CASE FACTS ISSUE RULING STATCON

Nitafan vs CIR Petitioners (judges WON SC chief NO ON

presiding over Branch justice, associate CONSTRUCTION
52, 19 and 53 of RTC justice, and judges of True intent of 1987 OF STATUTES;
NCR). They were lower courts be ConComm: SC chief Ascertainment Of
seeking for the exempted on paying justice, associate Intent;
prohibition against income tax justice, and judges of Construction In
deducting withholding lower courts’ income Relation To The
taxes from their are TAXABLE Constitution
salaries.
1987 ConComm *As The
Contention: Any tax intent: delete Fundamental Law
withheld is against Art proposed express Of The Land, All
8 Sec 10 1987 PhilCon grant of income tax Statutes Should Be
(During their exemption among Subservient To The
Constitution. Hence,
continuance in office, members of judiciary
Any Statute Should
their salary shall not be for equal protection
Be Construed In
decreased. of laws Harmony With, And
Not In Violation Of
1935con: SC Members Legis history: It.130
and judges of lower 1987 concomm Presumption: The
courts shall receive initially included Legislature In
such compensation as income tax Enacting A Law Is
may be fixed by law, exemption of Presumed To Have
which shall not be judiciary but was Adhered To The
diminished during their questioned. How Constitutional
Limitations. It Was
continuance in office. about equal
The Intention Of
protection of laws?
The Legislature
1973con: The salary of To Enact A Valid,
SC Members and During amendments, Sensible, And Just
judges of lower courts 14 July 1986, Comm Law.
shall be fixed by law, Rigos proposed that (Chapter 6.14)
which shall not be diminished-
decreased during their decreased and Or
continuance in office. remove “nor subject
to income tax” Chapter 5
No salary… shall be
exempt from payment Technical Or
of income tax. Legal Meaning
- Words Used In
Technical Sense, Or
1987con: Shall not be
Have Been
decreased, no
Judicially Construed
exemption mentioned To Have A Certain
Meaning, Or Has A
Well-Known Legal
Meaning105
Exception:
Legislative Intent Or
Qualification To The
Contrary
*THIS CASE FALLS
UNDER EXCEPTIONS
– LEGISLATIVE
INTENT IS USED
 CASE FACTS ISSUE RULING STATCON
Aglipay vs Ruiz Iglesia Filipina 1. WON the 1. YES. Construction in
Independiente leader issuance and Relation to the
Gregorio Aglipay selling of  Act no 4052 has Constitution
sought the issuance of commemorative no religious (Chapter 6)
a writ of prohibition to stamps is purpose in view.
prevent Director of constitutional Commemorative Or
Posts from issuing and stamps were for
selling postage stamps 2. WON the the Government’s Chapter 5
commemorative of the Preamble be advantage (33rd
33rd Intl Eucharistic referred to in the Intl Eucharistic Technical Or
Congress (Roman construction of Congress was a Legal Meaning
- Words Used In
Catholic Church). Constitutional worldwide event;
Technical Sense, Or
Provisions more profit, int’l Have Been
Contention: recognition); Judicially Construed
Unconstitutionality. Art Roman Catholic To Have A Certain
6 Sec 23 Subsec 3, 1935 Church had no Meaning, Or Has A
consti. No public benefit nor profit. Well-Known Legal
money or property Meaning105
shall ever be 2. YES. Exception:
appropriated, applied  When the Filipino Legislative Intent Or
or used directly or people, in the Qualification To The
Contrary
indirectly for the Preamble of their
*THIS CASE FALLS
benefit or support of Constitution,
UNDER EXCEPTIONS
any church … except if implored “the aid – LEGISLATIVE
assigned to armed of Divine INTENT IS USED
forces or any penal Providence, in
institution, orphanage order to establish
or leprosarium. a government
that shall embody
Also against the their ideals…”
separation of church they manifested
and state. Used their
intense religious
Rebuttal: PH will suffer nature and placed
losses if stamps won’t unfaltering
be sold. Director of reliance upon Him
Posts only based on PL who
Act No. 4052 (60k guides the
Appropriation Bill for destinies of men
cost of Plates and and nations.
Printing of Postage
Stamps with New
Designs)
 CASE FACTS ISSUE RULING STATCON
Primicias vs Plaintiff-appellee WON Ordinance No. YES. Chapter 6
Urdaneta Primicias was 3, Series of 1964 is Construction in
apprehended by null and void by Ord #3 is patterned Relation to
Urdaneta local police virtue of its repeal by after Act No 3992 Ordinances:
on 08 Feb 1965 for RA 4136 (Land (Revised Motor
overtaking a truck. His Transportation and Vehicle Law. It is a fundamental
license was Traffic Code) principle that
confiscated, a However, there is municipal
temporary operator’s already an express ordinances are
inferior in status
permit was issued and repeal on Ord #3, as
and subordinate to
a criminal complaint stated in Sec 63 RA
the laws of the
was issued against him 4136. State; the ordinance
at the Municipal Court must give way
of Urdaneta. “Act numbered 3992
as amended, and all Or
Contention: Ord # 3, laws, Eos, ordinance,
Series of 1964 resolutions, Chapter 11
regulations or paints Repeal by
CFI held that Ord # 3 thereof in conflict implication
- Where a statute of
was already repealed with the provisions of
a later date clearly
by RA 4136. this Act are reveals
repealed.” an intention on the
part of the
Express repeal + later legislature to
law supersedes abrogate a prior act
earlier law - This intention
must be clear and
any conflict between manifest
a municipal order
and a national law Hence, a general
law does not repeal
must be ruled in
a special
favor of the statute. one. The special
shall be considered
as an
extension to the
general law. But,
there is
always a partial
repeal where the
later act is a
special law.
Presumption: The
legislature considers
and makes
provisions for all
circumstances of
the particular
case
Exception: Where
the words used in a
general law
is so broad and so
clear and explicit as
to show
the intention to
cover the whole
subject
 CASE FACTS ISSUE RULING STATCON
Almeda vs By virtue of RA 2709 WON RA 2709 No. Chapter 6
Florentino [amendment of Sec 12 repealed RA 183 re: Construction of a
of RA 183 – Pasay City Appointment of  VM power to Statute as a Whole
Charter (est 6/8/1960)], Board Secretary appoint did not
Pasay VM appointed include Board Ut res magis
Almeda as Board Secretary valeat quam
Secretary 1/1/1964.  (RA 2709 only pereat
amended Sec “that construction
1/2/1964 = Board 12 (Municipal to be sought gives
refused Almeda, Board Consti effect to the
appointed Florentino and org; VM whole of a statute
by virtue of Sec 14 of appoints all – its every word”
RA 183. employees of
Board). There is no
RA 183 Sec 14 –  Board alternative but to
Appointment, salary Secretary (on interpret the
and duties of Board Sec 14) was charter as the
Secretary separate, not lower court has
amended by Ra done.
Sec 12 – Constitution 2709
and org of Municipal
board; VM has power Interpret the charter
to appoint all like this: VM power is
employees of the Board only by Sec 12, not
14.

