ABSOLUTA SENTENTIA EXPOSITORE NON INDIGET

WHEN LANGUAGE OF THE LAW IS CLEAR, NO EXPLANATION OF IT IS REQUIRED

AUGUSTUS CEAZAR GAN VS. HON. ANTONIO REYES G.R. No.145527, May 28, 2002

ACTUS ME INVITO FACTUS NON EST MEUS ACTUS

AN ACT DONE BY ME AGAINST MY WILL IS NOT MY ACT
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOSELITO DEL ROSARIO G.R. No. 127755, April 14,
1999

ACTUS NON FACIT REUM, NISI MENS SIT REA

THE ACT ITSELF DOES NOT MAKE A MAN GUILTY UNLESS HIS INTENTIONS WERE
SO
LILY SY VS. HON. MERCEDITAS GUTIERREZ, ET AL. G.R. No. 171579 November 14,
2012

AD PROXIMUM ANTECEDENS FIAT RELATION NISI IMPEDIATUR SETENTIA

RELATIVE WORDS REFER TO THE NEAREST ANTECEDENTS, UNLESS THE
CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES. MAPA VS. HON. JOKER ARROYO AND
LABRADOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION G.R. No. 78585 (July 5, 1989)

ARGUMENTUM A CONTRARIO
NEGATIVE-OPPOSITE DOCTRINE; WHAT IS EXPRESSED PUTS AN END TO WHAT IS
IMPLIED
MISAEL VERA, ET AL. VS. HON. JOSE F. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

CASSUS OMISSUS PRO OMISSO HABENDUS EST

A PERSON, OBJECT OR THING OMITTED FROM AN ENUMERATION MUST BE HELD
TO HAVE BEEN OMITTED INTENTIONALLY
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. GUILLERMO MANANTAN G.R. No. 14129, July 31,
1962

CESSANTE RATIONE LEGIS, CESSAT IPSA LEX

WHEN THE REASON OF THE LAW CEASES, THE LAW ITSELF CEASES.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ALMUETE G.R. No. L-26551, February 27, 1976

CONTEMPORANEA EXPOSITION EST OPTIMA ET FORTISSIMO IN LEGE

THE CONTEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION IS THE STRONGEST LAW.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ISABELO PUNO, ET AL. G.R. No. 97471 February 17,
1993

DISTINGUE TEMPORA ET CONCORDABIS JURA

DISTINGUISH TIMES AND YOU WILL HARMONIZE THE LAW
UNITED STATES VS. GASPAR ALVIR 15 G.R. No. L-3981, January 14, 1908

DURA LEX SED LEX

THE LAW MAY BE HARSH, BUT THAT IS THE LAW.
ARNEL SAGANA VS. RICHARD FRANCISCO G.R. No.161952, October 2, 2009

EJUSDEM GENERIS
OF THE SAME KIND OR SPECIE
LIWAG VS. HAPPY GLEN LOOP HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. G. R. No. 189755,
July 04, 2012

EXCEPTIO FIRMAT REGULAM IN CASIBUS NON EXCEPTIS

A THING NOT BEING EXCEPTED MUST BE REGARDED AS COMING WITHIN THE
PURVIEW OF THE GENERAL RULE
ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY, INC VS. THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ORMOC CITY 17
G.R. No. L-24322; July 21, 1967

EX DOLO MALO NON ORITUR ACTIO

NO MAN CAN BE ALLOWED TO FOUND A CLAIM UPON HIS OWN WRONGDOING
BOUGH AND BOUGH VS. CANTIVEROS AND HANOPOL G.R. No. 13300; September 29,
1919

EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSION ALTERIUS

THE EXPRESS MENTION OF ONE PERSON, THING OR CONSEQUENCE IMPLIES THE
EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS
COCONUT OIL REFINERS ASSOCIATION, INC. VS. HON. RUBEN TORRES, ET. AL.
G.R. No. 132527; July 29, 2005

