIC, 7227, SUCH AS Doctrine of Necessary Implications Ex Necessitate Legis Power to construe (Free from doubt) Verba Legis (literal meaning) Where expressio Unius est exclusio alterius is not applicable where words are used by example only. words are mentioned by way of example. J 11 DAR V. Sutton J 12. Executive Secretary V. Southwing F Whether or not DAR AO No. O9 Series of 1993 which prescribes a maximum retention for owners of lands devoted to livestock raising is constitutional? 13 Francisco V. HOR Whether the Executive Order's ban on importing used vehicles through the Free Trade Zone was valid. Locus Standi of petitioners regarding the 2nd The A.O. sought to regulate livestock farms by including them in the coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum retention limit for their ownership is invalid as it contravenes the Constitution. The Court clarified in the Luz Farms case that livestock, swine and poultryraising are industrial activities and do not fall within the definition of “agriculture” or “agricultural activity.” The raising of livestock, swine and poultry is different from crop or tree farming. It is an industrial, not an agricultural activity. The DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have been exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of Agrarian Reform. It has exceeded his power in issuing the assailed A.O. EO IS INVALID. It exceeded its application by extending the import prohibition to the Freeport, which is considered foreign territory to some extent under RA 7227. The EO sought to protect the domestic industry, which is outside the Freeport, and its application conflicted with the definition of the "customs territory" under the Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 7227. NO. Four Essential requisites were not fulfilled 58 AO V S A. O. No. 09; livestock; cattleraising CONSTITUIO N; CONSTITION PREVAILS 46 E.O VS EO 156, SUBIC, MOTORCYCL E, FREEPORT ZONE, 7227 75 CONSTITUTION ; CONSTITUTION PREVAILS Essential Requisite for impeachment of Justice Davide F 14 Garcia V. SSS F F F 15 Guerrero V. COMELEC Construing the word “qualifications” Hon. Sec V. LPG Reliance of the respondents to “void for vagueness” doctrine in BP Blg. 33. 16. 17 Lagcao V. Labra F WoN the only surviving director of a corporation is liable for the whole collected and unremitted SSS constitution to the SSS, with penalties. What are the requirements for a valid ordinance: 18 Lopez V. CA Unconstitutionality of Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 in Fabian v. Desierto Yes. The surviving director is liable for the unremitted contributions and other fees. 112 316 SC dismissed for lack of merit. 291 Basic Statutory Construction rule that where the law does not distinguish, the courts should not distinguish. The court held that the use of general term in statute does not render the law uncertain, so long as the term is clear or made so from the whole statute. 1. It must be constitutional; 2. Must be not unfair and oppressive; 3. Must not be partial and discriminatory 4. Must not prohibit but regulate trade 5. General and consistent with public policy; 6. Reasonable The law should not be declared unconstitutional if certain provisions are unconstitutional. It shall be stricken off but the law continues its operations. Impeachme nt Judicial Review Social Security Law; surviving director of Impact Corporation When Legislative Intent is ascertained Qualifications (Comelec Discretion) 269 64 96 147 328 Where the law does not distinguish, the court shall not distinguish. BP Blg. 33 Department of Energy; petroleum products Interpretation of the statute as a whole and not just the provision. Requirements of Valid Ordinance Legislative power of local government units Provisions invalidity Partial invalidity N 19 Maxima Realty V. Parkway N 20 NFA V. Masada N AR = 30 days to appeal; PD = 15 days to appeal; shall be final and executory after the lapses of the said days 21 Norkis Free V. Independent W.U WON NFA should include to increase overtime pay, holiday & rest day pay, and increase benefits of Masada Security Agency based on Wage Rationalization Act WON Respondent violated CBA in its refusal to grant employees an across-theboard increase as a result of the passage of Min. Wage Law Order Presidential Decree prevails over Administrative Rule (HLURB) because PD is a law. If there is a conflict in the law, the AR will be void. 60 NO. The “wage” in RA 6727 refers to “statutory minimum wage” or the lowest wage rate fixed by law that an employer can pay his worker (NOT exceed 8hrs/day), not including other type of pay; where a statute is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to others. 