STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Cases (Finals) under Atty.

Disocor
1. Rommel G. Munoz vs COMELEC, et al. GR # 170678 july 17, 2006- Use of the word MAY; petitioner and
respondent were candidates for mayor; lawyers of private respondent objected inclusion of 26 ERs; munoz was
declared winner despite pendency of an appeal: COMELEC DID NOT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
MAY IS PERMISSIVE AND NOT MANDATORY, IS INDICATIVE OF A MERE POSSIBILITY. GRANTEE IS VESTED
WITH A RIGHT OR FACULTY WHICH HE HAS THE OPTION TO EXERCISE. IF HE CHOOSES SUCH RIGHT, HE
MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQS.
2. Republic of the Phils rep. NTC vs. International Communication Corp. GR# 141667 July 17, 2006
3 Luis Marcos Laurel vs Zeus Abrogar GR # 155076 Feb 27, 2006- PLDT sued Abrogar for the crime of theft
(allegedly using international long distance calls belonging to PLDT w/o its knowledge and consent: CASE
REMANDED TO TRIAL COURT. PROSECUTION IS DIRECTED TO AMEND INFORMATION, TO CLEARLY STATE
THE PROPERTY SUBECT OF THEFT ARE SERVICES AND BUSINESS OF PLDT. INTL LONG DISTANCE CALLS
ARE NOT PERSONAL PROPERTY. ONLY REQS FOR A PERSONAL PROPERTY TO BE THE OBJECT OF THEFT
UNDER RPC IS THAT IT BE CAPABLE OF APPROPRIATION. THE WORD TAKE IN THE RPC MAYBE
COMMITTED THROUGH THE USE OF THE OFFENDERS OWN HANDS AS WEL AS ANY MECHANICAL DEVICE.
4. People vs Mejeca, GR 146425, November 21, 2002- Mejeca was convicted with the crime of robbery and
homicide; crime was aggravated because of the use of an unlicensed firearm; trial court sentenced them of a death
penalty: THE SECOND ELEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE CRIME OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARM IS THE
FACT THAT THE ACCUSED THAT OWNED OR POSSESSED THE GUNS DID NOT HAVE THE CORRESPONDING
LICENSE OR PERMIT TO CARRY IT OUTSIDE HIS RESIDENCE. IT BEARS STRESSING THAT THE ESSENCE
OF THE CRIME PENALIZED UNDER P.D. NO. 1866, AS AMENDED, IS PRIMARILY THE ACCUSEDS LACK OF
LICENSE OR PERMIT TO CARRY OR POSSESS THE FIREARM, AS POSSESSION BY ITSELF IS NOT
PROHIBITED BY LAW. IN THIS REGARD, EITHER THE TESTIMONY OF A REPRESENTATIVE OF OR A
CERTIFICATION FROM THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES OFFICE
ATTESTING THAT A PERSON IS NOT A LICENSEE OF ANY FIREARM WOULD SUFFICE TO PROVE BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT THE SECOND ELEMENT. THERE, LIKEWISE, HAS BEEN NO SUCH PROOF TO SHOW
THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH ELEMENT HEREIN. THUS, PENALTY WAS REDUCED TO RECLUSION PERPETUA.
5. Concepcion Parayno vs. Jose Jorellanes, et al GR # 148408 Luly, 14, 2006- Petitioner was the owner of a
gasoline filling station in Calasiao, Pangasinan. In 1989, some residents of Calasiao petitioned the Sangguniang
Bayan (SB) of said municipality for the closure or transfer of the station to another location. The matter was referred
to the Municipal Engineer, Chief of Police, Municipal Health Officer and the Bureau of Fire Protection for investigation.
Upon their advise, the Sangguniang Bayan recommended to the Mayor the closure or transfer of location of
petitioners gasoline station. In Resolution No. 50, it declared that the existing gasoline station is a blatant violation
and disregard of existing law.
6. Depart of Agrarian Reform vs Phil Communication Satellite Corp. GR# 152640 June 15, 2006
7. Sonia Maceda, et al. vs Encarnacion de Guzman VDA de Macatangay GR# 164947 Jan 3, 2006- case is about the
SSS death benefit was claimed by the legal wife wherein a document showed that the second wife and the
illegitimate children will claim the benefit: WHENEVER PERSONAL SERVICE IS PRACTICABLE, THE SAME IS
MANDATORY, OTHERWISE, RESORT TO OTHER MODES MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A WRITTEN
EXPLANATION AS TO WHY PERSONAL SERVICE OR FILING WAS NOT PRACTICABLE; COURTS HAVE
DISCRETION TO EXCUSE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 11, RULE 13 IN THE INTEREST OF
SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
8. Eastern Telecommunications Phils, INC , et al vs. International Communication Corp. GR# 135992 Jan
31,2006
9.Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs Azucena T Reyes GR# 159694 Jan 27, 2006

