sssstatcon Case Digest (for Revision)

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
People of the Philippines v. Hon. Judge Palma and Romulo Intia y Morada
Case No. 219 G.R. No. L-44113 (March 31, 1977) Chapter I, Page 2, Footnote No.3
Primicias v. Municipality of Urdaneta
Case No. 244 G.R. No. L-26702 (October 18, 1979) Chapter I, Page 4, Footnote No.14
FACTS: Private Respondent Romulo, 17 years of age, was charged with vagrancy. Respondent Judge
dismissed the case on the ground that her court “has no jurisdiction to take further cognizance of this
case” without prejudice to the re-filing thereof in the Juvenile Court, because he believed that
jurisdiction over 16 years olds up to under 21 was transferred to the Juvenile Court by the issuance of
PD 603 or the Child and Youth Welfare Code, which defines youthful offenders as those over 9 years of
age but under 21 at the time of the commission of the offense. ISSUE: W/N the issuance of PD 603
transferred the case of the accused from the regular courts to the Juvenile Court. HELD: The Juvenile
and Domestic Relations Court expressly confers upon it a special and limited jurisdiction over “criminal
cases wherein the accused is under 16 years of age at the time of the filing of the case”. The subsequent
issuance of PD 603 known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code and defines a youth offender as “one
who is over 9 years of age but under 21 at the time of the commission of the offense” did not by such
definition transfer jurisdiction over criminal cases involving accused who are 16 and under 21 years of
age from the regular courts to the Juvenile Court. LATIN MAXIM: 35
FACTS: Petitioner, while driving his car in the jurisdiction of Urdaneta, was charged with violation of
Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1964, “particularly, for overtaking a truck”. Petitioner initiated an action for
annulment of said ordinance and prayed for the issuance of preliminary injunction for restraining
Respondent from enforcing the said ordinance. ISSUE: W/N Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1964, by the
Municipality of Urdaneta, Pangasinan is valid. HELD: No. Ordinance No. 3 is said to be patterned after
and based on Section 53 of Act No. 3992. However, Act No. 3992 has been explicitly repealed by RA No.
4136 (The Land and Transportation Code). By this express repeal, the general rule is that a later law
prevails over an earlier law. Also, an essential requisite for a valid ordinance is that it “must not
contravene … the statute” for it is fundamental principle that municipal ordinances are inferior in status

3 Casco Philippine Chemical Co. Inc., v. Hon. Pedro Gimenez
Case No. 48 G.R. No. L-17931 (February 28, 1963) Chapter I, Page 9, Footnote No.31
Astorga v. Villegas
Case No. 23 G.R. No. L-23475 (April 30, 1974) Chapter I, Page 11, Footnote No.37
FACTS: Petitioner was engaged in the manufacture of synthetic resin glues. It sought the refund of the
margin fees relying on RA 2609 (Foreign Exchange Margin Fee Law) stating that the Central Bank of the
Philippines fixed a uniform margin fee of 25% on foreign exchange transactions. However, the Auditor of
the Bank refused to pass in audit and approved the said refunds upon the ground that Petitioner’s
separate importations of urea and formaldehyde is not in accord with the provisions of Sec. 2, par. 18 of
RA 2609. The pertinent portion of this statute reads: “The margin established by the Monetary Board …
shall be imposed upon the sale of foreign exchange for the importation of the following: “XVIII. Urea
formaldehyde for the manufacture of plywood and hardwood when imported by and for the exclusive
use of end-users.” ISSUE: W/N “urea” and “formaldehyde” are exempt by law from the payment of the
margin fee.
FACTS: House Bill No. 9266 was passed from the House of Representatives to the Senate. Senator Arturo
Tolentino made substantial amendments which were approved by the Senate. The House, without
notice of said amendments, thereafter signed its approval until all the presiding officers of both houses
certified and attested to the bill. The President also signed it and thereupon became RA 4065. Senator
Tolentino made a press statement that the enrolled copy of House Bill No. 9266 was a wrong version of
the bill because it did not embody the amendments introduced by him and approved by the Senate.
Both the Senate President and the President withdrew their signatures and denounced RA 4065 as
invalid. Petitioner argued that the authentication of the presiding officers of the Congress is conclusive
proof of a bill’s due enactment. ISSUE: W/N House Bill No. 9266 is considered enacted and valid. HELD:
Since both the Senate President and the Chief Executive withdrew their signatures therein, the court
declared that the bill was not duly enacted and therefore did not become a law. The Constitution
requires that each House shall keep a journal. An importance of having a journal is that in the absence of
attestation or evidence of the bill’s due enactment, the court may resort to the journals of the Congress
to verify such. “Where the journal discloses that substantial amendment were introduced and approved
and were not incorporated in the printed text sent to the President for signature, the court can declare

HELD: The term “urea formaldehyde” used in Sec. 2 of RA 2609 refers to the finished product as
expressed by the National Institute of Science and Technology, and is distinct and separate from “urea
and formaldehyde” which are separate chemicals used in the manufacture of synthetic resin. The one
mentioned in the law is a finished product, while the ones imported by the Petitioner are raw materials.
Hence, the importation of “urea” and “formaldehyde” is not exempt from the imposition of the margin
fee. LATIN MAXIM: 2a, 6c, 25a

4 Ichong, etc., et al. v. Hernandez, etc., and Sarmiento
Case No. 133 G.R. No. L-7995 (May 31, 1957) Chapter I, Page 11, Footnote No.42
Municipality of Jose Panganiban v. Shell Co. of the Philippines
Case No. 181 G.R. No. L-25716 (July 28, 1966) Chapter I, Page 11, Footnote No.42
FACTS: Petitioner is a Chinese merchant who questions the constitutionality of RA 1180 “An Act to
Regulate the Retail Business” on the following grounds: a) It is a violation of the Equal Protection of the
Law Clause, denies them of their liberty, property and due process of law 2) It is a violation of the
constitutional requirement that a bill’s title must reflect the subject matter of the same because
“regulate” does not really mean “nationalize” and “prohibit” 3) the Act violates International treaties
and Laws ISSUE: W/N RA 1180 is constitutional. HELD: RA 1180 is constitutional. In the abovementioned
case, what has been pointed out is the constitutional requirement that “A bill shall embrace only one
subject as expressed in its title.” This is to prohibit duplicity in legislation because the title must be able
to apprise legislators and the public about the nature, scope, and consequences of that particular law.
Constitution precludes the encroaching of one department to the responsibilities of the other
departments. The legislature is primarily the judge of necessity, adequacy, wisdom, reasonableness, and
expediency of the law, and the courts have no jurisdiction to question this. LATIN MAXIM: 9a, 24a, d
FACTS: This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing the
Plaintiff’s complaint for the collection of sales taxes from Defendant on the ground that the law which
authorizes collection of the same is unconstitutional. Defendant Company refused to pay taxes accruing
from its sales because according to them the taxable sites of the property sought to be taxed is not the
said Municipality. According to the Defendant, RA 1435 or Act to Provide Means for Increasing Highway
Special Fund is unconstitutional because it embraces two subjects which are 1)amendment of the tax
code, and 2) grant of taxing power to the local government, and makes reference to Road and Bridge
Fund. ISSUE: W/N RA 1435 is constitutional. HELD: RA 1435 is constitutional because it embraces only
one subject reflected by its title “Road and Bridge Fund.” Statutory definition prevails over ordinary
usage of the term. The constitutional requirement as to the title of the bill must be liberally construed. It
should not be technically or narrowly construed as to impede the power of legislation. When there is
doubt as to its validity, it must be resolved against the doubt and in favor of its validity. In the
abovementioned cases, what is pointed out is the constitutional requirement that “A bill shall embrace
only one subject, expressed in its title.” This is to prohibit duplicity in legislation because the title must
be able to apprise legislators and the public about the nature, scope, and consequences of that
particular law. LATIN MAXIM: 12a, 37, d

