CASE TITLE DOCTRINE Ruling as to the Doctrine

DECLARATORY RELIEF is available to any person "whose rights are affected by a

statute . . . to determine any question of construction or validity arising under the . . .
statute and for a declaration of his rights thereunder" (now section 1, Rule 64, Revised
Rules of Court)
1. There must be a justiciable controversy
2. The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse
3. The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy
4. The issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination

Construction, verily, is the art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning
and intention of the authors of the law with respect to its application to a given case,
where that intention is rendered doubtful, amongst others, by reason of the fact that the
given case is not explicitly provided for in the law (Black, Interpretation of Laws, p. 1).
This is precisely the case here. Whether or not the scheme proposed by the appellee is
within the coverage of the prohibitive provisions of the Postal Law inescapably requires
Caltex v Palomar Definition of Statutory Construction
an inquiry into the intended meaning of the words used therein. To our mind, this is as
much a question of construction or interpretation as any other.
The appellant, we apprehend, underrates the force and binding effect of the ruling we
hand down in this case if he believes that it will not have the final and pacifying
function that a declaratory judgment is calculated to subserve. At the very least, the
appellant will be bound. But more than this, he obviously overlooks that in this
jurisdiction, "Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the law shall form a part of the
legal system" (Article 8, Civil Code of the Philippines). In effect, judicial decisions
assume the same authority as the statute itself and, until authoritatively abandoned,
necessarily become, to the extent that they are applicable, the criteria which must
control the actuations not only of those called upon to abide thereby but also of those in
duty bound to enforce obedience thereto. Accordingly, we entertain no misgivings that
our resolution of this case will terminate the controversy at hand.

the three essential elements of lottery are Consideration , Prize and Chance.
Airsporna v CA Legislative Intent Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute as a whole.
 The particular words, clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated
expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the
meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce harmonious whole. 13 A statute
must be so construed as to harmonize and give effect to all its provisions whenever
possible. 14 The meaning of the law, it must be borne in mind, is not to be extracted
from any single part, portion or section or from isolated words and phrases, clauses or
sentences but from a general consideration or view of the act as a whole. 15 Every part
of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context. This means that every
part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient
to the general intent of the whole enactment, not separately and independently. 16 More
importantly, the doctrine of associated words (Noscitur a Sociis) provides that where a
particular word or phrase in a statement is ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible
of various meanings, its true meaning may be made clear and specific by considering
the company in which it is found or with which it is associated.

China Bank v Ortega

Legislative Intent

PVA Board v Bautista

Legislative Intent

PCFI v NTC The basic canon of statutory interpretation is that the word used in the law must be
given its ordinary meaning, unless a contrary intent is manifest from the law itself.
Hence, the phrase "may be promulgated" should not be construed to mean "shall" or
Nature of the Rules of Statutory "must". It shall be interpreted in its ordinary sense as permissive or discretionary on the
Construction part of the delegate — department or the Board 6f Communications then, now the
National Telecommunications Commission — whether or not to promulgate pertinent
rules and regulations. There is nothing in P.D. No. 217 which commands that the phrase
"may be promulgated" should be construed as "shall be promulgated." The National
 Telecommunications Commission can function and has functioned without additional
rules, aside from the existing Public Service Law, as amended, and the existing rules
already issued by the Public Service Commission, as well as the 1978 rules issued by
the Board of Communications, the immediate predecessor of respondent NTC. It should
be recalled that the PLDT petition for approval of its revised SIP schedule was filed on
March 20,1980.

WON a court or a labor arbiter can pass on a suit for damages filed by employer

the plain command of the law that it is a labor arbiter, not a court, that ossesses original
NFL v Eisma Propriety of Construction
and exclusive jurisdiction to decide a claim for damages arising from picketing or a
strike
*unless the law speaks clearly
In the construction of statutes, it must be read in such a way as to give effect to the
purpose projected in the statute.Statutes should be construed in the light of the object to
be achieved and the evil or mischief to be suppressed, and they should be given such
Paat v CA Propriety of Construction
construction as will advance the object, suppress the mischief, and secure the benefits
intended.

WON the appointment to and holding of the position of a secret agent to the provincial
governor would constitute a defense to a prosecution for the crime illegal possession of
firearms.
Ruling: NO
Pp v Mapa Propriety of Construction
The law cannot be any clearer. No provision is made for a secret agent. As such he is
not exempt. Our task is equally clear. The first and fundamental duty of courts is to
apply the law. "Construction and interpretation come only after it has been
demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them."7 The
conviction of the accused must stand. It cannot be set aside.

this Court held that "the primary and elementary rule of construction of documents is
Leveriza v IAC Propriety of Construction
that when the words or language thereof is clear and plain or readily understandable by
any ordinary reader thereof, there is absolutely no room for interpretation or

Daoang v Municipal Judge Propriety of Construction
Paras v COMELEC Propriety of Construction
Power to Construe as a Judicial
Perfecto v Meer
Function
construction anymore." (San Mauricio Mining Company v. Ancheta, supra).
a statute clear and unambiguous on its face need not be interpreted; stated otherwise, the
rule is that only statutes with an ambiguous or doubtful meaning may be the subject of
statutory construction.
the legal maxim that what is expressly included would naturally exclude what is not
included"
It is a rule in statutory construction that every part of the statute must be interpreted
with reference to the context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be considered
together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole
enactment.
In the interpretation of a statute, the Court should start with the assumption that the
legislature intended to enact an effective law, and the legislature is not presumed to
have done a vain thing in the enactment of a statute. 5 An interpretation should, if
possible, be avoided under which a statute or provision being construed is defeated, or
as otherwise expressed, nullified, destroyed, emasculated, repealed, explained away, or
rendered insignificant, meaningless, inoperative or nugatory. 6 It is likewise a basic
precept in statutory construction that a statute should be interpreted in harmony with the
Constitution. 7 Thus, the interpretation of Section 74 of the Local Government Code,
specifically paragraph (b) thereof, should not be in conflict with the Constitutional
mandate of Section 3 of Article X of the Constitution to "enact a local government code
which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure
instituted through.
We admonish against a too-literal reading of the law as this is apt to constrict rather
than fulfill its purpose and defeat the intention of its authors. That intention is usually
found not in "the letter that killeth but in the spirit that vivifieth". . . 8 The spirit, rather
than the letter of a law determines its construction; hence, a statute, as in this case, must
be read according to its spirit and intent.
Language could not be more plain than that used in the Constitution. It is, moreover,
one of its most important and essential provisions. For the articles which limits the
powers of the legislative and executive branches of the government, and those which
provide safeguards for the protection of the citizen in his person and property, would be
of little value without a judiciary to uphold and maintain them, which was free from
every influence, direct and indirect, that might by possibility in times of political
excitement warp their judgments