10. GSIS vs City of Assessor of Iloilo City, et al. GR #147192 june 27, 2006
11.Twin Ace Holdings Corp. vs Rufina and Company GR# 160191 June 8, 2006- Supreme Court acknowledged that
the exemption under the law is unqualified as the law did not make a distinction that it only applies to small scale
industries but not to large scale manufacturers. Thus, even if the court in said case held that the exemption is
primarily meant to give protection to small scale industries, it did not qualify that the protection therein was intended
and limited only to such. It is a basic rule in statutory construction that when the law is clear and free from any doubt
or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation. As has been our consistent ruling, where the law
speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no occasion for interpretation; there is only room for application.
12. Fransisco, Jr. vs. House of Representatives GR# 160261 December 10, 2003- an impeachment complaint was
filed by former Pres. Estrada against CJ Hilario Davide and 7 other associate jusitces for culpable violation of the
Consti, betrayal of public trust and other high crimes; the House Committee on Justice voted to dismiss the case for
insufficient in substance, although sufficient in form; 2nd impeachment complaint filed by Teodoro and Funtabella
against Davide; 2nd impeachment complaint was a violation of ARTICLE XI SECTION 5 OF THE CONSTI NO
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE INITIATED AGAINST THE SAME OFFICIAL FOR MORE THAN
ONCE WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR The resolution of this issue thus hinges on the interpretation of the term
"initiate": First, verba legis, that is, wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their ordinary
meaning except where technical terms are employed. We look to the language of the document itself in our search
for its meaning. Second, where there is ambiguity, ratio legis est anima. The words of the Constitution should be
interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers. The object is to ascertain the reason which induced the
framers of the Constitution to enact the particular provision and the purpose sought to be accomplished thereby, in
order to construe the whole as to make the words consonant to that reason and calculated to effect that
purpose.Finally, ut magis valeat quam pereat. The Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole.
13. Lambino vs Comelec GR # 174153 October 25, 2006- group of individuals including Lambino gathered signatures
for an initiative petition to change the 1987 constitution; they filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite
that will ratify their petition under the Initiative and Referendum Act.- The Lambino Group's initiative is void and
unconstitutional because it fails to comply with the requirement of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution that the
initiative must be "directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition." Two essential elements must be
present. First, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their
behalf. Second, the proposal must be embodied in a petition. The Lambino Group merely submitted a copy of the
signature sheet. The signature sheet does not show to the people the draft of the proposed changes before they are
asked to sign the signature sheet. The signature sheets do not also contain any indication that the draft petition is
attached to, or circulated with, the signature sheets. The signature sheet is not the 'petition' envisioned in the initiative
clause of the Constitution.
14.Reynante B Orceo Vs COMELEC GR# 190779 March 26, 2010- Subject: Implementing rules and regulations may
contain details not found in the statute; A license to possess an airsoft gun does not confer an absolute right, but only
a personal privilege; Inclusion of airsoft guns and airguns in the term "firearm" in Resolution No. 8714 for purposes of
the gun ban during the election period is a reasonable restriction. Atty. Reynante Orceo (petitioner) filed a petition
questioning the validity of Comelec Resolution No. 8714 insofar as it provides that the term "firearm" includes airsoft
guns and their replicas/imitations, which results in their coverage by the gun ban during the election period from
January 10, 2010 to June 9, 2010: Where a rule or regulation has a provision not expressly stated or contained in the
statute being implemented, that provision does not necessarily contradict the statute. A legislative rule is in the nature
of subordinate legislation, designed to implement a primary legislation by providing the details thereof. All that is
required is that the regulation should be germane to the objects and purposes of the law; that the regulation be not in
contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by the law.
15. Arturo M. de Castro Vs Judicial and Bar Council GR#'s 191002,191032,191057, A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC, GR#'s
191149,191342,19142 March 17, 2010 (consolidated cases)- This case involves several petitions filed either for the
prohibition of or mandamus for the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to submit to the President its list of nominees for
the position of Chief Justice. The case also raised the issue on whether the appointment of the next Chief Justice by
the incumbent President GMA is a midnight appointment prohibited by the Constitution. The controversy arose from
the forthcoming compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Puno on May 17, 2010 or seven days after the presidential
election. The parties frequently cited the case of In Re Appointments of Valenzuela and Vallarta (Valenzuela) as a
precedent, which held that the prohibition of the President to make midnight appointments under Section 15,
Article VII applies to appointments in the judiciary; The prohibition against presidential appointments under Section
15, Article VII does not extend to appointments in the Judiciary. Article VII is devoted to the Executive Department.
Specifically, the presidential power of appointment is dealt with in Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Article. On the other
hand, Article VIII is dedicated to the Judicial Department. Section 4(1) and Section 9 specifically provide for the

