Canet vs Decena
G.R. No. 155344. January 20, 2004
Rolando N. Canet
Vs.
Major Julieta A. Decena, Respondent
Doctrine
“Statutory Construction; Where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to other matters.—Along the same vein, to read into the ordinances relied upon by petitioner objects which were neither specifically mentioned nor enumerated would be to run afoul of the dictum that where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to other matters. In other words, it is a basic precept of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all others, as expressed in the oft-repeated maxim expression unius est exlusio alterius. Elsewise stated, expressium facit cessare taciturn—what is expressed puts an end to what is implied. The rule proceeds from the premise that the legislative body would not have made specific enumerations in a statute, if it had the intention not to restrict its meaning and confine its terms to those expressly mentioned.” Canet vs. Decena, 420 SCRA 388, G.R. No. 155344 January 20, 2004
Facts
Petitoner Rolando N. Canet filed a petition against the Municipal Major of Bula, Camarines Sur for prohibiting him to establish a cockpit in Sitio Cabaya. On 1998, the Sangguniang Bayan of Bula, Camarines Sur, passed Resolution no. 049, authorizing the petitioner to establish, operate and maintain a cockpit in Sitio Cabaya, San Roque, Bula, Camarines Sur. A year later, there was an ordinance passed by Sangguniang Bayan which regulates the operation of cockpits and other related game-fowl activities in the municipality of Bula. Upon transmission of the ordinance to the mayor, it was discovered that the ordinance does not mention any rules and regulations regarding the said activity. Hence it was returned to Sangguniang Bayan but they resolved the issue by setting aside the ordinance. The petitioner filed an application for a permit to the incumbent mayor but later on denied for according to the major she cannot issue the said permit for there was no ordinance regarding that.
Whether or not Decena, in her capacity as Municipal Mayor, can be compelled to issue the necessary business permit to petitioner absent a municipal ordinance which would empower her to do so.
Ruling
(1) No. Since the was no ordinance which gives the Mayor authority to allow the petitioner’s cockpit to operate. As stated, Courts should not, by construction, revise even the most arbitrary and unfair action of the legislature, nor rewrite the law to conform with what they think should be the law. Nor may they interpret into the law a requirement which the law does not prescribe.
Read full case