CHAPTER 5 (INTERPRETATION OF WORDS AND PHRASES)

GENERAL

STATUTORY
DEFINITION

WORDS
CONSTRUED IN
THEIR ORDINARY
SENSE

GENERAL WORDS
CONSTRUED
GENERALLY

HON. SEC. PEREZ VS LPG REFILLERS ASSOCIATION

ARGUMENT: BP 33 and RA 87479 do not expressly
penalize acts and omission enumerated in the
circular.
1. Under B.P. Blg. 33, the monetary penalty for any person
who commits any of the acts aforestated is limited to a
minimum of P20,000 and a maximum of P50,000.
Under the Circular, the maximum pecuniary penalty for
retail outlets is P20,000,17 an amount within the range
allowed by law.
2. However, for the refillers, marketers, and dealers, the
Circular is silent as to any maximum monetary penalty
HELD:
USE OF GENERAL TERM of a statute does
not render the law
uncertain
This mere silence, nonetheless, does not amount to violation
of the aforesaid statutory maximum limit. The Circular
merely implements the said law, albeit it is silent on the
maximum pecuniary penalty for refillers, marketers, and
dealers. Nothing in the Circular contravenes the law.
When a statute defines words and phrases legislative
definition controls the meaning of the statutory words
VICTORIAS
MILLING
CO.
VS
SOCIAL
SECURITY
COMMISSION
Facts: The Social Security Commission issued its Circular
No. 22
Held: It will thus be seen that whereas prior to the
amendment, bonuses, allowances, and overtime pay
given in addition to the regular or base pay were
expressly excluded, or exempted from the definition
of the term "COMPENSATION", such exemption or
exclusion was deleted by the amendatory law. It thus
became necessary for the Social Security Commission to
interpret the effect of such deletion or elimination.
In the absence of legislative intent, words, meaning and
phrases should be given their plain, ordinary and
common usage of meaning
MATUGUINA INTEGRATED WOOD PRODUCTS INC. VS CA
Held: The transferee shall assume all obligations of the
transferor.
OBLIGATIONS must be construed to mean obligations
incurred in the ordinary business course, not those result
of transgression.
What is generally spoken must be generally understood
GENERALIA VERBA SUNT GENERALITER INTELIGENDA
A General Statement is understood in general sense Generale dictum generaliter est interpretandum

WORDS WITH
COMMERCIAL OR

Words and phrases common among merchants and

traders

TRADE MEANING

WORD/ PHRASE
CONSTRUED IN
RELATION WITH
OTHER
PROVISIONS

Should be given such trade or commercial meaning as

has been generally understood among merchants
SAN MIGUEL CORP VS MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF MANDAUE
"gross value in money" = "gross selling price"
It must be noted that the ordinance specifically
provides that the basis of the tax is the "gross value in
money or actual market value" of the manufactured
article.
"actual market value" = actual selling price
CLAUDIO VS COMELEC
(Local Government Code) No Recall shall take place
within 1yr from the date of the officials assumption of the
of office or 1 yr immediately preceding a regular election
Held: RECALL must be construed in relation with other
provisions
Does not pertain to recall proceedings but the power to
recall in relation with sec 69 of the LGU

WHERE THE LAW

DOES NOT
DISTUINGUISH
GUERRERO VS COMELEC
Facts: Guillermo Ruiz sought to disqualify respondent
Farinas. Farinas was proclaimed winner. Farinas took his
oath of office as a member of the House of
Representatives. The COMELEC dismissed the case for
lack of jurisdiction.
Held: Under Art. VI, Sec. 17 of the Constitution, the HRET
has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests
relative to the election, returns and qualifications of
members of the House of Representatives.
COMELEC, before assumption of office
HRET, once a winning candidate is proclaimed
NOSCITUR A
SOCIIS

If words/ phrase is susceptible of two or more meanings,

construction is made clear and specific by considering the
company of words in which it is associated
MAGTAHAS VS PRYCE
GAMBLING must only be referred to illegal gamblings
BUENASED VS FLAVIER
Order of the Ombudsman directing the preventive
suspension of petitioners Dr. Brigida S. Buenaseda et.al.
The questioned order was issued in connection with the
administrative complaint filed with the Ombudsman
(OBM-ADM-0-91-0151) by the private respondents against
the petitioners for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.
HELD: When the constitution vested on the Ombudsman
the power to recommend the suspension of a public
official or employees (Sec. 13 [3]), it referred to
suspension, as a punitive measure. All the words
associated with the word suspension in said provision

referred to penalties in administrative cases, e.g. removal,

demotion, fine, censure. Under the rule of noscitur a
sociis, the word suspension should be given the same
sense as the other words with which it is associated.
Where a particular word is equally susceptible of various
meanings, its correct construction may be made specific
by considering the company of terms in which it is found
or with which it is associated.
EJUSDEM
GENERIS

"of the same kind," used to interpret loosely written statutes.