appointment of the Supreme Court Justices: The usage in Section 4(1), Article VIII of the word shall constitutes an
imperative duty on the President to make an appointment of a Member of the Supreme Court within 90 days from the
occurrence of the vacancy. It is the intent of the Constitutional Commission to have Section 4(1), Article VIII stand
independently of any other provision, least of all one found in Article VII. The two provisions had no irreconcilable
conflict, regardless of Section 15, Article VII being couched in the negative. The enactment should be construed with
reference to its intended scope and purpose, and the court should seek to carry out this purpose rather than to defeat
it.

16. Teofilo vs People, GR 132852, May 31, 2000- petitioner Martinez is accused of homicide; he filed a motion to be
allowed to litigate as pauper however petition was denied: SC HELD THAT A MOTION TO LITIGATE AS INDIGENT
CAN BE MADE EVEN BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURTS. IT MAINTAINED THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF
THE PRESENT RULES IS MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE BILL OF RIGHT THAT FREE ACCESS TO THE COURTS
AND LEGAL ASSISTANCE SHALL NOT BE DENIED TO ANY PERSON BY REASON OF POVERTY. PETITIONER
COMPLIED ALL REQS FOR THE MOTION TO APPEAR IN COURT AS PAUPER AND AFFIDAVITS BY TWO
DISINTERESTED PERSONS WERE ENOUGH TO CONVINCE THE COURT THAT THE PETITIONER IS
QUALIFIED TO LITIGATE AS INDIGENT. FURTHERMORE, PETITIONER WAS ALLOWED TO BE LITIGATED AS
PAUPER AND DOCKET FEES WERE RETURNED TO HIM.