5 People of the Philippines v. Buenviaje
Case No. 203 G.R. No. L-22945 (March 3, 1925) Chapter I, Page 12, Footnote No.46
Alalayan v. National Power Corporation
FACTS: Defendant appeals the ruling of the trial court finding her guilty for the violation of “illegal
practice of medicine” and “illegally advertising oneself as a doctor.” Defendant practices chiropractic
although she has not secured a certificate to practice medicine. She ‘treated and manipulated’ the head
and body of Regino Noble. She also contends that practice of chiropractic has nothing to do with
medicine and that unauthorized use of title of “doctor” should be understood to refer to “doctor of
medicine” and not to doctors of chiropractic, and lastly, that Act 3111 is unconstitutional as it does not
express its subject. ISSUE: W/N “chiropractic” is included in the term “practice of medicine” under
Medical laws provided in the Revised Administrative Code. HELD: Act 3111 is constitutional as the title
“An Act to Amend (enumeration of sections to be amended)” is sufficient and it need not include the
subject matter of each section. ‘Chiropractic’ is included in the ‘practice of medicine.’ Statutory
definition prevails over ordinary usage of the term. The constitutional requirement as to the title of the
bill must be liberally construed. It should not be technically or narrowly construed as to impede the
power of legislation. When there is doubt as to its validity, it must be resolved against the doubt and in
favor of its validity. “A bill shall embrace only one subject, expressed in its title,” to prohibit duplicity in
legislation by apprising legislators and the public about the nature, scope, and consequences of the law.
LATIN MAXIM: 2a, 7a, 25c, 37, d
FACTS: Republic Act No. 3043 is entitled “An Act to Further Amend Commonwealth Act No. 121”. In
Section 3 of the same act, Respondent is empowered, in any franchise contract for the supply of electric
power constituting 50% of the electric power and energy of that franchisee, to realize a net profit of not
more than 12% annually of its investments plus 2-month operating expenses; and NPC is allowed to
renew all existing franchise contracts so that the provisions of the act could be given effect. ISSUE: W/N
Section 3 is a subject which the bill title “An Act to Further Amend Commonwealth Act No. 121” does
not embrace, thus making it a rider because it is violative of the constitutional provision requiring that
“a bill, which may be enacted into law, cannot embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed
in its title.” HELD: Section 3 is constitutional. Republic Act 3043 is an amendatory act. It is sufficient that
the title makes reference to the legislation to be amended (in this case Commonwealth Act 121).
Constitutional provision is satisfied if title is comprehensive enough to include the general object which

accomplishment. Title doesn’t need to be a complete index of the contents of the act. LATIN MAXIM:
24a, 37, d
6 Cordero v. Hon. Cabatuando
Tobias v. Abalos
Case No. 291 G.R. No. L-114783 (December 8, 1994) Chapter I, Page 12, Footnote No.47
FACTS: Republic Act No. 1199 is the Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines. Section 54 of this act
expressed that indigent tenants should be represented by Public Defendant of Department of Labor.
Congress then amended this in Republic Act No. 2263: “An Act Amending Certain Sections of Republic
Act No. 1199.” Section 19 of the amendatory act says that mediation of tenancy disputes falls under
authority of Secretary of Justice. Section 20 also provides that indigent tenants shall be represented by
trial attorney of the Tenancy Mediation Commission. ISSUE: W/N Sections 19 and 20 of Rep. Act No.
2263 is unconstitutional because of the constitutional provision that “No bill which may be enacted into
law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill.” HELD: Sections
19 and 20 are constitutional. The constitutional requirement is complied with as long the law has a
single general subject, which is the Agricultural Tenancy Act, and the amendatory provisions no matter
how diverse they may be, so long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject, will
be regarded as valid. Constitutional provisions relating to subject matter and titles of statutes should not
be so narrowly construed as to cripple or impede proper legislation. LATIN MAXIM: 24a, 37, d
FACTS: Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7675, otherwise known as "An Act
Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of
Mandaluyong” because Article VIII, Section 49 of this act provided that the congressional district of San
Juan/ Mandaluyong shall be split into two separate districts. ISSUE: W/N the aforestated subject is
germane to the subject matter of R.A. No. 7675. HELD: RA 7675 is constitutional. Contrary to Petitioners'
assertion, the creation of a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong is not a subject separate
and distinct from the subject of its conversion into a highly urbanized city but is a natural and logical
consequence of its conversion into a highly urbanized city Moreover, a liberal construction of the "one
title-one subject" rule has been invariably adopted by this court so as not to cripple or impede
legislation. The Constitution does not require Congress to employ in the title of an enactment, language
of such precision as to mirror, fully index or catalogue all the contents and the minute details therein.
LATIN MAXIM: 20a, d
Lidasan v. Commission on Elections
FACTS: The municipal council of Navotas, Rizal adopted its Ordinance No. 13, section 2 of which
provided that “all owners and proprietors of the industry known as fishing, with nets denominated
‘cuakit’ and ‘pantukos,’ before engaging in fishing in the bay of this jurisdiction within three leagues
from the shore-line of this municipality, are obliged to provide themselves with a license issued by this
municipal government, after payment of a fee of P50 annually, payable every three months.” The
authority for the enactment of the ordinance was from section 2270 of the Administrative Code. ISSUE:
W/N Section 2270 of the Administrative Code of 1916, now Section 2324 of the Administrative Code of
1917, is invalid. HELD: Section 2270 of the Administrative Code of 1916, now section 2323 of the
Administrative Code of 1917 is valid. It does not violate Paragraph 17, section 5 of the Philippine Bill
which provided “that no private or local bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than
one subject, and that subject shall be expressed in the title of the bill” because the Administrative Code
is neither a private nor a local bill. The Administrative Code of 1917 has for its title, “An Act amending
the Administrative Code.” It does not violate Paragraph 17, section 3 of the Jones Law, which provided
“that no bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject and that subject shall
be expressed in the title of the bill,” because it was merely a revision of the provisions of the
Administrative Code enacted for the purpose of adapting it to the Jones Law and the Reorganization Act.
LATIN MAXIM: 37
FACTS: Petitioner challenged Republic Act 4790, which is entitled “An Act Creating the Municipality of
Dianaton in the Province of Lanao del Sur” as unconstitutional on the ground that it includes barrios
located in another province, which is Cotabato, violating the constitutiona l mandate that “No bill which
may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of
the bill.” This question was initially presented to the Respondents, which adopted a resolution in favor
of RA 4790, prompted by the upcoming elections. ISSUE: W/N Republic Act 4790 is constitutional. HELD:
Republic Act 4790 is null and void. The title “An Act Creating the Municipality of Dianaton, in the
Province of Lanao del Sur” projects the impression that solely the province of Lanao del Sur is affected
by the creation of Dianaton. Not the slightest intimation is there that communities in the adjacent

Congress as to the full impact of the law; it did not apprise the people in the towns of Cotabato that
were affected by the law, and the province of Cotabato itself that part of their territory is being taken
away from their towns and provinces and added to the adjacent Province of Lanao del Sur; it kept the
public in the dark as to what towns and provinces were actually affected by the bill. These are the

8 Manila Trading & Supply Co. v. Reyes
Case No. 169 G.R. No. 43263 (October 31, 1935) Chapter I, Page 13, Footnote No. 53
People of the Philippines v. Ferrer
Case No. 208 G.R. No. L-32613-14 (December 27, 1972) Chapter I, Page 13, Footnote No.50
FACTS: Respondent executed a chattel mortgage in favor of Petitioner. He failed to pay some of the
installments. Petitioner proceeded to foreclose its chattel mortgage. The mortgaged property was sold
at a public auction by the sheriff of the City of Manila. After applying this sum, with interest, costs, and
liquidated damages to Respondent’s indebtedness, the latter owed the company a balance of P275.47
with interest. The company instituted an action for recovery when he failed to pay the deficiency of the
debt. He pleaded as a defense that the company, having chosen to foreclose its chattel mortgage, had
no further action against him for the recovery of the unpaid balance owed by him, as provided by Act
No. 4122. ISSUE: W/N Act No. 4122, entitled “An Act to amend the Civil Code by inserting between
Sections fourteen hundred and fifty-four and fourteen hundred and fifty-five thereof a new section, to
be known as section fourteen hundred and fifty-four-A,” is valid. HELD: Act No. 4122 is valid and
enforceable. The controlling purpose of Act No. 4122 is revealed to be to close the door to abuses
committed in connection with the foreclosure of chattel mortgages when sales were payable in
installments. The general rule is adopted in this jurisdiction to the effect that a title which declares a
statute to be an act to amend a specified code is sufficient and the precise nature of the amendatory act
need not be further stated. The proper approach in cases of this character should be to resolve all
presumptions in favor of the validity of an act in the absence of a clear conflict between it and the
Constitution. LATIN MAXIM: 9a, 37
FACTS: Private Respondents were respectively charged with a violation of Republic Act No. 1700,
otherwise known as the Anti-Subversion Act. RA 1700 outlaws the Communist Party of the Philippines
(CPP) and other “subversive associations” and punishes any person who “knowingly, willfully and by
overt acts affiliates himself with, becomes or remains a member” of the CPP or any other organization
“subversive” in nature. Tayag filed a motion challenging the validity of the statute due to its
constitutional violations. The lower court declared the statute void on the grounds that it was a bill of
attainder and that it is vague and overbroad. The cases were dismissed, to which the Government
appealed. ISSUE: W/N the title of the act satisfies the constitutional provision on bill titles. HELD: Yes.
The title of the bill need not be a catalogue or an index of its contents, and need not recite the details of
the Act. It is a valid title if it indicates in clear terms the nature, scope and consequences of the

will be read fairly and reasonably in order not to thwart the legislative intent. The Anti-Subversion act
fully satisfies these requirements. LATIN MAXIM: 9a, 9d, 51d