Where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then
refers to them in general, the general statements only apply to
the same kind of persons or things specifically listed.
MUTUC VS COMELEC
Stature: Act makes the distribution of propaganda,
gadgets, pens, lighters, fans, flashlights, athletic goods,
materials and the likes unlawful
Held: Taped Jingles are not included, is not the likes
Limitations
1. statute contains enumeration particular words, followed
by a general phrase
2. particular words must be of the same kind
3. enumeration are not merely examples
4. no indication that the general words is given broader
meaning
EXPRESSIO UNIUS The express mention of one person, thing or consequence
EST EXCLUSIO
implies the exclusion of all others
ALTERIUS
Expressum facit
cessare tacitum
Exceptiio firmat
regulam in casibus
non exceptis
Expressio unius est
exclusion alterius
PARAYNO VS JOVELLANOS
The zoning ordinance made distinction between service
station and filing station. Therefore Gasoline service
station is not equal to Gasoliine filling station
CASUS OMISSUS

Casus omisus pro omisso habendus est, a person, object or

thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to have been
omitted intentionally.
PEOPLE VS MANANTAN
Facts: Guillermo Manantan was charged with a violation of
Section 54 of the Revised Election Code.
ARGUMENT: as justice of the peace, the defendant is not
one of the officers enumerated in Section 54 of the
Revised Election Code.
Held: The maxim casus omisus can operate and
apply only if and when the omission has been
clearly established.
The application of the rule of casus omisus does not
proceed from the mere fact that a case is criminal in

LAST
ANTECEDENT

nature, but rather from a reasonable certainty that a

particular person, object or thing has been omitted from a
legislative enumeration. Substitution of terms is not
omission. For in its most extensive sense the term judge
includes all officers appointed to decide litigated
questions while acting in that capacity, including justice of
the peace, and even jurors, it is said, who are judges of
facts.
The intention of the Legislature did not exclude the justice
of the peace from its operation.
In Section 54, there is no necessity to include the justice
of peace in the enumeration, as previously made in
Section 449 of the Revised Administrative Code, as the
legislature has availed itself of the more generic and
broader term judge, including therein all kinds of judges,
like judges of the courts of First Instance, judges of the
courts of Agrarian
Qualifying words restrict or modify only the words or phrases to
which they are immediately associated
FLORENTINO VS PNB
Facts: Marcelino B. Florentino is a holder of Backpay
Acknowledgment Certificate, which was offered to pay
their loan with PNB but was refused.
obligations subsisting at the time of the approval of this
amendatory Act for which the applicant may directly be
liable to the Government or to any of its branches or
instrumentalities, or the corporations owned or control by
the Government, or to any citizen of the Philippines, or to
any association or corporation organized under the laws
of the Philippines, who may be willing to accept the
same for such settlement.

REDENDO
SINGULA
SINGULIS

REASONS:
1.
Grammatically, the qualifying clause refers only to
the last antecedent; that is, "any citizen of the
..:namespace prefix Philippines or any association or
corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines."
Variation of the Last Antecedent Doctrine
Referring each to each
Referring each phrase or expression to its appropriate object, or
let each be put in its proper place, that is the word should be
taken distributively
PEOPLE VS TAMANI
After the appellant had filed his brief, the Solicitor General filed
a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the notice of
appeal was 47 days late.
ARGUMENT: When must the 15-day period be counted from the
promulgation from the receipt of copy of judgement.
SEC. 6.
When appeal to be taken. An appeal must be taken within fifteen
(15) days from promulgation or notice of the judgment or

order appealed from. This period for perfecting an

appeal shall be interrupted from the time a motion for new trial
is filed until notice of the order overruling the motion shall have
been served upon the defendant or his attorney
2) The word "promulgation" in section 6 should be construed as
referring to "judgment" while the word "notice" should be
construed as referring to "order".
PROVISO

May enlarge the

scope of the law
As additional
Legislation

EXCEPTION

Limit the application of enacting clause, section, or

provision or qualify or restrain its generality
Commonly found in the end, provided

ALU-TUCP VS NLRC
Facts: Regular Project Employees must have permanent
statusequivalent daw sa regular employees following
art 280
Art. 280. Regular and Casual Employment
The provisions of the written agreement to the contrary
notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of
the parties, and employment shall be deemed tobe
regular where the employee has been engaged to
perform activities which are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer,
except where the employment has been fixed for a
specific project or undertaking the completion or
termination of which has been determined at the time of
the engagement of the employee or where the work or
services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the
employment is for the duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not
covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any
employee who has rendered at least 1 year service,
whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be
considered a regular employee with respect to the
activity in which he is employed and his employment
shall continue while such actually exists.
The familiar grammatical rule is that a proviso is to be
construed with reference to the immediately preceding
part of the provision to which it is attached, and not
to other sections thereof, unless the clear legislative
intent is to restrict or qualify not only the phrase
immediately preceding the proviso but also earlier
provisions of the statute or even the statute itself as a
whole. No such intent is observable in Article 280 of the
Labor Code.
Exempted absolutely from the operation of stature
Unless, except or others
TOLENTINO VS SEC. OF FINANCE
Art 6, Se. 26: No billunless it has passedexcept when
the president