17. Sarmiento vs Mison, GR 79974, December 17, 1987- Petitioners seek to enjoin Mison from performing his
functions as the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and Carague from disbursing funds for the
formers salaries because Mison was allegedly appointed without the confirmation of the Commission
on Appointments (COA). Thus, petitioners argue that Misons appointment was unconstitutional. Under
Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, there are four (4) groups of officers whom the President
shall appoint. The first group clearly requires the confirmation of the COA. However, it is unclear
whether or not the other groups also require such confirmation: Under the 1987 Constitution, heads of
Bureaus are appointed validly by the President without need of the confirmation by the COA. Hence,
the appointment of Mison as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs does not need COA confirmation
to be valid. The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is to give effect to the intent of the
framers ofthe organic law and of the people adopting it. By following the accepted rule in constitutional
and statutory construction that an express enumeration of subjects excludes others not enumerated, it
would follow that only those appointments to positions expressly stated in the first group (the heads of
the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, officers of the armed
forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in
him in the Constitution) require the consent (confirmation) of the Commission on Appointments.
18. Oposa vs Factoran, GR 101083, July 30, 1993- The petition stems from a civil case instituted by minors
duly represented and joined by their respective parents against Fulgencio S. Factoran, Secretary of
(DENR). The petitioners also aver that they represent their generation and generations yet born. In the
said civil case, the petitioners sought to have all existing timber license agreements (TLAs) cancelled
and for the DENR Secretary to cease and desist from approving new TLAs: The right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is a specific fundamental legal right. Although found under the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important
than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is self executory and does not need an implementing legislation.
19. Manahan vs Employees Compensation, GR L-44899, April 22, 1981- Petitioner Maria Manahan is the widow
of Nazario Manahan, Jr. who died of "Enteric Fever" while employed as classroom teacher in Las Pias
Municipal High School. She filed a claim with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) for
death benefit under Presidential Decree 626. The GSIS denied the claim on a finding that the ailment
(typhoid fever) is not an occupational disease: Under the Labor Code, workmen's compensation claims
accruing prior to the effectivity of the Code and during the period from November 1, 1974 up to
December 31, 1974 shall be processed and adjudicated in accordance with the laws and rules at the
time their causes of action accrued. Applying the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act in this
case, the presumption of compensability subsists in favor of the claimant . Social legislations - like
the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Labor Code - should be liberally construed to
attain their laudable objective, i.e., to give relief to the workman and/or his dependents in

the event that the former should die or sustain an injury. As a teacher, the deceased used to
eat his meals at the school canteen and also used the toilet and other facilities of the school. It is not
improbable that the deceased might have contracted the illness during those instances since it is
medically accepted that enteric fever is caused by 'salmonella' organisms which are acquired by
ingestion of contaminated food or drinks. The risk of contracting the fatal illness was increased by the
decedent's working condition.
20. Tantuico, Jr. vs Domingo, GR 96422, February 28, 1994- the petition questions the withholding of one-half of
petitioners retirement benefits; petitioner was chairman of COA; respondent withheld of the benefits subject to
findings of the audit: RESPONDENT IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO WITHELD HALF OF THE PETITIONERS
RETIREMENT BENEFITS. SECTION 4 OF RA 1568 THE BENEFITS SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO
GARNISHMENT, LEVY OR EXECUTION. RETIREMENT LAWS ARE LIBERALLY INTERPRETED IN FAVOR OF
THE RETIREE BECAUSE THE INTENTION IS TO PROVIDE FOR THE RETIREES WELL BEING.
21. Philacor Credit Corp., GR 169899, February 6, 2013- In this case, petitioner Philacor is engaged in the
business of retail financing. Throughretail financing, a prospective buyer of home appliance may purchase an
appliance on installment byexecuting a unilateral promissory note in favor of the appliance dealer, and the same
promissory note isassigned by the appliance dealer to Philacor. Thus, under this arrangement, Philacor did not make,
sign, issue,accept or transfer the promissory notes. It is the buyer of the appliances who made, signed and issued
thedocuments subject to tax while it is the appliance dealer who transferred these documents to Philacor which
likewise indisputably received or accepted them. Acceptance, however, is an act that is not even applicable to
promissory notes, but only to bills of exchange. Thus a party to a taxable transaction who accepts any documents or
instruments in the plain and ordinary meaning does not primarily liable for the tax.

