“The cardinal rule of statutory construction requires the court to give effect to the general legislative intent if that can be discovered within the four corners of the Act. When the object intended to be accomplished by the statute is once clearly ascertained, general words may be restrained to it and those of narrower import may be expanded to embrace it, to effectuate the intent. Along with this fundamental principle is another, equally well-established, that such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted, as will give effect to all provision of the statute.” (2 Lewis’ Sutherland, Statutory Construction, pp. 662, et seq.; In re Allen [1903], 2 Phil., 630; Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 287, cited in Borromeo v. Mariano, En Banc, G.R. No. L16808, January 3, 1921, Per Malcolm, J.)
“In the interpretation and construction of a statute the intent of the law-maker should always be ascertained and given effect, and courts will not follow the letter of a statute when it leads away from the true intent and purpose of the Legislature and to conclusions inconsistent with the spirit of the Act.” (Torres v. Limjap, En Banc, G.R. No. 34385, September 21, 1931, Per Johnson, J.)
“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.” (Aisporna v. CA, G.R. No. L-39419, April 12, 1982, Per De Castro, J.)
Legal Resource PHLearning and resource site for Philippine Laws
“[T]he express mention of one person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all others. This rule is expressed in the familiar maxim ‘expressio unius est exclusio alterius.’ Where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to others. The rule proceeds from the premise…
“[T]he number in words must prevail over that in figures.” (Lim v. Maglanoc, En Banc, G.R. No. L-16566, August 31, 1961, Per Paredes, J.)
“[A] special and specific provision prevails over a general provision irrespective of their relative positions in the statute.” (DPWH v. Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers, Inc., G.R. No. 200015, March 15, 2023, Per Leonen) “A special and specific provision prevails over a general provision irrespective of their relative position in the statute. Generalia specialibus non…
“From another angle the presumption against repeal is stronger. A special law is not regarded as having been amended or repealed by a general law unless the intent to repeal or alter is manifest. Generalia specialibus non derogant. And if this is true although the terms of the general act are broad enough to include…
“[A]ll statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective operation unless the purpose and intention of the Legislature to give them a retrospective effect is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the language used. In every case of doubt, the doubt must be solved against the retrospective effect.” (De Montilla v. La…
“Under the rules on syntax, the conjunctive word ‘and’ denotes a “joinder or union’ of words, phrases, or clause; it is different from the disjunctive word ‘or’ that signals disassociation or independence. However, a more important rule of statutory construction dictates that laws should be construed in a manner that avoids absurdity or unreasonableness.” (Microsoft…