Repeals by
implication are not
favored.
 CASE FACTS ISSUE RULING STATCON
City of Manila On 1/27/1958, while WON this case is This case is covered Chapter 6
vs Teotico Teotico was on the way covered by Manila by the Civil Code. (Construction in
to board a jeepney Charter or by the relation to Other
within a loading and Civil Code  The issue was Statutes)
unloading zone (corner about the
of Old Luneta and P. damages, not Statutes in pari
Burgos Avenue), he fell about the materia - - Two or
off an uncovered and territorial more statutes relate
unlighted manhole. application of the to the same
Because of it, his head law. specific subject
matter.
hit the rim of the  RA 409 only has
- Relate to the same
manhole and broke his general rule
person or thing, or
eyeglasses. It caused  Art 2189 of Civil have
injury on his left eyelid. Code specified the same purpose
He wasn’t able to “Provinces, cities or object, or cover
report to work for 20 and municipalities the
days. shall be liable for same specific or
damages for the particular subject
Teotico filed for death of, or injuries matter134
damages against City of suffered by, any
Manila. CFI and CA person by reason Presumption: Laws
ruled in favor of are consistent with
of defective
each
Teotico, ordering City conditions of road, other. Whenever a
of Manila to pay the streets, bridges, legislature enacts a
former for damages. public buildings, law, it has
and other public in mind the previous
City of Manila works under their statutes relating to
appealed, invoked that control or the same
case was covered by supervision. subject matter, and
City of Manila Charter  The city admitted in the absence of
(RA 409), not by the that the place was any express
Civil Code. City of repeal or
under their
Manila Charter is a amendment, the
control/supervisio
new statute is
special law. n. deemed
enacted in accord
RA 409 Sec 4 with the legislative
The city shall not be policy
liable or held for embodied in those
damages or injuries to prior statutes.
persons or property
arising from the failure Maxim:
of the Mayor, the interpretare et
Municipal Board, or any concordare leges
legibus
other city officer, to
est optimus
enforce the provisions interpretandi
of this chapter, or any modus (every
other law or ordinance, statute
or from negligence of must be so
said Mayor, Municipal construed and
Board, or other officers harmonized with
while enforcing or other
attempting to enforce statutes as to form
a uniform system of
said provisions.
jurisprudence)
Article 2189 of the Civil
Code: Provinces, cities
and municipalities shall
be liable for damages
for the death of, or
injuries suffered by, any
person by reason of
defective conditions of
road, streets, bridges,
public buildings, and
other public works
under their control or
supervision.