statutory construction digested cases

8/20/2019 Statutory Construction Digested Cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statutory-construction-digested-cases 1/6

Aboitiz Shipping v. City of Cebu

G.R. No. L-14526. Ma!h "1# 1$65

FACTS:

Ordinance No. 207 was purportedly enacted by the Municipal Board on August 14, 1!" and

appro#ed by the $ity Mayor on the %ollowing August 27 where plainti%%s were &ade to pawhar%age charges under protest since 'epte&ber 1, 1!" and on May (, 1!7. )he plainti%%s %iled

an action in the $ourt o% *irst +nstance o% Manila to ha#e the said #oid, its en%orce&ent enoined

in so %ar as the whar#es, doc-s and ordinance declared other landing places belonging to the National o#ern&ent were concerned, and all the a&ounts thus %ar collected by de%endants

re%unded to the&. Appellee/s allege that the Municipal Boards authority to pass the ordinance is

clai&ed by the& under section 17 w o% the charter o% the $ity o% $ebu, which grants the& the

legislati#e power 3)o %i the charges to be paid by all watercra%ts landing at or using publicwhar#es, doc-s, le#ees, or landing places.5

ISSUE:

6hether or not the $ity o% $ebu, under its charter, &ay pro#ide by ordinance %or the collectiono% whar%age %ro& #essels that doc- at the public whar#es o% piers located in said city but owned

by the National o#ern&ent.

HELD:

No. )he right to collect the whar%age belongs to the National o#ern&ent. +t is unreasonable toconclude that the legislature, si&ply because it e&ployed the ter& public whar#es in section 17

w o% the charter o% the $ity o% $ebu, thereby authori8ed the latter to collect whar%age

irrespecti#e o% the ownership o% the whar#es in#ol#ed. )he National o#ern&ent did not

surrender such ownership to the city9 and there is no usti%iable ground to read into the statute anintention to burden shipowners, such as appellants, with the obligation o% paying twice %or the

sa&e purpose.

:egislati#e intent &ust be ascertained %ro& a consideration o% the statute as a whole and not o%

an isolated part or a particular pro#ision alone. )his is a cardinal rule o% statutory construction.

*or ta-en in the abstract, a word or phrase &ight easily con#ey a &eaning ;uite di%%erent %ro&the one actually intended and e#ident when the word or phrase is considered with those with

which it is associated. )hus an apparently general pro#ision &ay ha#e a li&ited application i%

#iewed together with other pro#isions. <ence, Ordinance No. 207 o% the $ity o% $ebu is declared

null and #oid, and appellees are ordered to re%und to appellants all a&ounts collected thereunderand to re%rain %ro& &a-ing such collection.

MA=O> MA)A?A' @ $+)= O* $AA=AN #. >=$ >O>)+' @ A$O>



*actsC

A$O> decided to epand its operations to $agayan de Oro $ity. )o this end, it leased

aportion o% a building belonging to ryce roperties $orporation, +nc., reno#ated and e;uipped the

sa&e,and prepared to inaugurate its casino there during the $hrist&as season.. $i#ic organi8ations angrily

denounced the proect. )he religious ele&ents echoed the obectionan d s o d i d t h e w o &e n sg r o u p s a n d t h e y o u t h . D e & o n s t r a t i o n s w e r e l e d b y t h e & a y o r a n d t h e

c i t y legislators. )he &edia tru&peted the protest, describing the casino as an a%%ront to the wel%are o% thecity.)he contention o% the petitioners is that it is #iolati#e o% the 'angguniang anlungsod o% $agayand e

O r o $ i t y O r d i n a n c e N o . E E ! E p r o h i b i t i n g t h e u s e o % b u i l d i n g s % o r t h e o p e r a t i o n

o % a c a s i n o a n d Ordinance No. EE7!FE prohibiting the operation o% casinos. On the other hand, the

respondents in#o-e .D. 1(" which created A$O> to help centrali8eand regulate all ga&es o% chance,

including casinos on land and sea within the territorial urisdiction o% thehilippines.)he $ourt o% Appeals

ruled in %a#or o% the respondents. <ence, the petition %or re#iew.

