Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

6.

15 Statutes in pari materia Statutes are in pari materia when they relate to the same person or thing, or have the same purpose or object, or cover the same specific or particular subject matter. The fact that no reference is made to the prior law does not mean that the two laws are not in pari materia. It is sufficient that two or more statutes relate to the same specific subject matter. Conversely, laws are not in pari materia if they refer to different specific matters, although they fall under the same broad subject. 6.16 How statutes in pari materia construed. Interpretare et concordare leges legibus est optimus interpretandi modus: Every statute must be so construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence. Courts should endeavor to reconcile instead of declaring the invalidity of one against the other. Statutes in pari materia should be construed together to attain the purpose of an expressed national policy Vda. De Urbano vs. GSIS FACTS: Petitioners mortgaged their property to secure a housing loan. Unable to pay the loans, GSIS foreclosed the mortgage of the property. GSIS emerged as the highest bidder in the public auction

of the property. Petitioners wanted to repurchase the property, GSIS prescribed a 60 day redemption period. After the expiration of redemption period, GSIS negotiated with private respondent Dela Cruz on the sale of the property. Meanwhile, the petitioners still wanted to repurchase the property, but were declined. ISSUE: Whether the GSIS should dispose of the subject property through public bidding. HELD: COA Circular No. 86-264 and COA Circular No. 89296 both provides for the modes of disposal. The mode of disposal should be primarily through public bidding. Sale thru Negotiation shall only be resorted to in cases of failure for public bidding. Statutes in pari materia should be construed together to attain the purpose of an expressed national policy. P.D. 2029 provides: "WHEREAS, there is a need to assure the flexibility of such government corporations consistent with the need for public accountability by providing for differential treatment for government corporations; xxx SECTION 1. General Policy. - It is the policy of the State that the corporate form of organization, utilized judiciously, is one of the valid forms through which the government may participate in economic and social development. Xxx In addition, Letter of Instructions No. 1520 provides:

WHEREAS, as an integral part of this economic recovery program and in order to facilitate the reorganization of certain government financial institutions, it is necessary to relieve those institutions of assets which adversely affect their financial viability and liquidity, and for the National Government to take over such assets and to assume the realted liabilities of those institutions; WHEREAS, it is the desire of the National Government to realize on such assets within the shortest possible time and, to such end, to dispose of such assets generally on terms that would permit immediate substantial cash returns to the National Government Distingue tempora et concordabis jura: distinguish times and you will harmonize laws. Commissioner of Customs vs. Superior Gas & Equipment Co. FACTS: The cargo was discharged and delivered shipside, within the harbor sea wall but outside the breakwater for final unloading at the private wharf of Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. at Punta, Sta. Ana, Manila. Sugeco was required to pay and did pay wharfage. Respondent resorted to the Tax Court, contending that its importation should not pay wharfage fees because it made no use of the facilities of government wharves or piers, the cargo having been discharged through the private wharf of Atlantic Gulf Co. CTA ordered petitioner to return the funds collected as wharfage fees. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner should return the funds collected.

HELD: Section 3 of Republic Act No. 1371 (1950) provides levying a charge of two pesos per metric ton "as a fee for wharfage" upon all articles imported into the Philippines; but with the proviso that no such fee shall be levied on articles imported "which are unloaded on private wharves." When the Tariff Act of 1909 was approved, the Government had no wharves of its own; therefore, the wharfage fee imposed by it could not have meant charges for the use of Government wharves. This Court in view of the surrounding circumstances believed and held (in the Sugar Centrals case) that the charges were payable even if no Government wharf be used, because they were meant to be used as a trust fund "for the purpose of acquiring and constructing wharves by the Government of the Philippine Islands." At the time Republic Act 1371 was approved, the Government had wharves. As discussed in the Congressional Records, if ships are to unload merchandise off the coast, although it is illegal and is actually done, then there is no provision requiring them to pay anything because wharf are not used. Doubt will be resolved against implied amendment or repeal and in favor of harmonization of all the laws on the subject People vs. Olarte FACTS: Defendant Ascencion P. Olarte is charged with libel. Miss Meris filed with the Justice of the Peace Court of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan, a complaint for libel against Ascencion P. Olarte; that the defendant waived her right to a preliminary investigation, whereupon the justice of the peace court forwarded

the case to the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. ISSUE: Whether the case was filed in proper courts. HELD: Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code originally provided: xxx The criminal action and the civil action for damages in cases of written defamation, as provided in this chapter, may be filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the province wherein the libel was published, displayed or exhibited, regardless of the place where the same was written, printed or composed. xxx June 15, 1955, it was amended by Republic Act No. 1289: xxx The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamation as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the province or city where any of the accused or any of the offended parties resides at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, however, That were the libel is published, circulated, displayed, or exhibited in a province or city wherein neither the offender nor the offended party resides the civil and criminal actions may be brought in the court of first instance thereof: Provided, further, That the civil action shall be filed in the same court where the criminal action is filed and vice versa: Provided, furthermore, That the court where the criminal action or civil action for damages is first filed, shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion

of other courts: And provided, finally, That this amendment shall not apply to cases of written defamation, the civil and /or criminal actions to which, have been filed in court at the time of the effectivity of this law. xxx Philippine Commission had approved Act No. 194, section 1 of which vested in "every justice of the peace in the Philippine Islands" the "authority to make preliminary investigation of any crime alleged to have been committed within his municipality, jurisdiction to hear and determine which is by law ... vested in the judges of Courts of First Instance." It will be recalled, also, that Act No. 277 did not particularize the class of court that would hear and determine criminal actions merely from the penalty prescribed for said offense in Act No. 277, considered in relation to Act No. 136. Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code allows the libeled to file as many criminal and civil actions in many places where the writing complained has circulated. Republic Act No. 1298, did not intend to modify the conditions obtaining under Act No. 277 of the Philippine Commission, insofar as jurisdiction to hear and determine criminal and civil actions for libel are concerned, to whether or not justice of the peace courts had authority to conduct preliminary investigation. RA 1298 endeavors to avoid alleged offended party may divide his complaint by filing a criminal action in once province where the libel was published and then filing a civil action in another province very far away from the province where the criminal case was filed and this will largely work hardship and tremendous expenses as well as difficulties to the accused.

Potrebbero piacerti anche