Victoria v. COMELEC [G.R. No.

109005 January 10, 1994]

Facts:
Due to the suspension of Governor Romeo Salalima of the Province of Albay, Vice-Governor Danilo
Azana automatically assumed the powers and functions of the governor, leaving vacant his post as
vice-governor. The Comelec certified Jesus James Calisin of District 1 as first ranking member with
Juan Victoria of District 2 as second ranking member based on the number of votes obtained by the
Sanggunian members in relation to the number of registered voters in the district. Pursuant to the
Comelec resolution, DILG Secretary Alunan designated Calisin as acting Vice-Governor.
Victoria claims that the ranking of the Sanggunian members should not only be based on
the number of votes obtained in relation to the total number of registered voters, but also on the
number of voters in the district who actually voted therein. He further argues that a district may have
a large number of registered voters but only a few actually voted, in which case the
winning candidate would register a low percentage of the number of votes obtained. Conversely, a
district may have a smaller number of registered voters but may have a big voters' turn-out, in which
case the winning candidate would get a higher percentage of the votes. Applying his
formula, Victoria would come out to be the highest ranking Sanggunian member.
Issue:
How shall the ranking in the Sanggunian be determined for purposes of succession?
Held:
Section 44 of the Local Government Code provides that if a permanent vacancy occurs in the office
of the vice-governor, the highest ranking Sanggunian member or, in case of his permanent inability,
the second highest ranking Sanggunian member, shall become vice-governor. "For purposes
of succession, ranking in the Sanggunian shall be determined on the basis of the proportion of votes
obtained by each winningcandidate to the total number of registered voters in each district in the
immediately preceding local election."
The law is clear that the ranking in the Sanggunian shall be determined on the basis of the
proportion of the votes obtained by each winningcandidate to the total number of registered voters in
each district. In such a case, the Court has no recourse but to merely apply the law. The courts may
not speculate as to the probable intent of the legislature apart from the words.
Victoria's contention must very well be addressed to the legislative branch and not to the
Court which has no power to change the law.(Victoria vs Comelec, G.R. No. 109005, January 10,
1994)

FACTS:
Due to the suspension of Governor Romeo Salalima of the Province of Albay, ViceGovernor Danilo Azana automatically assumed the powers and functions of the governor,
leaving vacant his post as vice-governor. Under the law, Azanas position as vice-governor
should be occupied by the highest ranking Sangguniang member, a post being contested by
petitioner and private respondent.
In answer to private respondents petition for his declaration as senior Sanggunian member

for the Province of Albay, the COMELEC issued a resolution dated January 22, 1993,
certifying him as first in the order of ranking, garnering 21.78% out of the total registered
voters while petitioner herein as second ranking member with 21.19%. The COMELEC
based its certification on the number of votes obtained by the Sanggunian members in
relation to the number of registered voters in the district.
However the petitioner claims that the ranking of the Sanggunian members should not only
be based on the number of votes obtained in relation to the total number of registered
voters, but also on the number of voters in the district who actually voted therein.
ISSUE:
The issue at bar is the ranking of the members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the
Province of Albay for purposes of succession.
HELD:
The Local Government provides:
For purposes of succession as provided in this Chapter, ranking in the Sanggunian shall be
determined on the basis of the proportion of votes obtained by each winning candidate to
the total number of registered voters in each district in the immediately preceding local
election.
The law is clear. In such a case, the Court has no recourse but to merely apply the law. The
courts may not speculate as to the probable intent of the legislature apart from the words.
Petitioners contention is therefore untenable considering the clear mandate of the law,
which leaves no room for other interpretation but it must very well be addressed to the
legislative branch and not to this Court which has no power to change the law.
No grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC in issuing the Resolution dated
January 22, 1999 was committed. The petition is DISMISSED.

Verba legis non est recedendum

It is a well-settled rule in statutory construction that where the words of a statute are clear, plain, and
free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.
This "plain-meaning rule" or verba legis, derived from the maxim index animi sermo est (speech is
the index of intention), rests on the valid presumption that the words employed by the legislature in a
statute correctly express its intent or will and preclude the court from construing it differently.
The legislature is presumed to know the meaning of the words, to have used words advisely, and to
have expressed its intent by the use of such words as are found in the statute. Verba legis non est
recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be no departure.(Pagcor vs PEJI, G.R. No.
177333, April 24, 2009; Victoria vs Comelec, G.R. No. 109005, January 10, 1994)

Spouses Delfino v. St. James Hospital [G.R. No. 166735 November 23, 2007]

Casus Omissus Pro Omiso Habendus Est

Casus Omissus Pro Omisso Habendus Est is a Latin maxim which means that A case
omitted is to be held as intentionally omitted.
It is a rule of statutory construction. If a person, object, or thing is omitted from
being enumerated in a statute, it must be held or considered to have been omitted
intentionally.
Casus Omissus Pro Omisso Habendus Est is a Latin maxim which means that A case
omitted is to be held as intentionally omitted.

It is a rule of statutory construction. If a person, object, or thing is omitted from

being enumerated in a statute, it must be held or considered to have been omitted
intentionally.

Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est. Lat. A case omitted is to be

held as intentionally omitted.
It is a rule of statutory construction. If a person, object, or thing is omitted from being
enumerated in a statute, it must be held or considered to have been omitted
intentionally.

Definition
A person, object, or thing omitted from an enumeration in a statute must be
held to have been omitted intentionally.[1]
This rule of statutory construction was applied in the case of COA vs. Province of Cebu (see
below). One of the issues raised in that case is whether the expenses for college scholarship
grants be charged to the Special Education Fund (SEF) of the local government unit concerned.
Under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 5447, the SEF may be expended exclusively for the following
activities of the then Department of Education Culture and Sports (DECS):

[The Commission on Audit of the Province of Cebu vs. Province of Cebu], G.R. No. 141386, 29
November 2001

Statcon: final deadline of digests Nov 8, 2016 kasi kailangan pa i-bookbind.

Please email your digests to Sophia para ma print niya.
sophia_chavez@dlsu.edu.ph
Format: bookman, 12

Statcon Cases for Nov 12 meeting

1. Tac-an vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-38736 May 21, 1984
2. Villegas vs. Subido G.R. No. L-31711, September 30, 1987

Statcon HW: read pp. 488-580

FOR LEGRES
It bears to emphasize that respondent called the attention of this Court
to the enactment of the 1999 Zoning Ordinance and asserted its
compliance with this latest zoning ordinance only in its Motion for
Reconsideration before this Court. Points of law, theories, issues and
arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the trial court
need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court
as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal because this
would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due
process. 6 This rule holds even more true when the points of law,
theories, issues and arguments are belatedly raised for the first time in
the motion for reconsideration of this Court's decision.
Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 328
Phil. 814, 823
(1996).