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 Governments
commemorative of the Preamble be advantage (33rd
33rd Intl Eucharistic referred to in the Intl Eucharistic
Congress (Roman construction of Congress was a
Catholic Church). Constitutional worldwide event;
Provisions more profit, intl
Contention: recognition);
Unconstitutionality. Art Roman Catholic
6 Sec 23 Subsec 3, 1935 Church had no
consti. No public benefit nor profit.
money or property
shall ever be 2. YES.
appropriated, applied When the Filipino
or used directly or people, in the
indirectly for the Preamble of their
benefit or support of Constitution,
any church except if implored the aid
assigned to armed of Divine
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 wont 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. Construction in
Urdaneta Primicias was 3, Series of 1964 is Relation to
apprehended by null and void by Ord #3 is patterned Ordinances:
Urdaneta local police virtue of its repeal by after Act No 3992
on 08 Feb 1965 for RA 4136 (Land (Revised Motor It is a fundamental
overtaking a truck. His Transportation and Vehicle Law. principle that
license was Traffic Code) municipal
confiscated, a However, there is ordinances are
inferior in status
temporary operators already an express
and subordinate to
permit was issued and repeal on Ord #3, as
the laws of the
a criminal complaint stated in Sec 63 RA State; the ordinance
was issued against him 4136. must give way
at the Municipal Court
of Urdaneta. Act numbered 3992
as amended, and all
Contention: Ord # 3, laws, Eos, ordinance,
Series of 1964 resolutions,
regulations or paints
CFI held that Ord # 3 thereof in conflict
was already repealed with the provisions of
by RA 4136. this Act are
repealed.

Express repeal + later

law supersedes
earlier law

any conflict between

a municipal order
and a national law
must be ruled in
favor of the statute.
 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
Almeda as Board Secretary Ut res magis
Secretary 1/1/1964. (RA 2709 only valeat quam
amended Sec pereat
1/2/1964 = Board 12 (Municipal that construction
refused Almeda, Board Consti to be sought gives
appointed Florentino and org; VM effect to the
by virtue of Sec 14 of appoints all whole of a statute
RA 183. employees of its every word
Board).
RA 183 Sec 14 Board There is no
Appointment, salary Secretary (on alternative but to
and duties of Board Sec 14) was interpret the
Secretary separate, not charter as the
amended by Ra lower court has
Sec 12 Constitution 2709 done.
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 wasnt 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.