EXPRESSUM FACIT CESSARE TACITUM

WHAT IS EXPRESSED PUTS AN END TO THAT WHICH IS IMPLIED
COA CEBU VS. PROVINCE OF CEBU G.R. No. 141386; November 29, 2001

EX NECESSITATE LEGIS
BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION OF LAW
COA CEBU VS. PROVINCE OF CEBU G.R. No. 141386; November 29, 2001

FALSA DEMONSTRATIO NON NOCET, CUM DE CORPORE CONSTAT

FALSE DESCRIPTION DOES NOT PRECLUDE CONSTRUCTION NOR VITIATE THE
MEANING OF THE STATURE DELONG VS. STARKEY 20 120 Ind. App. 288; May 9, 1950

FAVORES AMPLIANDI SUNT; ODIA RESTRINGENDA

PENAL LAWS WHICH ARE FAVORABLE TO THE ACCUSED ARE GIVEN
RETROACTIVE EFFECT
PEOPLE VS. QUIACHON G.R. No. 170236; August 31, 2006

GENERALE DICTUM GENERALITER EST INTERPRETANDUM

A GENERAL STATEMENT IS UNDERSTOOD IN A GENERAL SENSE
ABDUL VS. SANDIGANBAYAN G.R. No. 184496; December 2, 2013

GENERALIA VERBA SUNT GENERALITER INTELLIGENDA

WHAT IS GENERALLY SPOKEN SHALL BE GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD
ORCEO VS. COMELEC G.R. No. 190779; March 26, 2010

GENERALIA SPECIALIBUS NON DEROGANT

A GENERAL LAW DOES NOT NULLIFY A SPECIFIC OR SPECIAL LAW
CUSTOMS VS. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, SMITH BELL CO., INC. G.R. No. L-41861;
March 23, 1987

HOC QUIDEM PERQUAM DURUM EST SED ITA LEX SCRIPTA EST
THE LAW MAY BE EXCEEDINGLY HARD, BUT SO THE LAW IS WRITTEN
ROSA LIM VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 130038. September 18, 2000

IMPOSSIBILIUM NULLA OBLIGATIO EST

THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO DO IMPOSSIBLE THINGS
AKBAYAN-YOUTH VS COMELEC G.R. No. 147066. March 26, 2001

INDEX ANIMI SERMO EST 26 SPEECH IS THE INDEX OF INTENTION

YOLANDA SIGNEY VS SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, EDITHA ESPINOSA-CASTILLO,
AND GINA SERVANO, REPRESEN TATIVE OF GINALYN AND RODELYN SIGNEY,
G.R. No. 173582, January 28, 2008

IN EO QUOD PLUS SIT SEMPER INEST ET MINUS

THE GRANT OF A GREATER POWER NECESSARILY INCLUDES THE LESSER POWER
ELISEO F. SORIANO VS. MA. CONSOLIZA P. LAGUARDIA G.R. No. 164785, Mar 15,
2010

INTEREST REIPUBLICAE UT SIT FINIS LITIUM

PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRES THAT BY THE VERY NATURE OF THINGS THERE
MUST BE AN END TO A LEGAL CONTROVERSY 28 FELICISIMA DE LA CRUZ VS
HON. EDGARDO L. PARAS G.R. No. 164785, Mar 15, 2010

INTERPRETARE ET CONCORDARE LEGIBUS EST OPTIMUS INTERPRETANDI

MODUS
EVERY STATUTE MUST BE SO CONSTRUED AND HARMONIZED WITH OTHER
STATUTES AS TO FORM A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF JURISPRUDENCE
DREAMWORK CONSTRUCTION, INC. VS CLEOFE S. JANIOLA GR, 185861 30 June 2009

INTERPRETATIO FIENDA EST UT RES MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PEREAT

A LAW SHOULD BE INTERPRETED WITH A VIEW TO UPHOLDING RATHER THAN
DESTROYING IT
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS ROMAN DERILO GR, 185861 30 June 2009