22. Comissioner of Internal Revenu vs Guerrero, Gr L-10942, September 22, 1967

23. Applied Food Ing vs Cir, GR No. 184266, November 11, 2013
24.People vs Temporada, GR 173473, December 17, 2008- From September 2001 to January 2002, accused
Rosemarie "Baby" Robles, Bernadette Miranda, Nenita Catacotan, Jojo Resco and Beth Temporada (appellant ), all
employees of the Alternative Travel and Tours Corporation (ATTC), recruited and promised overseas employment, for
a fee, to the complainants. After complainants had submitted all the documentary requirements, the accused
collected and received from them placement fees in various amounts. As none of them was able to leave nor recover
the amounts they had paid, complainant lodged separate criminal complaints against accused before the City
Prosecutor of Manila. The Prosecutor filed 6 cases: Illegal recruitment in Large scale under Art 38 of the Labor Code
and 5 counts of estate under Art 315 Par 2 of the RPC. Only Beth Temporada was apprehended and brought to trial,
the other accused remained at large. RTC convicted her and was sentenced to life imprisonment. CA affirmed
conviction but lowered the penalties: Elements of illegal recruitment in large scale were present. Temporada, in
conspiracy with her co-accused, misrepresented to have the power, influence, authority and business
to obtain overseas employment upon payment of a placement fee which was duly collected from
complainants. A testimony from the POEA established that they did not possess any authority or
license to recruit workers for overseas employment. And, since there were five
(5) victims, the trial court correctly found Temporada liable for illegal recruitment in large scale.
Temporada actively took part in the illegal recruitment of private complainants. Employee may be held
liable as principal if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. The
crime of illegal recruitment in large scale being a malum prohibitum, criminal intent is not material.
Conviction for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code not a bar for conviction for estafa under Article
315, par. 2(a) of the RPC, for the same acts.

25. Hipe vs COMELEC, GR No. 181528, October 2, 2009

26. Amora jr. vs COMELEC, GR 192280, January 25, 2011

27. De la Cruz vs Capital Insurance, GR L-21574, June 30, 1966

28. Qua Chee Gan vs Law Union, GR L-4611, December 17, 1955
29. Benjamin Co vs Republic, GR L-12150, May 26, 1960
30. GR 167631 December 16, 2005 Crisologo vs Globe
31. Velasco vs Republic, GR No. L-14214, May 25, 1960- petition for naturalization was denied for failure to comply
with the requirements: NATURALIZATION LAWS SHOULD BE RIGIDLY ENFORCED AND STRICTLY CONSTRUED
IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT AND AGAINST THE APPLICANT. TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR/MAKE A
MISTAKE IN DENYING THE PETITION.
32. Co Y Quing vs Republic, GR L-10761, November 29, 1958
33. Heirs of Jugalbot vs CA, GR 170346, March 12, 2007
34. Tampoy vs Alberastine, GR L-14322, February 25, 1960- testatrix failed to sign the left margin of first page:
STATUTES PRESCRIBING FORMALITIES TO BE OBSERVED IN THE EXECUTION OF THE WILLS ARE VERY
STRICTLY CONSTRUED. A WILL MUST BE EXECUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTORY
REEQUIREMENTS OTHERWISE IT WILL BE VOID ( When the language of the law is clear, no explanation shall be
required)
35. Rodriguez vs Alcala, GR No. 32672, November 5, 1930
36. Bersabal vs Judge Salvador Gr No. L-35910, July 21, 1978- respondents failed an ejectment suit against
petitioner; subsequent decision was appealed by petitioner and during its pendency, the court issued an order that
counsels for both parties are given 30 days from the receipt of the order to file their memoranda; petitioner filed
motion ex parte and court denied it: THE COURT IS NOT EMPOWERED BY LAW TO DISMISS THE APPEAL ON
THE MERE FAILURE OF AN APPELANT TO SUBMIT ITS MEMORANDUM. THE LAW PROVIDES THAT COURTS
SHALL DECIDECASES ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCECOURTS: PROVIDEDPARTIES MAY SUBMIT
MEMORANDAIF SO REQUESTED IT CANNOT BE INTERPRETED OTHERWISE THAN THAT THE
SUBMISSION OF MEMORANDA IS OPTIONAL.
37. Anama vs CA, GR 187021, January 25, 2012
38. People vs Walpan Ladjaalam, Gr 136149-51, September 19, 2000
39. CIR vs PLDT GR 140230 December 15, 2005
40. Commissioner of Customs vs Manila Electric and CA, GR No. L-23623, June 30, 1977
41. Finman General Assurance vs CA, GR 100970, September 2, 1992
42. Francisco vs House of Rep, GR 160261, November 10, 2003
43. Chia vs Republic GR 127240 March 27, 2000
44. People vs Mejeca, GR 146425, November 21, 2002
45. Regino Sy Catiis vs CA,et al GR# 153979 Feb. 9, 2006