Case No. 33 G.R. No. L-32476 (October 20, 1970)
People of the Philippines v. Valeriano Valensoy y Masa
Case No. 230 G.R. No. L-9659 (May 29, 1957) Chapter I, Page 14, Footnote No. 55
FACTS: Petitioner questions the constitutionality of RA 6132. The said Act purportedly encompasses
more than one subject for the title of the Act allegedly fails to include the phrase “TO PROPOSE
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES.” The statute plainly reads: “An Act
Implementing Resolution to Both Houses Numbered Two as Amended by Resolution of Both Houses
Numbered Four of the Congress of the Philippines Calling for a Constitutional Convention, Providing for
Proportional Representation Therein and Other Details Relating to the Election of Delegates to and the
Holding of the Constitutional Convention, Repealing for the Purpose Republic Act Four Thousand Nine
Hundred Fourteen, and for Other Purposes.” ISSUE: W/N RA 6132 is unconstitutional for embracing
more than one subject. HELD: No. The inclusion of the title is superfluous and therefore unnecessary
because the title expressly indicates that the act implements Resolutions on both Houses Nos. 2 and 4
respectively of 1967 and 1969, and both Resolutions No. 2 and 4 likewise categorically state in their
titles that the Constitutional Convention called for therein is “to propose amendments to the
Constitution of the Philippines,” which phrase is reiterated in Sec. 1 of both Resolutions. The power to
propose amendments to the Constitution is implied in the call for the convention itself, whose raison
d’etre is to revise the present Constitution. It is not required that the title of the bill be an index to the
body of the act or be comprehensive in matters of detail. It is enough that it fairly indicates the general
subject and reasonably covers all the provisions of the act so as not to mislead Congress or the people.
All the details provided for in RA 6132 are germane to and are comprehended by its title. LATIN MAXIM:
9a, 9d, 51d
FACTS: Defendant was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila for violation of Section 26 of Act
No. 1780 by concealment of a bolo. The defendant moved to quash the information on the ground that
the title of the act, which was “an Act to regulate the importation, acquisition, possession, use, and
transfer of firearms, and to prohibit the possession of same except in compliance with the provisions of
this Act,” did not include weapons other than firearms, and that Section 26 violated the constitutional
provision that “no bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall
be expressed in the title of the bill.” ISSUES: 1. W/N Act No. 1780 violated the one subject-one title rule
2. W/N it was inconsistent with the Constitution. HELD: No. At the time of the enactment of Act No.

bills to be enacted into a law and not to law that was already in force and existing at the time the 1935
Constitution took effect. The provision of Section 26 germane to the subject expressed in the title of the
Act remained operative because it was not inconsistent with the Constitution, pursuant to Section 2 of

10 People of the Philippines v. Apolonio Carlos
Case No. 204 G.R. No. L-239 (June 30, 1947) Chapter I, Page 16, Footnote No.63
People of the Philippines v. Leoncio Lim
FACTS: The People’s Court found the Appellant, guilty of treason. Appellant attacked the
constitutionality of the People’s Court Act on the ground that it contained provisions which deal on
matters entirely foreign to the subject matter expressed in its title, such as: (1) a provision which retains
the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance; (2) a provision which adds to the disqualification of Justices
of the Supreme Court and provides a procedure for their substitution; (3) a provision which changed the
existing Rules of Court on the subject of bail, and (4) a provision which suspends Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code. ISSUE: W/N the People’s Court Act was unconstitutional. HELD: No. The People’s
Court was intended to be a full and complete scheme with its own machinery for the indictment, trial
and judgment of treason cases. The provisions mentioned were allied and germane to the subject
matter and purposes of the People’s Court Act. The Congress is not expected to make the title of an
enactment a complete index of its contents. The constitutional rule is satisfied if all parts of a law relate
to the subject expressed in its title. LATIN MAXIM: 9a
FACTS: In March 1954, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources pursuant to the authority
granted him by Sections 3 and 4 of Act No. 4003 (Fisheries Act) issued Fisheries Administrative Order No.
37. Section 2 of said order prohibits trawl fishing in certain areas in Samar. FAO No. 37 was subsequently
amended with FAO No. 37 –1. Leoncio Lim, the accused in violation of said order, challenged its legality
on the ground that FAO No. 37 –1 was contrary to Act No. 4003, the former having no fixed period and
thus establishing a ban for all time while the latter stating th at prohibition “was for any single period of
time not exceeding five years’ duration.” ISSUE: W/N Section 2 of FAO No. 37–1 was invalid. HELD:
Section 2 of FAO No. 37 –1 was valid. Although FAO No. 37 –1 was defective because it failed to specify a
period for the ban, it was ruled that in case of discrepancy between a basic law and a rule issued to
implement it, the basic law prevails because the rule cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the
law. FAO No. 37 –1 would be inoperative in so far as it exceeded the period of five years for any single

Case No. 68 G.R. No. 115381 (December 23, 1994)
Case No. 57 G.R. No. L-34526 (August 9, 1988)
FACTS: DOTC Memorandum Order No. 90-395 was filed asking the LTFRB to allow provincial bus
operators to charge passengers rates within a range of 15% above and below the LTFRB official rate for a
period of one year. LTFRB issued Memorandum Circular No.92-009 allowing for a range of plus 20% and
minus 25% of the prescribed fares. PBOAP, without a public hearing and permission from LTFRB, availed
of the deregulatory policy and announced 20% increase in existing fares. Petitioner filed a petition
opposing the increase in fares. SC issued a temporary restraining order to prevent PBOAP from
implementing fare increase. ISSUES: 1. W/N authority given by LTFRB to PBOAP to increase prices at 20%
instead of 15% is unconstitutional on the ground that there was no filing for a petition of purpose in the
said increase. 2. W/N PBOAP proved that there was a public necessity for the increase thus violating the
Public Service Act and Rules of the Court. HELD: 1. LTFRB did not have authority to delegate its powers
to PBOAP. 2. PBOAP was not able to prove and provide such public necessity as reason for the fare
increase. LATIN MAXIM: None
FACTS: Congress approved RA No. 6125 entitled “An act imposing STABILIZATION TAX ON
CONSIGNMENTS ABROAD TO ACCELERATE THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES FOR
OTHER PURPOSES” Petitioners expected to pay 4% of the aggregate value from July 1, 1972- June 30,
1973, as provided in the Act. The Central bank released Monetary Resolution No. 1995 which states
that: For exports of bananas shipped during the period from January 1, 1972- June 30, 1972; the
stabilization tax shall be at the rate of 6%. For exports of bananas shipped during the period from July 1,
1972 to June 30, 1973; the stabilization tax shall be at the rate of 4%. For exports of bananas shipped
during the period from July 1, 1973- June 30, 1974; the stabilization tax shall be at the rate of 2%. ISSUE:
W/N Central bank acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it issued
Monetary Board Resolution No. 1995. HELD: Central Bank acted with grave abuse of discretion. In case
of discrepancy between the basic law and the rule or regulation issued to implement the said law, the