+ssueC

6hether or not the Ordinance No. EE!E and Ordinance No. EE7!FE are #alid

<eldC

No

>atioC

$agayan de Oro $ity, li-e other local political subdi#isions, is e&powered to enact ordinances %or the purposes indicated in the :ocal o#ern&ent $ode. +t is epressly #ested with the police power

under what is -nown as the eneral 6el%are $lause now e&bodied in 'ection 1" as %ollowsCG G G ' e c .

1 " . H e n e r a l 6 e l % a r e . H # e r y l o c a l g o # e r n & e n t u n i t s h a l l e e r c i s e t h e

p o w e r s e p r e s s l y g r a n t e d , t h o s e n e c e s s a r i l y i & p l i e d t h e r e % r o & , a s w e l la s p o w e r s n e c e s s a r y , appropriate, or incidental %or its e%%icient and e%%ecti#e go#ernance, and

those which are essentialto the pro&o tion o% the general wel%a re. 6ithin their respe cti#e

terr itor ia l urisdictions, loca lgo#ern&ent units shall ensure and support, a&ong other things, the

preser#ation and enrich&ento% cu lt ur e, pro&ote heal th and sa %et y, enhan ce the ri gh t o% the

people to a ba lanced eco log y,e n c o u r a g e a n d s u p p o r t t h e d e # e l o p & e n t o %

a p p r o p r i a t e a n d s e l % F r e l i a n t s c i e n t i % i c a n d technological capabilities, i&pro#e public

&orals, enhance econo&ic prosperity and social ustice,pro &ot e %ull e&p lo y&ent a&ong the ir

residents, &aintain peace and order, and preser#e theco&%ort and con#enience o% theirinhabitants.) h e r e i s a r e ; u i r e & e n t t h a t t h e o r d i n a n c e s s h o u l d n o t

c o n t r a # e n e a s t a t u t e . M u n i c i p a l g o #e r n& e nt s a r e o n ly ag e nt s o % t h e n a ti o na l

go#ern&ent. :ocal councils eercise only delegatedlegislati#e powers con%erred on the&

by $ongress as the national law&a-ing body. )he delegate cannotbe superior to the principal or eercise

powers higher than those o% the latter. +t is a heresy to suggest thatthe local go#ern&ent units can undo the

acts o% $ongress, %ro& which they ha#e deri#ed their power inthe %irst place, and negate by &ereordinance the &andate o% the statute.$asino ga&bling is authori8ed by .D. 1(". )his decree has the

status o% a statute that cannotbe a&ended or nulli%ied by a &ere ordinance.) h e r e % o r e , t h e p e t i t i o n

i s DN+ D and the cha l l eng ed dec i s ion o % the $our t o % App eal s i s A**+>MD.

)itle o% the $aseC



I+$N) D :A $>JK

, et. al., petitioners,#s.)he <onorable

DA>DO A>A'

, et. al.,respondents .>. No. @ DateC :F42!71F72. ? uly 2!, 1(E onenteC*>NANDO, ?. DoctrineL)opicC:egislati#e rocess >e;uire&ents as to )itles o%Bills9 'ubect shall be epressed in the title

*acts o% the $aseC

1. Iicente De :a $ru8, one o% the petitioners, is anowner o% clubs and cabarets in Bulacan.

2. ?ointly, de la $ru8 and the other club ownerFpetitioners assailed the constitutionality o% Ordinance No. (4 series o% 17! -nown asaprohibition and closure ordinance which wasbased on >epublic Act No. E( as a&ended butwas originally enacted on ?une 20, 1!E.

