He says: “You are the one I love the most among the women in my

life, and that includes my mother, my sister and my grandmother.” You

ask him, “Is that ejusdem generis or expressio unius?” And he
answers, “Ejusdem generis.” Should you slap him or kiss him?
Here’s a short reviewer on some Latin phrases in Legal Method. The
phrases are followed by a very short description of cases that illustrate
the Latin rule. The definitions are taken from Agpalo’s book on
Statutory Construction.
NOSCITUR A SOCIIS
Words must be construed in conjunction with the other words and
phrases used in the text.
Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the
statute as a whole. The particular words, clauses and phrases should
not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole
and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning
of any of its parts and in order to produce a harmonious whole. Where
a particular word or phrase in a statement is ambiguous in itself or is
equally susceptible of various meanings, its true meaning may be
clear and specific by considering the company in which it is found or
with which it is associated.
Aisporna vs. CA: wife of insurance agent prosecuted for having sold
an insurance without registering as an agent. Using this doctrine, the
Court ruled that an insurance agent is one who sells insurance in
return for compensation, and it was not proved that Aisporna received
compensation for the insurance she was alleged to have sold. (Her
defense was that as her husband’s clerk, she only renewed the
insurance because her husband was out at the time).
Dai-Chi Electronics Manufacturing Corp. v. Villarama: Dai-Chi filed a
complaint against Villarama for violating an agreement that he would
not join the company’s competitor within two years after leaving Dai-
Chi. Dai-Chi filed a complaint against Villarama at the RTC, which
dismissed it on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, for it should have been
filed before a labor arbiter. Using the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the
court ruled that while the Labor Code says that “all money claims of
workers” were under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, it did not
mean to encompass the entire universe of money claims that might be
asserted by workers against their employers. Paragraph 3 should not
be read in isolation, but rather in conjunction with paragraphs 1 to 5,
which all refer to money claims of workers arising from violations of or
in connection with an employee-employer relationship. Dai-Chi’s
complaint was anchored on a violation of contract, since Villarama
was no longer an employee. The court ruled that the RTC was the
proper venue for filing of the case.
EJUSDEM GENERIS
Where a statute describes things of particular class or kind
accompanied by words of a generic character, the generic words will
usually be limited to things of a kindred nature with those particularly
enumerated, unless there be something in the context of the statute to
repel such influence. Ejusdem generis could be expansive, however,
because the list is not exclusive; it may be expanded if a juridical tie
could be found with another item.
Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp: Because gambling was with the
phrase ‘and other prohibited games of chance’ it was construed to
refer only to illegal gambling.
PBA v CA: Where general words follow an enumeration of persons or
things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general
words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held
as applying only to persons or things of the same kind or class as
those specifically mentioned.
EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSION ALTERIUS
The express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the
exclusion of all others. Variation: Expressium facit cessare tacitum.
What is expressed puts an end to what is implied. Where a statute is
expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or
construction, be extended to other matters. Canon of restrictive
interpretation.
Where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it
may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to others. The
rule proceeds from the premise that the legislature would not have
made specified enumerations in a statute had the intention been not to
restrict its meaning and to confine its terms to those expressly
mentioned.
Malinias v Comelec: An attempt to use an administrative charge for a
criminal complaint against police officers accused of violating the
election code. The court ruled that not all violations of the election
code provided for criminal penalties and in this case, the violated
provisions only warrant the imposition of administrative, not criminal,
penalties.
Centeno v Villalon-Pornillos: A group of old men charged with violating
the solicitation permit law was acquitted because the term religious
purpose was not expressly included in the provisions of the statute,
and what the law does not include, it excludes. The law referred only
to charitable purposes, which phrase cannot be construed so as to
include a religious purpose.
DISSIMILUM DISSIMILIS EST RATIO
The courts may distinguish when there are facts and circumstances
showing that the legislature intended a distinction or qualification.
Garvida v. Sales: Sales sought to have Garvida disqualified from the
SK post because of age. The court ruled that while the Local Gov’t
Code provided that SK members should be 21 years old, it added a
qualification that should officials should be 21 years old on the date of
election. Garvida was disqualified because she was more than 21
years old, although she was less than 22 years old.
CASUS OMISSUS
Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est. A person, object, or thing
omitted from an enumeration in a statute must be held to have been
omitted intentionally.
This needs two laws. In expressio unius, it’s just the enumeration you
are looking at, not another law.
COA of the Province of Cebu v Province of Cebu: This case is about
the effects of a new law on an old law. The Special Education Fund
(SEF) allowed the use of part of the realty and cigarette taxes for
extension programs and scholarships. When the Cebu provincial
office used it to pay for salaries of teachers and scholars, COA said
those were not chargeable to the SEF since RA 5447, which created
the SEF, was deemed repealed by the Local Govt Code. Because the
two retained sections in the LGC omitted the scholarship grants, the
court ruled that what was omitted must have been omitted
intentionally, and so may not be included.
UBI LEX NON DISTINGUIT NEC NOS DISTINGUERE DEBEMOS
Where the law makes no distinctions, one does not distinguish. Where
the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish.
Ramirez v CA: The law makes no distinction as to whether the party
sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a party other than or
different from those involved in the private communication.
Cebu Institute of Medicine v Cebu Institute of Medicine Employees’
Union-National Federation of Labor: “Other benefits” may refer to
SSS, Medicare, Pagibig and may be taken from the 70% tuition
increase since the law only says that money from this may be given to
employees in the form of salaries and other benefits. Since the law did
not distinguish between “other benefits” and SSS, etc, these may be
deducted from the 70% increase in tuition charged by the school.
REDEENDO SINGULAR SINGULIS
Referring each to each; let each be put in its proper place, that is, the
words should be taken distributively.
Amadora v CA: Teachers should apply to pupils and students; and
heads of establishment of arts and trades to apprentices. The teacher
in charge must answer for a student’s tort, but in this case none of
those charged were either the teacher in charge or the dean of boys.
People vs Tamani: Promulgation should refer to judgment and notice
should refer to order. The computation of the filing of the petition was
wrong. (This was an obiter because the filing was late either way it is
computed, and the court decided on the case anyway).