Scribd
Upload
80 views1 page

Cralaw Virtua1aw Lib Rary

This document summarizes two key points from a Supreme Court case in the Philippines: 1. Statutes should be interpreted reasonably and not in a way that leads to unjust or absurd results. A literal interpretation should be rejected if it causes injustice or absurdity. 2. Exceptions to a statute's coverage are generally strictly construed, but the construction must still be reasonable, sensible and fair. Clarifications to an employment contract that do not materially change its terms should not be considered a violation of the law.

Uploaded by

maanyag6685
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
80 views1 page

Cralaw Virtua1aw Lib Rary

This document summarizes two key points from a Supreme Court case in the Philippines: 1. Statutes should be interpreted reasonably and not in a way that leads to unjust or absurd results. A literal interpretation should be rejected if it causes injustice or absurdity. 2. Exceptions to a statute's coverage are generally strictly construed, but the construction must still be reasonable, sensible and fair. Clarifications to an employment contract that do not materially change its terms should not be considered a violation of the law.

Uploaded by

maanyag6685
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

[G.R. No. 78409. September 14, 1989.

NORBERTO SORIANO, Petitioner, v. OFFSHORE SHIPPING AND MANNING CORPORATION, KNUT


KNUTSEN O.A.S., and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Second
Division), Respondents.

R.C. Carrera Law Firm for Petitioner.

Elmer V. Pormento for Private Respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; STATUTE; LITERAL INTERPRETATION REJECTED IF UNJUST OR WOULD


LEAD TO ABSURD RESULTS. — It is axiomatic that laws should be given a reasonable interpretation, not one
which defeats the very purpose for which they were passed. This Court has in many cases involving the
construction of statutes always cautioned against narrowly interpreting a statute as to defeat the purpose of
the legislator and stressed that it is of the essence of judicial duty to construe statutes so as to avoid such a
deplorable result (of injustice or absurdity) and that therefore "a literal interpretation is to be rejected if it
would be unjust or lead to absurd results." cralaw vi rtua1aw l ib rary

2. ID.; ID.; EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE THEREOF STRICTLY CONSTRUED BUT CONSTRUCTION MUST BE
REASONABLE, SENSIBLE AND FAIR; CASE AT BAR. — In the case at bar, both the Labor Arbiter and the
National Labor Relations Commission correctly analyzed the questioned annotations as not constituting an
alteration of the original employment contract but only a clarification thereof which by no stretch of the
imagination can be considered a violation of the above-quoted law. Under similar circumstances, this Court
ruled that as a general proposition, exceptions from the coverage of a statute are strictly construed. But
such construction nevertheless must be at all times reasonable, sensible and fair. Hence, to rule out from
the exemption amendments set forth, although they did not materially change the terms and conditions of
the original letter of credit, was held to be unreasonable and unjust, and not in accord with the declared
purpose of the Margin Law.

You might also like