E. )he said >A is entitledC AN A$) >AN)+NMJN+$+A: O> $+)= BOA>D' AND $OJN$+:')< O6> )O >J:A)

)<')AB:+'<MN), MA+N)NAN$ ANDO>A)+ON O* $>)A+N :A$' O* AMJ'MN) 6+)<+N )<+>

>'$)+I)>>+)O>+A: ?J>+'D+$)+ON'.4. +ts %irst section readsC )he &unicipal or city boardor council o% each chartered city shall ha#e thepower to regulate by ordinance

the establish&ent,&aintenance and operation o% night clubs,cabarets

and other si&ilar places o% a&use&ent within its territorial urisdiction.5

!. )hen on May 21, 1!4, the %irst section wasa&ended to include not &erely the power toregulate, but li-ewise prohibit.

". )he title, howe#er, re&ained the sa&e. +t isworded eactly as >epublic Act No. E(.7. On No#e&ber !, 17!, two cases %or prohibitionwith

preli&inary inunction were %iled on thegrounds that 1 Ordinance No. (4 is null and #oidas a &unicipality has no authority to prohibit alaw%ul

business, occupation or calling9 2Ordinance No. (4 is #iolati#e o% the petitionersright to due process and the e;ual protection o% the law, asthe license pre#iously gi#en topetitioners was in e%%ect withdrawn without udicialhearing9 and E)hat under residential DecreeNo. 1( as

a&ended, by residential Decree No.2! the power to license and regulate touristForiented businesses including night clubs, hasbeen

trans%erred to the Depart&ent o% )ouris&.(. )he respondent ?udge issued a restrainingorder on No#e&ber 7, 17!. )hen ca&e on?anuary 1!,17" the decision upholding theconstitutionality and #alidity o% Ordinance No.(4 and dis&issing the cases. <ence, thispetition

%or certiorari by way o% appeal.

+''J

6hether or not a &unicipal corporation, can prohibitthe eercise o% a law%ul trade, the operation o% nightclubs, and the pursuit o% a law%uloccupation, suchclubs e&ploying hostesses

<:D

A. DecisionC

)he '$ held that &unicipal corporations cannot prohibit the operation o% night clubs. )hey &ay beregulated, but not pre#ented %ro& carryingon their business.

)he writ o% certiorari is granted and the decision o% the lower court dated ?anuary 1!, 17" re#ersed,set aside, and nulli%ied.Ordinance No. (4, 'eries o% 17! o% theMunicipality o% Bocaue is declared #oid andunconstitutional.

B. >ationaleC'ince there is no dispute as the title li&its thepower to regulating, not prohibiting, it would resultin the statute being in#alid i%, as was

done by theMunicipality o% Bocaue, the operation o% a nightclub was prohibited.

A re%usal to grant licenses, because no suchbusinesses could legally open, would be subectto udicial correction. )hat is to co&ply with

thelegislati#e will to allow the operation andcontinued eistence o% night clubs subect toappropriate regulations.+t is to be ad&itted that as thus a&ended, i% onlythe abo#e portion o% the Act were considered, a&unicipal council &ay go as %ar as to prohibit

theoperation o% night clubs. +% that were all, then theappealed decision is not de#oid o% support in law. Additionally, the title

was not in any way altered,as the eact wording was %ollowed. )he power granted re&ains that o% regulation, not prohibition.

)here is thus support %or the #iew ad#anced bypetitioners that to construe >epublic Act No. E(as allowing the prohibition o% the operationo% night clubs would gi#e rise to a constitutional;uestion. )he $onstitution &andatesC #ery billshall e&brace only one subect which shall

beepressed in the title thereo%.