Qualifies only to its nearest antecedent

SAVING CLAUSE
BAUTISTA VS FULE
CHAPTER 6 (STATUTE CONSTRUED AS WHOLE AND IN RELATION TO OTHER STATUTES)
STATUTE
CONSTRUED AS A
WHOLE

Statute is passed as a whole by one general purpose and intent

- it should have one purpose and intent
- the whole and every part of the statute should be
construed together
AQUINO VS COMELEC
FACTS: This case involves two petitions for review on certiorari
involving the decisions declaring valid the auction sales of two
real properties by the Quezon City Local Govt for failure to pay
real property taxes. The first case deals with a lot formerly
owned by petitioners Aquino. Petitioners withheld payment of
the real property taxes as a form of protest for the govt of
then President Marcos. As a result of the nonpayment, the
property was sold by the Quezon City local government, through
the Treasurer's Office, at public auction to private respondent
Aida Linao, the highest bidder. Petitioners claimed that they
learned of the sale about 2 years later. They fixed as action for
annulment of title, reconveyance, and damages against the
respondents. The seconds case deals with a property located In
Cubao, Quezon City in the name of Solomon Torrado. According
to petitioner heirs, Torrado paid taxes on the improvements on
Lot 8 but not on the lot itself because the Treasurer's Office
could not locate the index card for that property. For failure to
pay real property taxes from 1976 to 1982, the City Treasurer
sent a Notice of Intent to Sell to Torrado to his address indicated
in the tax register, which simply states as 'ButuanCity. The
notice was returned by reason of 'Insufficient Address. Next sent
was a Notice of Sale of Delinquent Property. This was sent to the
same address and similarly returned unclaimed.
Thereafter, a public auction was held and the lot was sold to
Veronica Baluyot, who mortgaged the property to Spouses Uy
who then sold it to DNX Corp for failure to pay the mortgaged
debt. Also, a Notice of Sold Property was subsequently sent to
Torrado which was returned unclaimed.
ISSUE: Was there a failure on the part of the Quezon City Local
Govt to satisfy the notice requirements before selling the
property for tax delinquency?
RULING: Definitely, there is no more logical way to construe the
whole chapter on 'Collection of Real Property Tax (Sections 56 to
85) than to stress that while three methods are provided to
enforce collection on real property taxes, a notice of delinquency
is a requirement regardless of the method or methods chosen. It
is incorrect for the respondents to claim that notice of
delinquency has limited application only to distraint of personal
property. They mistakenly lumped Section 65 exclusively with
Sections 68 to 72 and, in so doing, restricted its application from
the other tax remedies. Section 65 is to be construed together
with Sections 66 and 78 and all three operate in reference to tax
methods in general.
Petitioners are correct in insisting that two notices must be sent
to the taxpayer concerned. Nevertheless, respondents still
prevail because the Court is satisfied that the two-notice
requirement has been complied with by the Treasurer's Office.

INTENT ASCERTAINED
FROM STATUTE AS
WHOLE

Legislative meaning and intent should be extracted/ascertained from

statutes as a whole
OPTIMA STATUI INTERPRETATIO EST IPSUM STATUTUM
- The best interpreter of a statute is the statute itself
NATIONAL TOBACCO ADM VS COA
FACTS: Sometime in February, 1994, Miss Dalisay E. Aracan,
Resident Auditor of NTA, issued a Notice of Disallowance of the
payment of the educational assistance for calendar year 1993,
opining that the NTA has no statutory authority to grant the
incentive. In January, 1995, the same Resident Auditor caused the
disallowance of the same benefit paid in 1994, for the same reason.
HELD: Cardinal is the rule in statutory construction that the
particular words, clauses and phrases should not be studied as
detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of
the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its
parts and in order to produce a harmonious whole. A statute must so
construed as to harmonize and give effect to all its provisions
whenever possible.[10] And the rule - that statute must be construed
as a whole - requires that apparently conflicting provisions should be
reconciled and harmonized, if at all possible.[11] It is likewise a basic
precept in statutory construction that the intent of the legislature is
the controlling factor in the interpretation of the subject statute.[12]
With these rules and the foregoing distinction elaborated upon, it is
evident that the two seemingly irreconcilable propositions are
susceptible to perfect harmony. Accordingly, the Court concludes that
under the aforesaid catch-all proviso, the legislative intent is just to
include the fringe benefits which are in the nature of allowances and
since the benefit under controversy is not in the same category, it is
safe to hold that subject educational assistance is not one of the
fringe benefits within the contemplation of the first sentence of
Section 12 but rather, of the second sentence of Section 12, in
relation to Section 17 of R.A. No. 6758, considering that (1) the
recipients were incumbents when R.A. No. 6758 took effect on July 1,
1989, (2) were, in fact, receiving the same, at the time, and (3) such
additional compensation is distinct and separate from the specific
allowances above-listed, as the former is not integrated into the
standardized salary rate. Simply stated, the challenged benefit is
covered by the second sentence of Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758, the
application of sub-paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of CCC No. 10 being only
confined to the first sentence of Section 12, particularly the last
clause thereof which amplifies the catch-all proviso.