Mendoza, Juris Renier C.

LLB 1 October 1, 2016

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION 3:00PM 5:00PM SAT

I. STATUTES THAT ARE NOT LIBERALLY CONSTRUED (STRICTLY

CONSTRUED)

a. Revised Penal Code of the Philippines When a statute is penal in nature,

it must be strictly construed against the STATE and in favor of an accused.
Sample Case:
People Of The Philippines Vs. Atop, G.R. Nos. 124303-05
February 10, 1998

b. Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 Naturalization

laws are strictly construed against the applicant and rigidly followed and
enforced.
Sample Case:
Maquiling vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013

c. Tax Exemptions under National Internal Revenue Code - Laws granting

tax exemptions are thus construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer
and liberally in favor of the taxing authority.
Sample Case:
CIR v. Manila Jockey Club, Inc., G.R. Nos. L-13887 and L-
13890 June 30, 1960

II. STATUTES THAT ARE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED

a. Labor Code of the Philippines - all doubts in the implementation and

interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code including its
implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor.
Sample Case:
Tamayo v. Manila Hotel, G.R. No. L-8975 June 29, 1957

b. Local Autonomy Act - implied power of a province, a city, or a municipality

shall be liberally construed in its favor. Any fair and reasonable doubt as
to the existence of the power should be interpreted in favor of the local
government and it shall be presumed to exist.
Sample Case:
Villanueva vs. City of Iloilo, G.R. No. L-26521 December 28,
1968

c. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1082 (PROCLAIMING AMNESTY IN

CERTAIN AREAS OF THE PHILIPPINES) - In case of doubt as to whether
certain persons come within the amnesty proclamation, the doubt should
be resolved in their favor and against the state.
Sample Case:
Viray vs. The Amnesty Commission Of The Armed Forces Of
The Philippines, G.R. No. L-2540 January 28, 1950

III. STATUTES THAT ARE DIRECTORY

a. Rules of Court it is universally held that statutes prescribing the manner
of judicial action are merely directory, and non-compliance therewith is not
necessary to the validity of the proceedings.
 Sample Case:
Ocampo vs. Cabangis, G.R. No. L-3983, February 15, 1910

b. Constitutional Provision on the Rendering of Decision within Prescribed

Period (Section 15(1), Article VIII Of The 1987 Constitution) it is merely
a directory that its non-compliance does not invalidate the judgment on the
theory that if the statute had intended such result, it would have clearly
indicated it.
Sample Case:
Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119976,
September 18, 1995

c. Election Laws Regarding Election Contests some of its provisions will

become a directory as a result thereof for some are sought to be enforced
after the elections.
Sample Case:
Rodriguez vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No 61545,
December 27, 1982

IV. STATUTES THAT ARE MANDATORY

a. Sports Benefits and Incentives Act of 2001 Statutes which require
certain steps to be taken or certain conditions to be met before persons
concerned can avail of the benefits conferred by law are considered
mandatory.
Sample Case:
Mendoza vs. Caya, 98 Phil.107(1955)

b. Katarungang Pambarangay Law statutes prescribing the various steps

and methods to be taken for acquisition of jurisdiction by the courts or
tribunals over certain matters are considered mandatory.
Sample Case:
Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 14532, May 26,
1965

c. Civil Service Law statutes prescribing the eligibility or qualifications of

persons to a public office are, as a rule, regarded as mandatory.
Sample Case:
Aguila v. Genato, G.R. No. 55151, March 17, 1981