Nita%an #s. $o&&issioner o% +nternal >e#enue



.>. No. :F7(7(0, ?uly 2E, 1(7

*A$)'C )he $hie% ?ustice has pre#iously issued a directi#e to the *iscal Manage&ent and Budget O%%ice

to continue thededuction o% withholding taes %ro& salaries o% the ?ustices o% the 'upre&e $ourt and

other &e&bers o% the udiciary.)his was a%%ir&ed by the 'upre&e $ourt en banc on Dece&ber 4,1(7.etitioners are the duly appointed and ;uali%ied ?udges presiding o#er Branches !2, 1 and !E,

respecti#ely, o% the >)$,National $apital ?udicial >egion, all with stations in Manila. )hey see- to prohibit andLor perpetually enoin the$o&&issioner o% +nternal >e#enue and the *inancial O%%icer o% the

'upre&e $ourt, %ro& &a-ing any deduction o% withholding taes %ro& their salaries. )hey contend that

this constitutes di&inution o% salary contrary to 'ection 10, ArticleI+++ o% the 1(7 $onstitution, which

pro#ides that the salary o% the &e&bers o% the 'upre&e $ourt and udges o% lower courts shall be %ied by

law and that during their continuance in o%%ice, their salary shall not be decreased. 6ith the %ilingo% the

petition, the $ourt dee&ed it best to settle the issue through udicial pronounce&ent, e#en i% it had dealt

with the&atter ad&inistrati#ely.)he 'upre&e $ourt dis&issed the petition %or prohibition.

+''JC6hether or not the salaries o% udges are subect to ta.

>J:+NC)he salaries o% &e&bers o% the ?udiciary are subect to the general inco&e ta applied to all

tapayers. Although suchintent was so&ehow and inad#ertently not clearly set %orth in the %inal tet o% the

1(7 $onstitution, the deliberations o% the1(" $onstitutional $o&&ission negate the contention that the

intent o% the %ra&ers is to re#ert to the original concept o% nonFdi&inution o% salaries o% udicial o%%icers.<ence, the doctrine in er%ecto #. Meer and ndencia #s. Da#id do notapply any&ore. ?ustices and udges

are not only the citi8ens whose inco&e has been reduced in accepting ser#ice ingo#ern&ent and yet

subect to inco&e ta. 'uch is true also o% $abinet &e&bers and all other e&ployees.

Ordillo #. $OM:$

.>. No. E0!4, Dece&ber 4, 10

utierre8, ?.*A$)'F

?anuary E0, 10, pursuant to >epublic Act No. "7"" entitled 3An Act ro#iding %or anOrganic Act

%or the $ordillera Autono&ous >egion5, the people o% the pro#inces o% Benguet,Mountain ro#ince, +%ugao, Abraand PalingaFApayao and the city o% Baguio cast their #otesin a plebiscite.

F >esults o% plebisciteC appro#ed by &aority o% !,(( #otes in +%ugao, reected by 14(,"7" inthe rest pro#inces and

city. )he pro#ince o% +%ugao &a-es up only 11Q o% total population,and as such has the second s&allest nu&ber o%

inhabitants, o% the abo#e&entioned areas.F *ebruary 14, 10, $OM:$ issued >esolution No. 22! stating that the Organic Act %orthe >egion has been

appro#ed andLor rati%ied by &aority o% #otes cast only in the pro#inceo% +%u gao. 'ecre tary o% ?ust ice al so

issued a &e&orandu& %or the resident reiterating$OM:$ resolution, stating that 3+%ugao being the

only pro#ince which #oted %a#orably Rthen. Alone, legally and #alidly constitutes $A>.5

F March (, 10, $ongress ebacted >epublic Act No. "("1 setting elections in $A> o% +%ugaoon %irst Monday o%

March 11.

F # e n b e % o r e $ O M : $ r e s o l u t i o n , e c u t i # e ' e c r e t a r y i s s u e d * e b r u a r y! , 1 0 a &e&orandu& granting authority to wind up the a%%airs o% the $ordillera ecuti#e Board

and$ordillera >egional Asse&bly created under ecuti#e Order No. 220.F March E0, 10, resident issuedAd&inistrati#e Order No. 1"0 declaring a&ong othersthat the $ordillera ecuti#e Board and $ordillera

>egional Asse&bly and all o%%ices underecuti#e Order No. 220 were abolished in #iew o% the rati%ication o% Organic Act.F etitionersC there can be no #alid $ordillera Autono&ous >egion in only one pro#ince as the$onstitution and

>epublic Act No. "7"" re;uire that the said >egion be co&posed o% &orethan one constituent unit.