46. Tantuico vs Judge Domingo GR 96422 February 28, 1994- the petition questions the withholding of one-half of
petitioners retirement benefits; petitioner was chairman of COA; respondent withheld of the benefits subject to
findings of the audit: RESPONDENT IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO WITHELD HALF OF THE PETITIONERS
RETIREMENT BENEFITS. SECTION 4 OF RA 1568 THE BENEFITS SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO
GARNISHMENT, LEVY OR EXECUTION. RETIREMENT LAWS ARE LIBERALLY INTERPRETED IN FAVOR OF
THE RETIREE BECAUSE THE INTENTION IS TO PROVIDE FOR THE RETIREES WELL BEING.
47. GR No. 102858, July 28, 1997 Director of lands vs CA
48. GR No. 154598, August 16, 2004 Thornton vs Thornton
49. GR No. 79060 December 8, 1989 Ocampo vs CA- petitioner began construction of his w/o permit from the owner;
he never showed title to the land he claimed to have purchased: PETITIONER IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF
SQUATTING AND A MOTION TO DISMISS BARS A PETITIONER FROM PRESENTING HIS EVIDENCE. BY
MOVING TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND OF INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE, PETITIONER WAIVES HIS RIGHT
TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS DEFENSE.
50. GR 110170 February 21, 1994 Pahilan vs Tabalba
51. GR No. 136368 January 16, 2002 Tan Jr. vs CA
52. Gr 132852 May 31 2000 Teofilo Martinez vs People- petitioner Martinez is accused of homicide; he filed a motion
to be allowed to litigate as pauper however petition was denied: SC HELD THAT A MOTION TO LITIGATE AS
INDIGENT CAN BE MADE EVEN BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURTS. IT MAINTAINED THAT THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE PRESENT RULES IS MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE BILL OF RIGHT THAT FREE
ACCESS TO THE COURTS AND LEGAL ASSISTANCE SHALL NOT BE DENIED TO ANY PERSON BY REASON
OF POVERTY. PETITIONER COMPLIED ALL REQS FOR THE MOTION TO APPEAR IN COURT AS PAUPER AND
AFFIDAVITS BY TWO DISINTERESTED PERSONS WERE ENOUGH TO CONVINCE THE COURT THAT THE
PETITIONER IS QUALIFIED TO LITIGATE AS INDIGENT. FURTHERMORE, PETITIONER WAS ALLOWED TO BE
LITIGATED AS PAUPER AND DOCKET FEES WERE RETURNED TO HIM.
53. GR 168617 February 19, 2007 Acosta vs Adaza
54. GR 117188 August 7, 1997 Loyola Grand Villas vs CA- LGV Homeowners assoc was registerd as the sole
homeowners assoc in the subdivision but did not file its corporate by-laws: A LEGISLATURES INTENT IS NOT TO
AUTOMATICALLY DISOLVE A CORP FOR ITS FAILURE TO PASS ITS BY-LAWS. THE WORD MUST IN A
STATUTE IS NOT ALWAYS IMPERATIVE BUT IT MAY BE CONSISTENT WITH AN EXERCISE OF DISCRETION.
THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE WHILE ASCERTAINING THE
INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE IN USING THE WORD MUST OR SHALL.