12 China Banking Corp. v. CA
Case No. 59 G.R. No. 121158 (December 5, 1996) Chapter I, Page 19, Footnote No.84
Case No. 140 G.R. No. L-14740 (September 26, 1960)
FACTS: Petitioner extended loans to Native West Corp. and its president, So Ching, in return for
promissory notes to pay the loans. Two extra mortgages were additionally executed by So Ching and his
wife on July and August 1989. The loans matured but So Ching was not able to repay the said loans. This
caused Petitioner to file for extra judicial foreclosures of the two mortgaged properties. The properties
were to be sold/auctioned on April 3, 1993. On April 28, 1989 the court ruled on the side of So Ching.
The issuance of the preliminary injunction was granted; therefore the sale of the two mortgaged
properties was stopped. Petitioner sought for reconsideration and elevated the case to the Court of
Appeals. They were appealing that Act No. 3135 was the governing rule in their case, instead of
Administrative Order No. 3 as So Ching was contending. ISSUE: 1. W/N Petitioner can extra-judicially
foreclose the properties. 2. W/N Administrative Order No. 3 should govern the extra judicial foreclosure.
HELD: 1. Petitioner can foreclose the properties. 2. Act No. 3135 is the governing law. Administrative
Order No. 3 cannot prevail over Act 3135. It is an elementary principle that a stature is superior to an
administrative directive. Thus, the statute cannot be repealed or amended by the administrative
directive. LATIN MAXIM: None
FACTS: The decedent is a driver for People’s Land Transportation Company, of which Petitioners are
manager and proprietor. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission awarded the decedent’s widow
the amount of P3,494.40, plus burial expenses not exceeding P200. After 5 years, Respondent, in a civil
case filed by the mother of the decedent, ordered Petitioners to pay the award plus P500 as attorney’s
fees for failure to comply. Petitioners pray that the decision be annulled or modified based on Section 1
Rule 11 the Rules of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission and prays further that the P500 in atty’s
fees exceeded the allowed fees according to Sec.6 Rule 26 of the said Rules. ISSUE: 1. W/N the Rules of
the Workmen’s Compensation Commission amended R.A. No. 772 and as a result deprived the court of
its jurisdiction over the case. 2. W/N the court committed a grave abuse of discretion in awarding the
P500 in attorney’s fees. HELD: Petition was dismissed. 1. The Commission, or any of its rules, cannot
amend an act of Congress. Furthermore, the Rule was promulgated more than 2 years after the court
had acquired jurisdiction over the main case. 2. The court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
awarding the P500 since the said rule only applies to the Commission and not the Court. LATIN MAXIM:
30, 35, 46a
13 Grego v. Commission on Elections
Case No. 120 G.R. No. 125955 (June 19, 1997) Chapter I, Page 23, Footnote No.98
Case No. 141 G.R. No. L-15807 (April 22, 1963)
FACTS: One of the Respondents was elected for his 3 and final term as councilor of the 2nd District of
Manila. His qualifications are being questioned by herein Petitioner, who is also asking for the
suspension of his proclamation. Petitioner brings into consideration the fact that Respondent was
removed from his position as Deputy Sheriff upon finding of serious misconduct in an administrative
case held on October 31, 1981. Petitioner argues that Respondent should be disqualified under Section
40(b) of the Local Government Code. Petitioner further argues that the Local Government Code should
be applied retroactively. ISSUE: W/N or not the Section 40 of the Local Government Code should be
applied retroactively due to its wording. HELD: Section 40(b) of the Local Government Code should not
be applied retroactively. It is understood that statutes are not to be construed as intended to have a
retroactive effect so as to affect pending proceedings, unless such intent is expressly declared or clearly
and necessarily implied from the language of the enactment. The fact that the provision of the Code in
question does not qualify the date of a candidate’s removal and that it is couched in the past tense
should not deter the court from applying the law prospectively. The term to be looked at in the issue is
REINSTATEMENT, which has a technical meaning, referring only to an appointive position. Since
Respondent was reelected, this does not fall under the scope of the term. LATIN MAXIM: 25a, 46c
rd
FACTS: Respondent issued Ordinance No. 24 charging slaughterhouses in the municipality certain fees
including “slaughterhouse fees,” “meat inspection fees,” “corral fees,” “and internal organ fees,”
pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 655. Petitioners questioned the validity or said Ordinance. ISSUE:
W/N Respondent, in the issuance of Ordinance No. 24, exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction provided by
Commonwealth Act 655. HELD: Respondent exceeded its jurisdiction in the issuance of the said
ordinance. The Commonwealth Act only allowed Respondent to charge slaughterhouse fees. When
Respondent ordained the payment of other said fees, it overstepped the limits of its statutory grant. The
only other fees that would be acceptable were veterinary or sanitary inspection fees since it was
mentioned in the statute. Incidentally, the court ordered Respondent to refund the fees with the
exception of “slaughterhouse fees.” One of the rules of statutory construction is that “certain sections

the parts are not so interblended and dependent that the vice of one necessarily vitiates the others.”
LATIN MAXIM: 15a, 37
Case No. 85 G.R. No. 49439 (June 29, 1983)
Francisco Lao Lim v. CA and Benito Villavicencio Dy
Case No. 73 G.R. No. 87047 (October 31, 1990)
FACTS: Private Respondents owned a parcel of land of 25,000 sq/rn, subject of an expropriation
proceedings granted by the court in favor NHA. Respondents claimed they should be paid the assessed
value of P6,600.00 pursuant to PD 42. Petitioner opposed the payment claiming that it was too
excessive. He cited PD 464 which provides just compensation not to exceed the market value declared
by the owner in the amount of P1,400.00. Respondent Judge granted the payment of P6,600.00, but
Petitioner had opposed it pursuant to PD 1224 which states that the government shall choose between
the value of real property as declared by the owner x x x or the market value determined by the City or
Provincial Assessor, whichever is lower. ISSUE: W/N PD 464 as amended by PD 1224 determines the
valuation on just compensation. HELD: Courts accord the presumption of validity to executive acts and
legislative enactments, x x x because the legislature is presumed to abide by the Constitution x x x. The
Respondent Judge should have followed just compensation in expropriation cases, that the lower value
made by the landowner should be the basis for fixing the price. The petition for Certiorari is granted.
LATIN MAXIM: 37
FACTS: Private Respondent entered into a contract of lease with Petitioner for a period of 3 years. After
it expired, Private Respondent refused to vacate the premises, and hence, the filing of an ejectment suit
against the Respondent. The case was terminated by a compromise agreement, and the lease continued
from 1979 to 1982, then from 1982 to 1985. The Petitioner filed another ejectment suit. The trial court
dismissed the complaint on the grounds that (1) the lease contract has not expired; and (2) the
compromise agreement entered into constitutes res judicata. Petitioner appealed to the RTC of Manila
and then to the CA which also affirmed the decision of the trial court. ISSUE: 1. W/N the continuance of
lease is made to depend upon the will of the lessee? 2. W/N the action for ejectment is barred by
compromise agreement on res judicata? HELD: This is untenable because the continuance of lease is not
dependent upon the will of the lessee. On the compromise agreement, the lease is not for perpetual
renewals unless the language employed indicates that it was the intention of the parties. On the second
issue, the compromise agreement does not apply because the present case requires a different set of
evidence. The compromise agreement does not foreclose any cause of action arising from a violation of

Case No. 169 G.R. No. L-25246 (September 12, 1974)
FACTS: Executive Order No. 392 was issued transferring the authority to regulate JaiAlai from local
governments to the Games and Amusements Board (GAB). The City of Manila passed an Ordinance No.
7065 authorizing the mayor to allow the Associated Development Corporation (ADC) to operate a JAI-
ALAI. Then President Marcos issued a PD 771 revoking all powers and authority of local governments to
grant franchise, license or permit, to Jai-Alai and other forms of gambling. Then President Aquino issued
an E.O. No. 169 expressly repealing PD. No. 810 which revokes and cancels the franchise granted to the
Philippine Jai-Alai and Amusement Corporation. In 1998, ADC tried to operate a Jai-Alai, but the Games
and Amusement Board intervened and invoked P.D. 771 which expressly revoked all existing franchises
and permits to operate all forms of gambling issued by local governments. ISSUE: 1. W/N the franchise
granted by the City of Manila to ADC is valid in view of E. 0. No. 392 which transferred from local
governments to the GAB the power to regulate Jai-Alai. 2. W/N the ADC is correct in assailing that P.D.
771 is violative of equal protection and non-impairment clauses of the Constitution. HELD: R.A. 409
provides that Congress did not delegate to the City of Manila the power “to franchise” the operation of
Jai-Alai. And E.O. 392 removes the power of local governments to issue license and permit. All laws are
presumed valid and constitutional. PD 771 was not repealed or amended by any subsequent law. It did
not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution because the said decree had revoked all
franchises issued by the local governments without exceptions. LATIN MAXIM: 5a, 6c, 37, 44, 50
FACTS: Petitioner, an “Iglesia ni Cristo”, was a member of the Respondent Union which had with their
Company a collective bargaining agreement containing a closed shop provision allowed under R.A. 875:
“Membership in the Union shall be required as a condition of employment for all permanent employees
workers covered by this Agreement “ RA 3350 amended RA 875: “but such agreement shall not cover
members of any religious sect which prohibit affiliation of their members in any such labor
organization.” Petitioner resigned from Respondent Union, which wrote a formal letter to the Company
asking to separate the Petitioner from service. ISSUE: 1. W/N RA 3350 violates right to form or join
association? 2. W/N RA 3350 is constitutional? 3. W/N the lower court committed grave abuse of
discretion when ruling that the Union should pay 500 and attorney’s fee. HELD: The right to join
associations includes the right not to join or to resign from a labor organization. Section 1 960 of Art III

