Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full texts of the cases cited. Xie xie!
Chapter IX: Statute Construed as a Whole and in Relation to Other Statutes
1. Lozano v. Yorac
Issues and Ruling: Whether the denial of voluntary inhibition of Yorac in the disqualification of the case of Lozano v. Mayor Binay; and reversal of the en banc resolution promulgated by COMELEC dismissing the disqualification and criminal complaint against Binay on vote buying. Yorac has not been mooted and Binay won the case and not proven guilty of vote buying.
Chapter X: Special over General
Rule regarding conflicting provisions of the same statute
1. Manila Railroad Co. v. Collector of Customs
Issue and Ruling: Whether the lower court is favor of MRR. Where there is in the same statute a particular enactment and also a general one what is embraced in the former, the particular enactment must be operative and the general enactment must be taken to affect only such cases within its general language as are not within the provision of the particular enactment.
2. Almeda v. Florentino
Issue and Ruling: In the Charter of Pasay, RA No. 183 changed the composition of the Municipal Board. What provision of law should govern? The court ruled that where there is specific law and a general law dealing with the same subject, the specific law should prevail over the general one.
Rule regarding conflicting provisions of different statutes
1. Laxamana v. Baltazar
Issue and Ruling: The mayor of Pampanga was suspended by virtue of Revised Admin Code and the Laxamana was appointed by virtue of Revised election Code. Whether Revised Admin Code should prevail over Revised Election Code? The exceptional case is the suspension of mayors where the Revised Admin Code prevails. In case of conflict between two provisions of law, it is well-settled principle of statutory construction that a special provision is paramount to a general provision.
2. Butuan Sawmill v. City of Butuan
Issue and Ruling: Whether the existing laws include the franchise business of petitioners within the coverage of the taxing ordinance is beyond the city’s power of taxation. The inclusion of franchise business of Butuan Sawmill is beyond the broad power of taxation of the city under its charter. Where there are two statutes – the earlier special and the latter general – the special is considered as remaining an exception to the general as a general law of the land, the other as the law of a particular case.
Rule in case of conflict between a special provision of a general law and a general provision of a special law
1. City of Manila v. Teotico
Issue and Ruling: Teotico a manager, sustained a laceration on his left eyelid and contusions on his left thigh, sued Manila city for negligence citing Art. 2189 of the Civil Code. In defense, Manila City cited RA 409, its Charter. Which provision of law should prevail? In terms of territorial RA 409 applies but with regards to subject matter for negligence in general, Art. 2189 prevails making cities liable for injuries sustained due to “defective streets” in particular.
2. David v. Comelec
Issue and Ruling: Alex David, a Brgy Captain in Caloocan City, questioned Comelec’s scheduling of barangay elections. How long is the term of barangay officials. RA 6653 provides that term of office of barangay officials shall be for five years, however RA 7160 when it was enacted reduced the term of “all local elective officials to three years.
Amendment, Revision, Codification and Repeal
1. Tac-an v. CA
Issue and Ruling: Tac-an, a lawyer of Acopiado brothers, whose services was terminated and his payment of services by a land title was annulled by the brothers. Whether repealing of Admin Code of Mindanao and Sulu, should be given retroactivity; and whether the transfer of land to Tac-an was valid. Tac-an argued that such provisions in Admin Code of Mindanao and Sulu was repealed, but since the Admin Code were substantive in nature, the repealing statute cannot be given retroactive effect.
2. Villegas v. Subido
Issue and Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that repeals by implication are not favored and will not be so declared unless it be manifest that the legislature so intended.
Two requisites: 1) It must be shown that the statute deal with the same subject matter; and, 2) the latter is inconsistent with the former, or irreconcilable with what had been formerly enacted, and what is needed is a manifest indication of the legislative purpose to repeal.