F etitioners there%ore pray that the courtC

a . d e c l a r e n u l l a n d # o i d $ O M : $ r e s o l u t i o n N o . 2 2 ! , t h e& e & o r a n d u & o % t h e ' e cr e ta r y o % ? u st i ce , A d& i ni st r at i #e O r de r N o . 1 " 0, a n d

> e p u b l i c Ac t N o . " ( " 1 a n d prohibit and restrain the respondents %ro& i&ple&enting the sa&e and spending



public%unds %or the purposeb. d e c l a r e e c u t i # e O r d e r N o . 2 2 0 c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e $ o r d i l l e r a

e c u t i # e Bo a r d a n d t h e $ordillera >egional Asse&bly and other o%%ices to be still in %orce and e%%ect until

anotherorganic law %or the Autono&ous >egion shall ha#e been enacted by $ongress and thesa&e is

duly rati%ied by the #oters in the constituent units.+''J

6ON the pro#ince o% +%ugao, being the only pro#ince which #oted %a#orably %or thecreation o% the

$ordillera Autono&ous >egion can, alone, legally and #alidly constitute suchregion.

RULING: No. the keywords provinces, cities, municipalities and geographical areasconnotes that a region consists of more than one unit. In its ordinary sense regionmeans two or more provinces, thus Ifugao cannot be constituted the CordilleraAutonomous Region.

$alderon #s $arale > 1"E"

*A$)'C

'o&eti&e in March 1(, >A "71! <erreraFIeloso :aw, a&ending the :abor $ode D 442 was appro#ed. +t pro#ides in 'ection 1E thereo% as %ollowsC3)he $hair&an, the Di#ision residing $o&&issioners and other

$o&&issioners shall all beappointed by the resident, subect to con%ir&ation by the $o&&ission onAppoint&ents. Appoint&ents to any #acancy shall co&e %ro& the no&inees o% the sector which no&inated

thepredecessor.5ursuant to said law >A "71!, resident A;uino appointed the $hair&an and $o&&issionerso%the N:>$ representing the public, wor-ers and e&ployers sectors. )he appoint&ents statedthat the appointees &ay

;uali%y and enter upon the per%or&ance o% the duties o% the o%%ice. A%ter said appoint&ents, then :abor 'ecretary

*ran-lin Drilon issued Ad&inistrati#e Order No. 1"1,series o% 1(, designating the places o% assign&ent o% the

newly appointed co&&issioners.etitioner ;uestions the constitutionality and legality o% the per&anentappoint&ents etended bythe resident o% the hilippines to the respondents $hair&an and Me&bers o% the N:>$,

withoutsub&itting the sa&e to the $o&&ission on Appoint&ents %or con%ir&ation pursuant to >A "71!as a&ended.

etitioner insists on a &andatory co&pliance with >A "71! which has in its %a#or the presu&ption o% #alidity and

which he contends that the law is not an encroach&ent on theappointing power o% the eecuti#e as pro#ided %or inthe $onstitution, as $ongress &ay, by law,re;uire con%ir&ation by the $o&&ission on Appoint&ents o% other

o%%icers appointed by theresident additional to those &entioned in the %irst sentence o% 'ection 1" o% Article I++ o%

the$onstitution.+''JC6hether $ongress &ay, by law, re;uire con%ir&ation by the $o&&ission on Appoint&ents o% appoint&ents

etended by the president to go#ern&ent o%%icers, in addition tothose epressly &entioned in the %irst sentence o%

'ec. 1", Art. I++ o% the $onstitution.