form associations for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. Article 2208 of the Civil Code
provides that attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation may be awarded “when the defendant’s act has
compelled the Plaintiff to incur expenses to protect his interest” and “in any other case where the court
deems it just and equitable that attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered”. LATIN
MAXIM: 9a, 40b
16 Tañada v. Tuvera
Case No. 287 G.R. No. L-63915 (December 29, 1986) Chapter I, Page 37, Footnote No.159
Case No. 55 G.R. No. 31025 (August 15, 1929)
FACTS: Due process was invoked by the Petitioners in demanding the disclosure of a number of
Presidential Decrees which they claimed had not been published as required by law. The government
argued that while publication was necessary as a rule, it was not so when it was “otherwise provided” as
when the decrees themselves declared that they were to become effective immediately upon their
approval. ISSUE: W/N the clause “otherwise provided” in Article 2 of Civil Code pertains to the necessity
of publication. HELD: No, the clause “otherwise provided” refers to the date of effectivity and not to the
requirement of publication per se, which cannot in any event be omitted. Publication in full should be
indispensable. Without such notice or publication, there would be no basis for the application of the
maxim “ignorantia Legis non excusat”. The court, therefore, declares that presidential issuances of
general application which have not been published shall have no force and effect, and the court ordered
that the unpublished decrees be published in the Official Gazette immediately. LATIN MAXIM: 6c, 9a
FACTS: The Litigants here compromised a civil case on July 13, 1928, agreeing that if within a month
from the date thereof the Plaintiffs failed to repurchase a certain land, the ownership would vest in the
Defendants. But when the Plaintiffs duly tendered the amount, the Defendants appealed that by that
time, August 13, 1928, the time when the Plaintiffs tendered it, the stipulated or fixed period had
already elapsed. ISSUE: W/N the stipulated period elapsed on the time of tendering. HELD: No. The
repurchase of the land was made within the stipulated period. The above issue depends upon the kind
of month agreed upon by the parties, and on the day from which it should be counted. Article 7 of the
Civil Code had been modified by Sec. 13 of the Administrative Code, according to which “month” now
means the civil month and not the regular-30-day month. In computing any fixed period of time, with
reference to the performance of an act required by law or contract to be done within a certain limit of
time, the day from which the time is reckoned is to be excluded and the date of performance included,
unless otherwise provided. There is nothing in the agreement providing otherwise. LATIN MAXIM: 2a,
39a
Case No. 161 G.R. No. 8223 (March 4, 1914)
FACTS: Plaintiff filed two actions of unlawful detainer to recover possession of certain properties in
Manila. The trial court decided in favor of the Plaintiff. The unsuccessful Defendants having appealed in
both cases on Dec. 9, 1920 to the Court of First Instance of Manila, it is their duty to conform with the
provisions of Sec. 88 of the CCP, as amended by Act No. 2588, in case they desire to avoid the
immediate execution of the judgment pending the appeal, to pay the Plaintiff, or to deposit in court, “on
or before the TENTH day of each Calendar month”, the sums of money fixed by the Justice of the Peace
as the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the property held by them. The Defendants made
such dilatory payments however they failed to make such payments on or before the tenth day of the
month. As a result, the Plaintiff moved the court to execute the judgments. The court ordered the
immediate execution of the judgment. ISSUE: W/N the payments were made on or before the Tenth day
of each month.
FACTS: This is an appeal by the government from an order of the court, setting aside the forfeiture of a
bail bond. Judgment was rendered against the principal on February 7, and the sureties were notified on
the same day to produce the thereof their principal. On Feb 28, the court ordered that the Defendant’s
bond be forfeited and the execution issued against the principal and the sureties for the amount
thereof, and that an alias warrant be issued for the arrest of the Defendant. By various orders of the
court, the sale was postponed from time to time, and finally occurred on July 8, 1912, with government
as the purchaser. On July 10, 1912, the principal was arrested. On July 13, 1912, the court, on
application of the sureties, set aside the order of forfeiting the bond, and ordered the sheriff to annul
the sale. ISSUE: W/N the execution sale occurred on the date directed by the court. HELD: Sec. 4 of the
Code of Civil Procedure provides: “unless otherwise specially provided, the time within which an act is
required by law to be done shall be computed by excluding the first day and including the last; if the last
be a Sunday or a legal holiday, it shall be excluded.” This section is only applicable if there is a
computation needed to be done. However, in this case, there is no necessity for such computation for
the date is fixed for when the act be performed. It is also directed that the sale should take place on a

HELD: The payment made on August 11, 1921 was one day late. The term “month” must now be
understood to refer to calendar month, inasmuch as Sec 13 of the Administrative Code has modified Art.

18 PNB v. CA
Case No. 238 G.R. No. 98382 (May 17, 1993) Chapter I, Page 47, Footnote No.195
Hidalgo v. Hidalgo
Case No. 124 G.R. No. L-25326 (May 29, 1970) and G.R. No. L-25327 (May 29, 1970) Chapter II, Page 52,
Footnote No.19
FACTS: To secure payments of his loans, Private Respondent mortgages two lots to Petitioner bank. For
failure to pay the obligation, Petitioner bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgaged property and won
the highest bidder at the auction sale. Then, a final deed of sale was registered in the Buacan Registry of
Property in favor of the Petitioner bank and later sold the said lots to a third party. The notices of sale of
Appellant’s foreclosed properties were published on March 28, April 11 and April 12, 1969 issues of the
newspaper Daily Record”. The date March 28, 1969 falls on a Friday, while the dates April 11 and 12 fall
on a Friday and Saturday, respectively. Section 3 of Act No. 3135 requires that the notice of auction sale
shall be “published once a week for at least three consecutive weeks”. ISSUE: W/N the Petitioner bank
complied with the requirements of weekly publication of notice of extrajudicial foreclosure of
mortgages. HELD: It must be conceded that that Article 13 is completely silent as to the definition of
what is “week”. In Concepcion v. Andueta, the term “week” was interpreted to mean as a period of time
consisting of seven consecutive days. The Defendant-Appellee bank failed to comply with the legal
requirement of publication. LATIN MAXIM: 1, 9a, 9b
FACTS: Petitioners pray to Agrarian Court to be entitled as share tenants to redeem parcel of land they
are working from the purchasers where no notice was previously given to them by the vendor of the
latter’s intention to sell the property and where the vendor did not execute the affidavit required by
Sec. 13 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code before the registration of the deed of sale. Agrarian Court
dismissed petitions, stating that the right of redemption granted by Sec. 12 of the same code is only for
leasehold tenants and not for share tenants, claiming that share tenancy and leasehold tenancy are
within the jurisdiction of the code – that the code expressly grants said right to leaseholders only and
nobody else. Moreover, the court held that if the intention of Congress was to extend the right of
redemption to share tenants through judicial legislation, the section would have expressly said so.
ISSUE: W/N not the right of redemption granted by Sec. 12 of the Agrarian Reform Code addresses only
leaseholders and not share tenants. HELD: Agrarian Court fell into several erroneous assumptions and
premises, reducing “agricultural lessee” to only “leasehold tenants”. The purpose of the Agricultural
Land Reform Code is the abolition of agricultural share tenancy. The policy of the State is to establish

would defeat the plain and vital purpose of the statute. LATIN MAXIM: 9a, 9c, 11a, 12a, 36a, 37, 40a
Maxims invoked by lower court: 6c, 30b, 43

19 U.S. v. Navarro
Case No. 300 G.R. No. 6160 (March 21, 1911) Chapter II, Page 52, Footnote No.20
Litex Employees Association v. Eduvala
Case No. 149 G.R. No. L-41106 (September 22, 1977) Chapter II, Page 53, Footnote No.22
FACTS: They made an oath before an election officer in the municipality of Piddig (in proceedings in
connection with the general election held on Nov. 2, 1909) that they owned real property with the value
of P500. Evidence showed that the Appellants, except for Daniel Navarro and Genaro Calixtro, did not
own property of the assessed value of P500. ISSUE: W/N the said statute’s true test of property
qualification to vote is the actual/market value of the property owned or the assessed value thereof.
FACTS: Respondent, Officer-in-Charge of Bureau of Labor Relations, required referendum election
among Petitioners to ascertain their wishes as to their affiliation with Federation of Free Workers.
Petitioners contended that there was no statutory authorization for the Respondent to require
referendum election and that Respondent and the Bureau were beyond jurisdiction. ISSUE: W/N there is
a statute authorizing Respondents and giving them jurisdiction. HELD: Article 226 of the Labor Code
addresses this. Respondent and the Bureau were within jurisdiction. Petition denied. Article 226 of
Labor Code is very clear concerning executive department’s “original and exclusive authority to act”.
LATIN MAXIM: 9a, 9c, 20a, 24a
HELD: It was the intention of the legislator as proved from an examination of the immediate context of
provisions of the statute defining “property qualifications” of a voter, and of the statute as a whole. In
the statute, property qualification is an alternative to qualification based upon an annual payment. Both
qualifications are under a single head, suggesting an intimate relation between the two in the mind of
the legislator. Another section of the statute disqualifies people who are delinquent in the payment of
public taxes assessed since Aug. 13, 1898, from voting. This provision was directed to the case of
delinquency in the payment of land taxes as well as all other taxes. The statute as a whole (as an
election law) is intended to secure purity of the ballot box. If the property qualification is actual/market
value, it would be highly improbable to enforce the statute within a reasonable time because it will be