INTERPRETATIO TALIS IN AMBIGUIS SEMPER FIENDA EST UT EVITETUR

INCONVENIENS ET ABSURDUM
WHERE THERE IS AMBIGUITY, SUCH INTERPRETATION AS WILL AVOID
INCONVENIENCE AND ABSURDITY IS TO BE ADOPTED
SERANA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN GR NO. 162059; Jan 22, 2008

LEGIS INTERPRETATIO LEGIS VIM OBTINET

THE INTERPRETATION PLACED UPON THE WRITTEN LAW BY A COMPETENT
COURT HAS THE FORCE OF LAW)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. PEOPLE VS JABINAL GR NO. 162059; Jan 22, 2008
LEGES POSTERIORES PRIORES CONTRARIAS ABROGANT
A LATER STATUTE WHICH IS REPUGNANT TO AN EARLIER STATUTE IS DEEMED
TO HAVE ABROGATED THE EARLIER ONE ON THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER
CARABAO, INC. VS. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION G.R. No. L-
29304; Jul 3, 2014

LEX DE FUTURO, JUDEX DE PRATERITO

THE LAW PROVIDES FOR THE FUTURE, THE JUDGE FOR THE PAST.
DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. STOCKHOLDERS OFINTERCITY SAVINGS
AND LOAN BANK G.R. No. 181556 ; December 14, 2009

LEX PROSPICIT, NON RESPICIT

THE LAW LOOKS FORWARD, NOT BACKWARD.
CLEMENTE LACESTE VS. PAULINO SANTOS, DIRECTOR OF PRISONS G.R. No. L-
36886; February 1, 1932

MALEDICTA EST EXPOSITO QUAE CORRUMPIT TEXTUM

IT IS DANGEROUS CONSTRUCTION WHICH IS AGAINST THE TEXT.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. HON. JUDGE PALMA AND ROMULO INTIA Y
MORADA G.R. No. L-44113; March 31, 1977

NOSCITUR A SOCIIS
WORD CONSTRUED WITH REFERENCE TO ACCOMPANYING OR ASSOCIATED
WORDS.
FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ VS. JUDICIAL BAR COUNCIL (JBC) G.R. No. 202242; April 16,
2013

NOVA CONSTITUTIO FUTURIS FORMAM IMPONERE DEBET NON PRAETERITIS

A NEW STATUTE SHOULD AFFECT THE FUTURE, NOT THE PAST.
FERMIN MANAPAT VS. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 110478

NULLUS COMMODUM POTEST DE INJURIA PROPRIASUA

NO MAN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIS OWN WRONG.
MA. AMELITA C. VILLAROSA VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE ELECTORAL
TRIBUNAL G.R. No. 143351; September 14, 2000

NULLUM CRIMEN SINE POENA, NULLA POENA SINE LEGE

THERE IS NO CRIME WITHOUT A PENALTY, AND THERE IS NO PENALTY WITHOUT
A LAW.
JUANITO R. RIMANDO VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC) AND NORMA
O. MAGNO G.R. No. 176364

NULLUM TEMPUS OCCURIT REGI

THERE CAN BE NO LEGAL RIGHT AS AGAINST THE AUTHORITY THAT MAKES THE
LAW ON WHICH THE RIGHT DEPENDS.
REPUBLIC VS. VILLASOR G.R. No. L-30671; November 28, 1973

OPTIMA STATUTI INTERPRETATRIX EST IPSUM STATUTUM

THE BEST INTERPRETER OF A STATUTE IS THE STATUTE ITSELF
LOYOLA GRAND VILLAS HOMEOWNERS (SOUTH) ASSOCIATION, INC. VS. COURT
OF APPEALS G.R. No. 117188; August 7, 1997

OPTIMUS INTERPRES RERUM USUS

THE BEST INTERPRETER OF THE LAW IS USAGE.
JM TUASON AND CO., ET AL. VS. HON. HERMINIO MARIANO, ET AL. GR No. L-
33140, October 23, 1978

PARI MATERIA
RELATING TO THE SAME MATTER
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SIMEONA MARTIN AND HERMIN ARCEO G.R. No.
L-38019 May 16, 1980