132 If the statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without interpretation. NO. The Wage Order is to intend to fix a new min. wage only, not to grant across-the-board wage increase to all employees. The purpose of the law is to adjust the min. wage of workers to cushion the impact from the latest economic crisis. HLURB Issuances, Rules and Orientation: Presidential Issuances “Verba Legis” Increase “WAGE” 222 CBA Provision, increase min. wage or plain meaning rule Construction to accomplish its purpose confusion new v increase N 22 Paras V. COMELEC The petitioner’s argument that “no recall shall take place within one year from the date of the official’s assumption to office or one year immediately preceding a regular local election”. So the recall election is barred as SK NO. The intent of Local Govt. Code (par. a) is to subject a elective official to recall election once during his term of office and (par. b) designates its period for recall election, that is, in the second year of his term. 241 “Regular election”; “Recall election” Statute must be interpreted as a WHOLE. Construction to avoid absurdity election and every 3 years after. N 23 Parayno V. Jovellanos N Distinction between “gasoline service station” and “gasoline filling station” from the ordinance. 24 People V. Lacson WON Sec. 8, Rule 117 of Revised Crim. Procedure should be construed retroactively. A 25 PNB V. Office of President Real intent of P.D 959 A 26 Republic V. Lacap WON contractor with expired license is entitled to be paid A 27 Republic V. MERALCO WON increase in the rate charged by MERALCO proper? Rule in statutory construction that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context; every part of statute must be considered together with other parts, not disruptive to its general intent of the whole enactment. It should be in harmony with the Constitution. The ordinance intended that these two terms be separated and distinct from each other. The express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all others. R could not insist that “gasoline service station” from Sec. 44 necessarily include “gasoline filling station” in Sec. 21. NO, it would be a denial of the State’s right to due process and should be in favor of the accused. If the statutory purpose is clear, the provisions of the law be construed as is to fairness and justice, in harmony with the general spirit and policy of the rule, not to defeat/nullify the purpose. The intent of a statue is the law. If a statute is valid it is to give effect according to the purpose and intent of the lawmaker. R.A No. 4566 is clear, it does not declare, expressly or impliedly, as a void contracts entered into by a contractor whose license has already expired. YES. The increase on the rate is a strain to strike a balance between clashing interests of the public utility and consuming public so its 320 “gas service station” and “gas filling station” Expressio unis est exclusio alterius Prospective effect, not retroactive. Construction to accomplish its purpose P.D 959 Intent of a statue is the law 221 216 131 Expired license 187 meralco Verba Legis or plain meaning rule Limitations of rule A 28 San Pablo Manufacturing V. CIR WON petitioner’s goods were exempt from tax? A 29. Solid Homes V. Tan WON the article 1385 of Civil Code should literally applied A 30. Tung Chin Hui V. Rodriguez WON petition which contends the Section 18 of Rule 41 of the pre-1997 Rules of Court hold merit A 31 United BF Homeowners V. Brgy Chairman WON the following provision of the Local Government Code applies only to multi-purpose halls in open space of subdivision open to the public, and not to the other multipurpose-buildings reasonable. So the petition to lower it was DENIED. Law must necessarily be construed in accordance with the lawmaker. DENIED.The rule of expressio unius 321 business of milling/ copra expressio unius est exclusio alterius Petition Denied. We always need a closer look at our laws and the reason and spirit behind their enactment, as well as established jurisprudence. No. The well-settled rule of statutory construction states that provisions from an old law not included in its revision that pertain to the same subjects are considered repealed and no longer in effect. 216 Market value or present value Intent of a statue is the law 214 48 hours reglementary period of filing habeas corpus Stare Decisis No. The Court Ruled that the legislature did not intend to make a distinction. Court cannot read into the law something which was not intended by the legislature lest it be accused of encroaching on the latter’s law-making power. 298 Multi-purpose hall Intent of a statue is the law est exclusio alterius is a canon of restrictive interpretation.The express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all others.