20 Regalado v. Yulo
Case No. 255 G.R. No. L-42293 (February 13, 1935) Chapter II, Page 55, Footnote No.25
B.E. San Diego Inc. v. CA
Case No. 26 G.R. No. 80223 (February 5, 1993) Chapter II, Page 56, Footnote No. 27
FACTS: Petitioner was Justice of Peace of Malinao, Albay. On November 16, 1931, Act No. 3899 which
provided for the age retirement among justices was approved. A few years later, Petitioner became 65
years of age (age retirement as provided by Sec. 203 of the Administrative Code, amended further by
Act. No. 3899). Shortly thereafter, Esteban T. Villar was appointed as Justice of Peace to take the place
of Petitioner. On December 17, 1934, Villar assumed office. ISSUE: W/N under the provisions of Section
203 of the Administrative Code, as further amended by Act No. 3899, the Justices of Peace and auxiliary
justices appointed prior to the approval of the Act shall cease to hold office upon reaching the age of 65.
HELD: Justices appointed prior to the approval of the Act will not be affected by said amendment (Act
No. 3899). LATIN MAXIM: 1, 46a
FACTS: On March 3, 1986, Petitioner instituted an action in the RTC of Valenzuela against Private
Respondent De Jesus for recovery of possession of a parcel of land in said area. In her defense, De Jesus
argued that the land in question was covered by PD 2016 (a complementary provision of PD 1517, which
aims to protect tenants from unjust eviction.) ISSUE: W/N PD 2016 is a valid defense of De Jesus in
upholding her rights as a lessee. HELD: PD 2016 is a valid ground for De Jesus in invoking her rights as a
tenant. While it may depart from its source, PD 1517, said provision still aims to protect the tenants
from unscrupulous landowners from demanding a steep price for the land, as well as unjust eviction.
LATIN MAXIM: 12a, 25a
21 Araneta v. Dinglasan
Case No. 84 G.R. No. L-2044 (August 26, 1949) Chapter II, Page 56, Footnote No. 29
Endencia and Jugo v. David
Case No. 98 G.R. No. L-6355-56 (August 31, 1953) Chapter II, Page 56, Footnote No.33
FACTS: Executive Orders, in pursuance of Commonwealth Act No. 671 (Emergency Powers Act), were
questioned for its validity until the National Assembly Convention of 1942 ISSUE: W/N the proclamations
are valid. HELD: These Executive Orders are valid because they have been enacted during the time of the
inability of the Congress to function. That when Congress convened again on Jan. 1, 1942, said
proclamations were also terminated. LATIN MAXIM: 2a, 9a
FACTS: RA 590 declares that no salary received by a public officer shall be considered exempt from
income tax, payment of which is hereby declared not to be a diminution of his compensation fixed by
law. While Art. 8, Sec. 9 of the Constitution states that judges shall receive compensation as fixed by
law, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Petitioners question the legality of
RA 590. ISSUE: W/N RA 590 unconstitutional. HELD: No. Saying that the taxing of the salary of a judicial
officer is not a decrease in compensation is a clear interpretation of “Which shall not be diminished
during their continuance in office”, by the Legislature. Through the separation of powers, such a task
must be done by the Judiciary. Judicial officers are exempt from taxes on his salary not for his own
benefit but for the public, to secure and preserve his independence of judicial thought and action. LATIN
MAXIM: 1, 6c, 7a, 24a

22 Daoang v. Municipal Judge of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte
Case No. 84 G.R. No. L-34568 (March 28, 1988) Chapter II, Page 61, Footnote No.50
CIR v. Limpan Investment Corporation
Case No. 77 G.R. No. L-28571 and L-28644 (July 31, 1970) Chapter II, Page 62, Footnote No.55
FACTS: Prior to this case, Petitioners contested the adoption of Quirino Bonilla and Wilson Marcos by,
Antero Agonoy and Amanda Agonoy, stating that under Art. 335 of the Civil Code, that those who have
legitimate, legitimated, acknowledged natural children, or children by legal fiction, cannot adopt.
Petitioners stated that the Agonoys already had a daughter of the Estrella Agonoy, who is the deceased
mother of the Petitioners, and that the Agonoys also have the Petitioners as grandchildren.
Furthermore, the Petitioners argued that the adopting would introduce a foreign element into the
family unit, and would result in the reduction of their legitimes in terms of inheritance. The Respondent
Court ruled in favor for Agonoy. ISSUE: W/N the Respondent Court erred in their decision. HELD: No, the
court was correct. In enumerating the persons who cannot adopt in Art. 335, the children mentioned
therein have a clearly defined meaning in law and, do not include grandchildren. To add grandchildren in
this article where no grandchild is included would violate the legal maxim that, what is expressly
included would naturally exclude what is not included. LATIN MAXIM: 6c, 9a, 30a
FACTS: In 1959 and 1960, Respondent Corporation filed income tax returns which later were bases for
deficiency due to disallowance by the BIR. Brought to the Court of Tax Appeals, the deficiencies on both
cases were decided upon at P26,137 and P7,240.48, resolved at September 20, 1967 (L-28571) and
December 11, 1967 (L-28644) respectively. ISSUE: W/N the CTA committed an error in its fixed date of
the payment of surcharges and interests. HELD: The CTA’s decision on the date of payment of
surcharges and interests are in error. Section 51 of the NIRC provides the following- On Tax shown on
the return, in failure to pay the required amount on or before the date prescribed, interest upon such
unpaid amount shall be collected as part of the tax, at the rate of one per centum a month, from the
date prescribed for the payment until paid, provided that the maximum amount for the interest doesn’t
exceed the amount corresponding to a period of 3 years. The same goes with deficiencies, except that
the additional tax must be paid within 30 days of the notice, else the same interests apply. With regard
to surcharge, if the amount in the notice isn’t paid within 30 days, a surcharge of 5 per centum of the
amount of tax unpaid. In L-28571, the interest shall be computed from September 7, 1962 to September
6, 1965, at 1% for 3 years, plus the surcharge of 5% on failure to pay the deficiency tax. In L-28644, from
April 4, 1963 to April 3, 1966, the interest shall be at 1% a month for 3 years, plus the 5% surcharge.
LATIN MAXIM: 1, 6c, 7a, 24a, 26

23 Cebu Portland Cement v. Municipality of Naga, Cebu
Case No. 53 G.R. Nos. 24116-17 (August 22, 1968) Chapter II, Page 62, Footnote No.56
Resins, Inc. v. Auditor General
Case No. 260 G.R. No. L-17888 (October 29, 1968) Chapter II, Page 62, Footnote No.57
FACTS: Efforts of defendant Treasurer to collect from Plaintiff municipal license tax from 1960, 1961, as
well as penalties, amounting to a total sum of P204,300, have all been met with rebuff. Municipal tax
imposed by Amended Ordinance No. 21. Finally on June 26, 1961, defendant Treasurer decides to avail
of Civil remedies as provided for under Sec. 2304 of the Revised Administrative Code; he gives Plaintiff a
period of ten (10) days within which to settle the account from receipt thereof. On July 6, 1961,
defendant Treasurer notified the Plant Manager of the Plaintiff that he was distraining 100,000 bags of
Apo Cement in satisfaction of Plaintiff’s delinquency in municipal license tax; notice was received by
Plant Officer-in-Charge Vicente T. Garagay, who acknowledged the distraint. Said articles (the cement
bags) will be sold by public auction to the highest bidder on July 27, 1961, proceeds thereof will in part
be utilized to settle the account. Despite notice of sale, it did not take place on July 27, 1961 but on
January 30, 1962 ISSUE: W/N the distraint and public auction were valid.
FACTS: Petitioner seeks a refund from Respondent Central Bank on the claim that it was exempt from
the margin fee under RA 2609 for the importation of “UREA AND FORMALDEHYDE”, asseparate units
used for the production of synthetic glue. The specific language of the Act speaks of “UREA
FORMALDEHYDE”, a finished product which is distinct and different from “UREA” and
“FORMALDEHYDE”. Petitioner argues his view, citing the statements made on the floor of the Senate,
during consideration of the bill before said House, by members thereof (referring to the Journal).
Petitioner would assail as devoid of support in law the action taken by the Respondent Auditor General
in an endorsement to Central Bank causing it to overrule its previous resolution and to adopt the view in
such endorsement to the effect that the importation of urea and formaldehyde, as separate units, did
not come within the purview of the statutory language that granted such exemption. ISSUE: W/N
Petitioner’s allegations are valid. HELD: The Act clearly states “UREA FORMALDEHYDE” as a finished
product and not “UREA” and “FORMALDEHYDE” as separate units. Individual statements made by
Senators do not necessarily reflect the view of the Senate. Much less do they indicate the view of the
House of Representatives. If there was any mistake in the printing of the bill, it should be corrected by
legislation and not by judicial decree. The Auditor General was just doing his duty, following what was
written in the statute. LATIN MAXIM: 6c, 7a, 43

HELD: Both actions are valid. According to the Revised Administrative Code: “The remedy by distraint
shall proceed as follows: Upon failure of the person owing any municipal tax or revenue to pay the
same, at the time required, the municipal treasurer may seize and distraint any personal property
belonging to such person or any property subject to the tax lien, in sufficient quantity to satisfy the tax
or charge in question, together with any increment thereto incident to delinquency and the expenses of
the distraint.” The clear and explicit language of the law leaves no room for doubt. Also, this being a
direct appeal to the Supreme Court, Plaintiff must be deemed to have accepted as conclusive the