PRIVILEGIA RECIPRINT LARGAN INTERPRETATIONEM VOLUNTATE CONSONAN

CONCEDENTIS
PRIVILEGES ARE TO BE INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WILL OF HIM
WHO GRANTS THEM
BARRETTO VS. TUASON G.R. Nos. L-36872; March 31, 1934

POTIOR EST IN TEMPORE, POTIOR EST IN JURE

HE WHO IS FIRST IN TIME IS PREFERRED IN RIGHT
CRUZ VS. CABANA G.R. No. L-56232 June 22, 1984

QUANDO ALIQUID PROHIBETUR EX DIRECTO, PROHIBETUR ET PER OBLIQUUM

WHAT IS PROHIBITED DIRECTLY IS PROHIBITED INDIRECTLY
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY
(PHILIPPINES) G.R. No. 153866 February 11, 2005

RATIHABITO MANDATO AQUIPARATUR

LEGISLATIVE RATIFICATION IS EQUIVALENT TO A MANDATE
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS VS. THE STANDARD OIL
COMPANY OF NEW YORK G.R. No. 5876 September 1, 1911

RATIO LEGIS
INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT
MANUEL UY VS. ENRICO PALOMAR, IN HIS CAPACITY AS POSTMASTER GENERAL
G.R. No. L-23248 February 28, 1969

RATIO LEGIS EST ANIMA LEGIS

THE REASON OF THE LAW IS ITS SOUL
VILLASI VS. GARCIA G.R. No. 190106 January 15, 2014

REDDENDO SINGULA SINGULIS

REFERRING EACH TO EACH; REFERRING EACH PHRASE OR EXPRESSION TO ITS
APPROPRIATE OBJECT; OR LET EACH BE PUT IN ITS PROPER PLACE
AMADORA VS. COURT OF APPEALS 47 G.R. No. L-47745 April 15, 1988
SALUS POPULI EST SUPREMA LEX
THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE IS THE SUPREME LAW
RESTITUTO YNOT VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT G.R. No. 74457 March 20,
1987

SURPLUSAGIUM NON NOCET

SURPLUSAGE DOES NOT VITIATE A STATUTE
UNITED STATES VS. JULIAN SANTIAGO G.R. No. L-11374 March 14, 1917

STARE DECISIS ET NON QUIETA MOVERE

FOLLOW PAST PRECEDENTS AND DO NOT DISTURB WHAT HAS BEEN SETTLED.
J.R.A. PHILIPPINES, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE G.R. No.
177127 October 11, 2010

UBI JUS, IBI REMEDIUM

WHERE THERE IS A RIGHT, THERE IS A REMEDY.
LEONARDO VS. COURT OF APPEALS G. R. No. 125329. September 10, 2003

UBI LEX NON DISTINGUIT, NEC NOS DISTINGUERE DEBEMUS

WHERE THE LAW DOES NOT DISTINGUISH, WE SHOULD NOT DISTINGUISH
GUEVARA VS. INOCENTES G. R. No. L-25577, 16 SCRA 379, March 15, 1966

UTILE PER INUTILE NON VITIATUR

THE USEFUL IS NOT VITIATED BY THE NON-USEFUL.
PEOPLE VS. MARTIN G.R. No. L-33487; May 31, 1971

UT RES MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PEREAT

THE CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE SOUGHT WHICH GIVES EFFECT TO THE WHOLE OF
THE STATUTE –ITS VERY WORD
PEOPLE VS. MANTALABA G.R. No. 186227

VERBA ACCIPIENDA SUNT SECUNDUM SUBJECTAM MATERIAM

A WORD IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT IS USED
(ON THE APPLICATION OF ST (ERITREA)) (FC) VS. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE
HOME DEPARTMENT

VERBA INTENTIONI, NON E CONTRA, DEBENT INSERVIRE

WORDS OUGHT TO BE MORE SUBSERVIENT TO THE INTENT AND NOT THE
INTENT TO THE WORDS.
LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINE REPRESENTATIVE BY LCP NATIONAL
PRESIDENT JERRY P. TRENAS, ET AL. GR. No. 176951 GR. No. 177499 GR. No. 178056

