exceptions in the statute

8/4/2019 Exceptions in the Statute

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/exceptions-in-the-statute 1/12

EXCEPTIONSEXCEPTIONS

IN THEIN THESTATUTESTATUTE



´When the law does not ´When the law does not make any exceptions, courts make any exceptions, courts

may not except something may not except something

unless compelling reasons unless compelling reasons exist to justify it.µ exist to justify it.µ



T he

T he court court is is only only warranted warranted in in holding holding the the construction construction of of aa

statute,statute, when when revised,revised, to to be be changed,changed, where where the the intent intent of of

the the legislature legislature to to make make such such change change is is clear clear of of construction construction..



an exception in a statute is a an exception in a statute is a clause designed to reserved or clause designed to reserved or

exempt some individuals from exempt some individuals from the general class of persons or the general class of persons or

things to which the language things to which the language of the act in general attaches.of the act in general attaches.



I llustrative Cases:I llustrative Cases:1) Cecilio de Villa vs. Honorable Court of Appeals 1) Cecilio de Villa vs. Honorable Court of Appeals

2) First Philippine I ndustrial Corporation vs.2) First Philippine I ndustrial Corporation vs.Honorable Court of Appeals Honorable Court of Appeals



Cecilio de Villa vs. Court of Appeals Cecilio de Villa vs. Court of Appeals

FAC TS FAC TS :: On On October October 5 5,, 1987 1987,, petitioner petitioner Cecilio Cecilio de de Villa Villa was was charge charge

before before the the Regional Regional T rial T rial Court Court of of the the National National Capital Capital Judicial Judicial

Region Region (Makati,(Makati, Branch Branch 145 145) ) with with violation violation of of Batas Batas

Pambansa Pambansa Bilang Bilang 22 22 or or the the Bouncing Bouncing Check Check Law Law..

I t I t is is undisputed undisputed that that the the check check in in question question was was executed executed and and

delivered delivered by by the the petitioner petitioner to to private private respondent respondent at at Makati,Makati,

Metro Metro Manila Manila..

However,However, petitioner petitioner argues argues that that the the check check in in question question was was

drawn drawn against against the the dollar dollar account account of of petitioner petitioner with with a a foreign foreign

bank,bank, and and therefore,therefore, not not covered covered by by the the Bouncing Bouncing Check Check Law Law..

(B (B..P P.. Blg Blg..22 22) )..



HELD HELD::

I t I t will will be be noted noted that that the the law law does does not not distinguished distinguished the the

currency currency involved involved in in the the case case.. As As the the trial trial court court correctly correctly rule rule in in its its order order dated dated July July 5 5,, 1988 1988..

´Under ´Under the the Bouncing Bouncing Check Check Law Law (B (B..P P.. Blg Blg 22 22), ), foreign foreign

checks,checks, provided provided they they are are drawn drawn outside outside and and issued issued in in the the

Philippines Philippines though though payable payable thereof thereof are are within within the the coverage coverage of of

said said law law..µ µ

I t I t is is a a cardinal cardinal principle principle in in statutory statutory construction construction that that where where

the the law law does does not not distinguish,distinguish, courts courts should should not not distinguish distinguish..Parenthetically,Parenthetically, the the rule rule is is that that where where the the law law does does not not make make

any any exception,exception, courts courts may may not not except except something something unless unless

compelling compelling reasons reasons exist exist to to justify justify it it..

PE TITI ON PE TITI ON D IS M ISS ED D IS M ISS ED..



First Philippine I ndustrial Corporation First Philippine I ndustrial Corporation

vs. Court of Appeals vs. Court of Appeals FAC TS FAC TS ::

Petitioner Petitioner is is a a grantee grantee of of a a pipeline pipeline concession concession under under R R..A A 387 387

to to contract,contract, install install and and operate operate oil oil pipelines pipelines.. First First pipeline pipeline concession concession was was granted granted in in 1967 1967 and and was was

renewed renewed in in 1992 1992 by by the the Energy Energy Regulatory Regulatory Board Board..

Petitioner Petitioner applied applied for for a a mayor·s mayor·s permit permit in in Batangas Batangas in in 1995 1995..

Respondent Respondent city city treasurer treasurer required required the the petitioner petitioner to to pay pay a a local local tax tax based based on on its its gross gross receipts receipts for for the the fiscal fiscal year year of of 19931993

pursuant pursuant to to the the local local government government code code..



Petitioner Petitioner paid paid the the amount amount of of tax tax for for the the first first quarter quarter

under under protest protest to to avoid avoid hampering hampering on on its its operations operations..Petitioner Petitioner argued argued that that pipeline pipeline operator operator with with aa

government government concession concession engaged engaged in in transporting transporting

petroleum petroleum products products is is exempted exempted from from payment payment of of tax tax on on gross gross receipts receipts as as provided provided under under S ec S ec.. 133133 of of Local Local

Government Government Code Code..

However,However, respondent respondent refused refused to to reimburse reimburse on on the the

ground ground that that petitioner petitioner is is not not a a common common carrier carrier

engaged engaged in in transportation transportation business business..



HELD HELD::

Base Base on on Art Art.. 1732 1732 of of the the New New Civil Civil Code,Code, there there is is no no doubt doubt

that that petitioner petitioner is is a a common common carrier carrier.. Petroleum Petroleum products products and and it it is is for for hire hire as as a a public public employment employment is is a a business business engaged engaged in in transporting transporting or or carrying carrying goods goods.. S ince S ince it it undertakes undertakes to to carry carry to to all all persons persons who who choose choose to to employ employ its its services services and and transport transport

the the goods goods by by land land and and for for compensation compensation.. I n I n contrary contrary to to the the respondents respondents argument argument that,that, common common carrier carrier

as as us ed us ed in in S ec S ec.. 133133 of of the the Local Local Government Government Code Code refers refers only only to to common common carriers carriers transporting transporting goods goods and and passengers passengers through through

moving moving vehicles vehicles either either by by land,land, sea sea or or water,water, which which the the Civil Civil Code Code makes makes no no distinction distinction as as to to the the means means of of transporting transporting so so long long as as it it is is by by land,land, water water or or air air.. I t I t does does not not provide provide that that the the transporting transporting of of goods goods or or passengers passengers should should be be by by motor motor

vehicle vehicle..



Petitioner Petitioner is is considered considered a a common common carrier carrier under under the the

Petroleum Petroleum Act Act of of the the Philippines Philippines.. S ame S ame as as petitioner petitioner

is is already already paying paying 33%% common common carriers carriers tax tax under under the the

National National I nternal I nternal Revenue Revenue Code Code.. T o T o tax tax the the

petitioner petitioner again again would would defeat defeat the the purpose purpose of of the the Local Local Government Government Code Code..

PE TITI ON PE TITI ON GRAN T ED GRAN T ED..

exceptions in the statute

Documents