>J:+NC No. )he pro#isions o% %irst paragraph Art. 1", Art. I++ o% the $onstitution is eclusi#eand cannot be epanded by

&ere act o% legislation. #en the 'olicitorFeneral stated that thepro#ision o% that law appertaining to the

con%ir&ation by the $o&&ission on Appoint&entstransgresses the $onstitution and is there%ore, without any legal

basis.)he 'upre&e $ourt held that the pro#isions o% >A "71!, 'ec. 1E is unconstitutional becauseC1 it a&ends bylegislation, the %irst sentence o% 'ec. 1", Art. I++ o% the $onstitution by addingthereto appoint&ents re;uiring

con%ir&ation by the $o&&ission on Appoint&ents9 and2 it a&ends by legislation the second sentence o% 'ec. 1",

Art. I++ o% the $onstitution, byi&posing the con%ir&ation o% the $o&&ission on Appoint&ents on appoint&ents

which areotherwise entrusted only with the resident.)he $ourt %urther stated that 3the legislature cannot, upon

passing law which #iolates aconstitutional pro#ision, #alidate it so as to pre#ent an attac- thereon in the courts, byadeclaration that it shall be so construed as not to #iolate the constitutional inhibition.5)hus, the 'upre&e $ourt said

the appoint&ent to N:>$ positions do not re;uire con%ir&ation bythe $o&&ission on Appoint&ents, as the pro#ision in >A "71! is declared unconstitutional. )heN:>$ $hair&an and $o&&issioners are a&ong those who&

the resident &ay be authori8edby law to appoint.



Manila rince <otel #s. '+'2"7 '$>A 402 *ebruary 17 n Banc

*A$)'Cursuant to the pri#ati8ation progra& o% the go#ern&ent, '+' chose to award during bidding

in'epte&ber 1! the !1Q outstanding shares o% the respondent Manila <otel $orp. M<$ to

the>enong Berhad, a Malaysian %ir&, %or the a&ount o% hp 44.00 per share against herein petitioner

which is a *ilipino corporation who o%%ered hp 41.!( per share. ending thedeclaration o% >enong

Berhad as the winning bidderLstrategic partner o% M<$, petitioner &atched the %or&erSs bid pri8e also

with hp 44.00 per share %ollowed by a &anager/s chec- worth hp EE &illion as Bid 'ecurity, but the

'+' re%used to accept both the bid &atch and the&anager/s chec-.One day a%ter the %iling o% the petition

in October 1!, the $ourt issued a )>O enoining therespondents %ro& per%ecting and consu&&ating the

sale to the >enong Berhad. +n 'epte&ber 1", the 'upre&e $ourt n Banc accepted the instant case.

+''JC6hether or not the '+' #iolated 'ection 10, second paragraph, Article 11 o% the

1(7$onstitution

$OJ>) >J:+NC)he 'upre&e $ourt directed the '+' and other respondents to cease and desist %ro&

selling the!1Q shares o% the M<$ to the Malaysian %ir& >enong Berhad, and instead to accept

the&atching bid o% the petitioner Manila rince <otel.According to ?ustice Bellosillo, ponente o% the caseat bar, 'ection 10, second paragraph, Article11 o% the 1(7 $onstitution is a &andatory pro#ision, a

positi#e co&&and which is co&plete initsel% and needs no %urther guidelines or i&ple&enting laws to

en%orce it. )he $ourt n Bance&phasi8ed that ;uali%ied *ilipinos shall be pre%erred o#er %oreigners, as

&andated by the pro#ision in ;uestion.)he Manila <otel had long been a land&ar-, there%ore, &a-ing the

!1Q o% the e;uity o% saidhotel to %all within the pur#iew o% the constitutional shelter %or it e&prises the

&aority andcontrolling stoc-. )he $ourt also reiterated how &uch o% national pride will #anish i% the

nationSscultural heritage will %all on the hands o% %oreigners.

statutory construction digested cases

Documents