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