24 Quijano v. Development Bank of the Philippines
Case No. 248 G.R. No. L-26419 (October 16, 1970) Chapter II, Page 62, Footnote No.58
Case No. 66 G.R. No. L-25316 (February 28, 1979)
FACTS: Petitioners filed an application for an urban estate loan with the Rehabilitation Finance
Corporation (RFC), predecessor-in-intent of Respondent. They mortgaged real estate properties to
secure the loan; loan was approved on April 30, 1953. Mortgage contract was executed by Petitioners in
favor of DBP on March 23, 1954. As of July 31, 1965, outstanding obligation of the Petitioners with DBP
was P13, 983.59. Petitioner wrote Respondent offering to pay P14, 000 for his outstanding obligation
out of his back pay pursuant to RA 897 (Back Pay Law). Respondent advised Petitioners of the non-
acceptance of this offer on the ground that the loan was not incurred before or subsisting on June 20,
1953, when RA 897 was approved. Respondent filed on October 14, 1965 an application for the
foreclosure of real estate mortgage executed by the Petitioners; Respondent Sheriff scheduled the
public auction after advising Petitioner of the application for foreclosure filed by DBP. ISSUE: W/N the
obligation of the Petitioners was subsisting at the time of the approval of RA 897, the Amendatory Act of
June 20, 1953, to RA 304, the original Back Pay Law. W/N the trial court erred in declaring that the loan
of the Petitioners was not subsisting when RA 897 was enacted on June 20, 1953. HELD: RA 897 has
clear provisions that expressly require that the obligations for which back pay certificates may be
accepted as payments must be subsisting at the time RA 897 was approved (June 20, 1953). While
Petitioner’s loan was approved on April 30, 1953, they only availed of it much later on March 23, 1954.
The obligation therefore attaches only on March 23, 1954. It cannot be said that there was an obligation
subsisting at the time of the approval of RA 897. LATIN MAXIM: 6c, 7a, 43
FACTS: The Petitioner filed a case for mandamus which the lower court has denied. Petitioner seeks to
overturn the ruling relying on a right that, according to the Petitioner, RA 2023 grants to them.
Paragraphs 1 & 2 of section 62 of RA 2023 compels employers to deduct from the salaries or wages of
members of credit unions the debts of the employees and pay it to said credit union. The lower court
has already granted there is no such right granting first priority to the loan to credit unions in the payroll
collection. ISSUE: W/N RA 2023 converts KMMRC credit union’s credit into a first priority credit. HELD:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The RA Petitioner relies on clearly does
not state the loans shall be granted first priority in the salary collections. According to Justice Recto in a
subsequent opinion, “it is well established that only specific legal rights are enforceable by mandamus,

right is doubtful”. Justice Barrera adds: ”… the writ never issues in doubtful cases. It neither confers
powers nor imposes duties. It is simply a command to exercise a power already possessed and to
perform a duty already imposed. LATIN MAXIM: 7a

Alfredo Ramos v. Court of Appeals
Case No. 252 G.R. No. L-41295 (December 4, 1989) Chapter II, Page 62, Footnote No.60
FACTS: Petitioner is the grantee of a legislative franchise to install, operate and maintain an electric
light, heat and power plant in the municipality of Davao. On two different occasions it imported
materials and equipment for installation in its facilities. Petitioner is arguing that the taxes levied against
its imports should be waived by the collector of customs in Cebu (the materials were delivered at the
port of Cebu) pursuant to section 17 of (pre-commonwealth) Act 3636 (Standard Electric Power and
Light Franchise Law) which states that if any competing company should be granted franchise more
favorable than the one previously granted to another company, the latter shall enjoy the same
advantages given in the other franchise. ISSUE: W/N section 17 of act 3636 applies to the case of
Petitioner. HELD: No. Firstly, the provision cited by Petitioner states that the franchise must be granted
to a ‘competing party’. NPC, to which the contract with tax exemptions was given, is not a competing
party to Petitioner. Secondly, Petitioner cannot rely on RA 358 as amended by RA 987 to support its tax
exemption. Exemption from taxation is never presumed, it is always explicitly stated. LATIN MAXIM: 6c
FACTS: The municipality of Hagonoy, Bulacan sued Ramos et al for the recovery of its 74 hectare
fishpond. Atty. Angel Cruz, a private lawyer and head of the Cruz, Durian and Academia law firm,
volunteered himself and his firm to serve as counsel for the municipality. He stipulated in the complaint
that the municipality is obliged to pay them not less than 20% of the amount to be recovered.
Petitioners move to disqualify said private law firm as counsel on the ground that it is illegal for the
municipality to hire a private counsel. ISSUE: W/N it is legal for the municipality to hire a private counsel
in filing a case. HELD: No. Under section 1683 of the Revised Administrative Code, the provincial fiscal
shall represent the province and any municipality or municipal thereof in any court. Furthermore, under
section 3 of the Local Autonomy Act, the municipal attorney shall act as legal counsel for the
municipality and perform such duties and exercise such powers as may be assigned to them by the
council. The municipality’s interest would be best protected if the municipal attorney handles its
litigation. These laws are implemented as well so as not to burden the municipality with the expense of
hiring a private lawyer. LATIN MAXIM: 7a

Case No. 47 G.R. No. L- 30642 (April 30, 1985)
Case No. 40 G.R. No. 92163 (June 5, 1990)
FACTS: Petitioners are the surviving family of deceased employees of Respondent Corporation who died
as a result of a cave-in while working in underground mining operations. Petitioners, with the exception
of Floresca, recovered damages under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. However, a later report on
the accident showed there was negligence on the part of Respondent Corporation. Thereafter,
Petitioners filed a civil suit to recover damages for Respondent Corporation’s reckless and wanton
negligence. ISSUE: W/N Petitioners have the right to choose between availing of the work er’s right
under the Workmen’s Compensation Act or suing in the regular courts under the Civil Code for higher
damages. HELD: Petitioners may sue in the regular courts under the Civil Code for higher damages.
However, in light of the fact that they have already recovered damages from the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, if they are awarded a greater amount in the regular courts, the amount received
from this Act shall be deducted to prevent the instance of double recovery. An injured party cannot
pursue both courses of action simultaneously. In allowing Petitioners to sue in regular courts, the Court
stated that it did not legislate in this case but rather, applied and gave effect to the constitutional
guarantees of social justice. LATIN MAXIM: 1, 17, 40a
FACTS: Petitioner was arrested and charged with the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple
frustrated murders allegedly committed during a failed coup attempt from November 29 to December
10, 1990. Petitioners contend that they are being charged for a criminal offense that does not exist in
the statute books because technically, the crime of rebellion cannot be complexed with other offenses
committed on the occasion thereof. ISSUE: W/N case of Petitioners falls under the Hernandez doctrine.
HELD: The doctrine in the case People v. Hernandez remains as the binding doctrine operating to
prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion thereof. The
charges of murder and multiple frustrated murders are absorbed in the crime of simple rebellion.
Therefore, charges against Petitioners in the information should be understood as that of simple
rebellion under the RPC. Furthermore, in a concurring opinion, Justice Feliciano states that if the court
ruled that the charges of murder could be prosecuted separately from rebellion, then the principle of
non-retroactivity would be violated. LATIN MAXIM: 1, 46a, 48

27 Manikad v. Tanodbayan
Case No. 162 G.R. No. 65097 (February 20, 1984) Chapter II, Page 63, Footnote No.65
Senarillos v. Hermosisimo
FACTS: Petitioners were members of the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) Police Force and were
charged with crimes of smuggling, theft and violations of AntiGraft Law and Anti-Fencing Law before the
Respondent. Petitioners argue that the power to investigate complaints of this nature are lodged
exclusively upon the EPZA and is not in the Respondent’s jurisdiction. Section 7 of P.D. 1716-A states:
“The EPZA in the exercise of its sole police authority over the export processing zones shall have the
power to receive and investigate complaints relative to violation of penal laws committed inside the
zones owned and administered by the Authority…” ISSUE: W/N Section 7 of P.D. 1716-A precludes the
Respondent from investigating complaints within the Export Processing Zone. HELD: No, the use of
“sole” in P.D. 1716-A refers to police authority. Although the EPZA Police Force is the only police
authority within the Zone, it is not the only authority that may investigate complaints, especially those
which fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. LATIN MAXIM: 6c, 7a, 35
FACTS: Petitioner was appointed as Chief of Police in Sibonga, Cebu. Upon the charges filed by
Petitioner, Senarillos was suspended by Municipal Mayor of Sibonga and investigated by a “police
committee” composed of 3 councilors created by Resolution No.2 Series 1952 of the municipal council.
The committee came up with an adverse decision subsequently signed by the members of the council.
This was appealed to and affirmed by the Commissioner of Civil Service and by the Civil Service Board of
Appeals. ISSUE: W/N Sibonga had jurisdiction to investigate the Chief of Police Senarillos. HELD: No.
Under RA No.557 the investigation of police officers must be conducted by council itself and not by a
mere committee thereof. Sibonga therefore had no jurisdiction to investigate the Chief of Police
Senarillos. RA No.557 has eliminated the provision authorizing investigation by a committee council.
Hence, the decision against him was invalid, even if concurred in by the rest of the councilors. The fact
that the decision of the Municipal Council was issued before the decision of the Supreme Court cannot
validate the action of the police committee. The initial proceeding was illegal ab initio and the
subsequent reaffirmation of the decision of the municipal council by the civil service authorities could