VERBA LEGIS
PLAIN-MEANING RULE.
REPUBLIC V. LACAP G.R. No. 158253; March 2, 2007

VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT

THE LAWS AID THE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLUMBER ON THEIR RIGHTS.
ALONSO VS. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB, INC., G.R. No. 130876; December 5, 2003

VERBA LEGIS NON EST RECEDENDUM

FROM THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE THERE SHOULD BE NO DEPARTURE.
VICTORIA VS. COMELEC AND JESUS JAMES CALISIN G.R. 109005; January 10, 1994

________________________________________________________________

Actus curiae neminem gravabit

This idea that no one should suffer as a result of a court’s error or a delay in the proceedings has
been deemed to be important to the system of justice and its application to Indian law. The same
has been incorporated by means of the legal maxim ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’.

Benignae faciendae sunt interpretationes chartarum, ut res magis valeat quam pereat

The legal maxim ‘benignae faciendae sunt interpretationes chartarum, ut res magis valeat quam
pereat’ signifies that construction of documents are to be made favorably, so that the instrument
may rather avail than perish. Put simply, documents must be constructed in such a way that the
instrument will serve rather than die.

Delegatus non potest delegare

The maxim ‘delegatus non potest delegare’ is a rule of construction that states that a discretion
conferred by a statute is prima facie intended to be exercised by the authority on which the
statute has conferred it and no other authority, but that this intention may be negated by any
contrary indications found in the statute’s language, scope, or object.

Damnum sine injuria

Damnum sine injuria is a maxim that refers to damage sustained by the plaintiff but no violation
of a person’s legal rights.

Damages without injury, or damages in which there is no infringement of a legal right, are what
this legal maxim alludes to. In the instance of damnum sine injuria, there is no basis of action
because there is no breach of a legal right. There is an unspoken legal concept that there are no
remedies for any moral violation until and unless a legal right is violated. Even though the
wrongdoer’s behavior was intentional, the court may refuse to award any damages.

Ejusdem generis

There are certain general principles of interpretation that have been applied by the courts from
time to time and one of them is the construction ejusdem generis.
jusdem generis is a Latin phrase that means ‘of the same kind’. It is used to interpret legislation
that is written in a haphazard manner. When a law mentions certain classifications of people or
things before referring to them in general, the general assertions only apply to the same people or
things who are expressly named. For example, if legislation mentions automobiles, trucks,
tractors, motorcycles, and other motor-powered vehicles, the term ‘vehicles’ does not include
aircraft since the list is limited to land-based transportation.

1. Malum in se or Mala in se (plural) – Wrong or evil in itself. Or, Mala in se is ‘A term

that signifies crime that is considered wrong in and of itself.’ For Example, Most human
beings believe that murder, rape, and theft are wrong, regardless of whether a law
governs such conduct or where the conduct occurs and is thus recognizably malum in se.

2. Malum prohibitum (Mala prohibita)– In a way opposite of Malum in se. It means

‘Crimes are criminal not because they are inherently bad, but because the act is
prohibited by the law of the state.’For example, Jurisdiction requires drivers to drive on
the right side of the road. This is not because driving on the left side of a road is
considered immoral, but because the law says to drive on the right side and not on the left
side.

3. Mandamus – ‘We command’. A writ of command issued by a Higher Court to

Government/Public Authority, to compel the performance of a public duty.

4. Quantum meruit – What one has earned. or The amount he deserves. In other words, A
reasonable sum of money to be paid for services rendered or work done when the amount
due is not stipulated (specified, written down) in a legally enforceable contract.

5. Qui facit per alium, facit per se – He who acts through another acts himself. In simple
words, It is a fundamental legal maxim of the law of agency. It is a maxim often stated in
discussing the liability of the employer for the act of employee in terms of vicarious
(indirect, secondhand) liability.