28 People of the Philippines v. Moro Macarandang
People of the Philippines v. Mapa
Case No. 213 G.R. No. L-22301 (August 30, 1967) Chapter II, Page 69, Footnote No.89
FACTS: Defendant was accused and convicted of illegal possession of firearms in Lanao. Defendant,
admitting the ownership and possession of the firearm and ammunitions, invokes as his legal excuse the
appointment issued to him by Governor Dimakuta as secret agent shown in the Governor’s letter which
he presented as and evidence. He was granted this appointment for having shown good faith by
previously surrendering to the office of the Governor a firearm. He has then been appointed as SECRET
AGENT to assist on the maintenance of peace and order campaigns and is authorized to hold and carry
in his possession 1 Riot shotgun. ISSUE: W/N a Secret Agent tasked to assist in the maintenance of peace
and order falls among those authorized to possess firearms. HELD: Yes. It may be true that the Governor
has no authority to issue any firearm license or permit but section 879 of the Revised Administrative
Code provides the “peace officers” are exempted from the requirements relating to the issuance of
license to possess firearms. The appointment sufficiently put him in the category of “peace officer”
equivalent even to a Municipal Police expressly covered by section 879. Wherefore the decision
appealed from is reversed and the Defendant acquitted. LATIN MAXIM: 9a, 24a
FACTS: Defendant was accused of illegal possession of firearms. He invokes in his defense that he was an
appointed Secret Agent of the provincial Governor of Batangas. He sought to be acquitted as the case of
People v. Macarandang used the same defense providing evidences of his appointment. ISSUE: W/N a
Secret Agent falls among those authorized to possess firearms. HELD: No. The court held that the law
cannot be any clearer. The law does not contain any exception for secret agent therefore holding this
position would not constitute a sufficient defense to a prosecution for a crime of illegal possession of
firearm and ammunitions. Wherefore the conviction of the accused must stand. The Court’s ruling

29 Co v. CA
Case No. 65 G.R. No. 100776 (October 28, 1993) Chapter II, Page 69, Footnote No.91
Case No. 150 G.R. No. L-2934 (November 29, 1951)
FACTS: Petitioner delivered to the salvaging firm on September 1, 1983 a check drawn against the
Associated Citizens’ Bank, postdated November 30, 1983. The check was deposited on January 3, 1984.
It was dishonored two days later, the tersely-stated reason given by the bank being: “CLOSED
ACCOUNT.” A criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 was filed by the salvage
company against Petitioner. At the time of the issuance of the check, the delivery of a “rubber” or
“bouncing” check as a guarantee for an obligation was not considered a punishable offense, an official
promulgation made in a Circular of the Ministry of Justice. ISSUE: W/N Petitioner is criminally liable.
HELD: No. According to them, Que v. People should not be applied retroactively in accordance with the
prospectivity principle of judicial rulings and the operative fact doctrine. The decision in Que should not
be given retroactive effect to the prejudice of Co and others similarly situated who relied on the opinion
of the Secretary of Justice. LATIN MAXIM: 1, 2a, 46a
FACTS: Petitioner is the owner of a duly licensed grocery store located in the City of Manila and an
importer of flour who sells either to bakeries or to retail dealers for purposes of retail. Sometime in
September 1948, the Treasurer of the City of Manila assessed against him the sum of 566.50php which
represents the alleged deficiency municipal license tax due from him on his gross sales of flour to
bakeries after deducting the sales made to retail dealers for purposes of resale. ISSUE: W/N the sales of
flour made by the Petitioner to bakeries to be manufactured into bread are retail or wholesale. HELD:
The sale of flour to bakeries to be manufactured into bread and to be resold to the public, in the

Case No. 149 G.R. No. 48634 (October 8, 1941)
Central Capiz v. Ramirez
Case No. 56 G.R. No. L-16197 (March 12, 1920) Chapter III, Page 79, Footnote No.8
FACTS: On September 15, 1941, Respondent granted the Popular Front Party of Abad Santos the
exclusive right to propose the minority election inspector in the first congressional district of Pampanga,
and to the Popular Front Party of Petitioner, the minority inspector in the second congressional district
of the said province. Eleven days later, Respondent modified its ruling and awarded the minority
inspector to the Popular Front Party of Abad Santos. ISSUE: W/N Respondent committed grave abuse of
discretion. HELD: Where the minimum number of votes required by law was polled by a mere coalition
or alliance of minority parties, the right to minority representation in the board of election inspectors to
which such coalition is entitled, cannot be claimed by any of the component parties which have
thereafter separated. Respondent shall have the discretion to choose the minority inspector. LATIN
MAXIM: 36a, 37, d
FACTS: Private Respondent contracted with Petitioner Corporation for a term of 30 years, a supply of all
sugar cane produced on her plantation, which was to be converted later into a right in rem and recorded
in the Registry of Property as an encumbrance upon the land, and binding to all future owners of the
same. The Respondent refuses to push through with the contract thinking it might violate Act No. 2874,
“An Act to amend and compile the laws relating to lands of public domain, and for other purposes,”
since more than 61 percent of the capital stock of the corporation is held and owned by persons who
are not citizens of the Philippine Islands or of the United States. The land involved is a private
agricultural land. ISSUE: W/N said Act no. 2874 is applicable to agricultural lands, in the Philippine
Islands which are privately owned. HELD: The limit and purpose of the Legislature in adopting Act No.
2874 was and is to limit its application to lands of public domain and that lands held in private
ownership are not included therein and are not affected in any manner whatsoever thereby. Jones Law
of 1916: “That no bill may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject, and that subject

31 Eugenio v. Drilon
Case No. 104 G.R. No. 109404 (January 22, 1996) Chapter III, Page 81, Footnote No.20
People of the Philippines v. Purisima
Case No. 221 G.R. Nos. L-42050-66 (November 20, 1978) Chapter III, Page 76, Footnote No.16
FACTS: Private Respondent purchased on installment basis from Petitioner, two lots. Private respondent
suspended payment of his amortizations because of nondevelopment on the property. Petitioner then
sold one of the two lots to spouses Relevo and the title was registered under their name. Respondent
prayed for annulment of sale and reconveyance of the lot to him. Applying P.D. 957 “The Subdivision
and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree”, the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission ordered
Petitioner to complete the development, reinstate Private Respondent’s purchase contract over one lot
and immediately refund him of the payment (including interest) he made for the lot sold to the spouses.
Petitioner claims that the Exec. Sec. erred in applying P.D. 957 saying it should have not been given
retroactive effect and that non-development does not justify the non-payment of the amortizations.
ISSUE: W/N the Executive Secretary acted with grave abuse of discretion when he decided P.D. 957 will
be given retroactive effect. HELD: No. Respondent Executive Secretary did not act with grave abuse of
discretion and P.D. 957 is to given retroactive effect so as to cover even those contracts executed prior
to its enactment in 1976. P.D. 957 did not expressly provide for retroactivity in its entirety, but such can
be plainly inferred from the unmistakable intent of the law. “The intent of the statute is the law.” LATIN
MAXIM: 9a
FACTS: Twenty-six petitions for review were filed charging the r espective Defendant with “illegal
possession of deadly weapon” in violation of Presidential Decree No. 9. An order quashed the
information because it did not allege facts which constitute the offense penalized by P.D. No. 9. It failed
to state one essential element of the crime, viz.: that the carrying outside of the residence of the
accused of a bladed, pointed, or blunt weapon is in furtherance or on the occasion of, connected with or
related to subversion, insurrection, or rebellion, organized lawlessness or public disorder. Petitioners
argued that a perusal of P.D. No. 9 shows that the prohibited acts need not be related to subversive
activities and that they are essentially malum prohibitum penalized for reasons of public policy. ISSUE:
W/N P.D. No. 9 shows that the prohibited acts need not be related to subversive activities. HELD: The
primary rule in the construction and interpretation of a legislative measure is to search for and
determine the intent and spirit of the law. Legislative intent is the controlling factor. Because of the
problem of determining what acts fall under P.D. 9, it becomes necessary to inquire into the intent and

enumerate the facts or events which justify the promulgation of the decree and the stiff sanctions
stated therein. LATIN MAXIM: 9a, b2

32 People of the Philippines v. Echaves
Case No. 207 G.R. Nos. L-47757-61 (January 28, 1980) Chapter III, Page 77, Footnote No.22
Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. City of Cebu
Case No. 4 G.R. No. L-14526 (March 31, 1965) Chapter III, Page 82, Footnote No.23
FACTS: The issue is whether or not P.D. 772, which penalizes squatting and similar acts applies to
agricultural lands. The lower court denied the motion and ruled that agricultural land is not part of P.D.
772 on the basis of Ejusdem Generis (of the same kind or species) since its preamble does not mention
the Secretary of Agriculture. The order of dismissal by Echaves was then appealed to the Supreme Court,
thus bringing the case at hand. ISSUE: Whether or not P.D. 772 applies to agricultural lands HELD: The
Supreme Court held the same ruling that the lower court did, declaring that P.D. 772 does not apply to
pasture lands because its preamble shows that “it was intended to apply to squatting in urban
communities or more particularly to illegal constructions in squatter areas made by well-to-do
individu

Documents

sssstatcon Case Digest (for Revision)