Group 5 Cases: Mandatory and Directory Statutes Case: Loyola Grand Villas Homeowners (South) Association, Inc., vs.

Court of Appeals G.R. No. 117188 August 7, 1997 Facts: Loyola Grand Villas Homeowners Association was organized on February 8, 1983 as the association of homeowners and residents of the Loyola Grand Villas. It was registered with the Home Financing Corporation, the predecessor of herein respondent Home Insurance and Guarantee Corporation (HIGC), as the sole homeowners' organization in the said subdivision. For unknown reasons, LGVHAI did not file its corporate by-laws. In July, 1989, when Soliven, the developer and president of LGVHAI inquired about the status of the corporation, the head of the legal department of the HIGC, informed the former that LGVHAI had been automatically dissolved because, among other reasons, it did not submit its by-laws within the period required by the Corporation Code.Issue: May the failure of a corporation to file its by-laws within one month from the date of its incorporation, as mandated by Section 46 of the Corporation Code, result in its automatic dissolution? Held: No.The records of the deliberations of the Batasang Pambansa No. 68 suggest that automatic corporate dissolution for failure to file the by-laws on time was never the intention of the legislature. Moreover, the law itself provides the answer to the issue propounded by petitioner. Taken as a whole and under the principle that the best interpreter of a statute is the statute itself (optima statuli interpretatix est ipsum statutum), reveals the legislative intent to attach a directory, and not mandatory, meaning for the word "must" in the first sentence of Section 46 of the Corporation Code. There can also be no automatic corporate dissolution simply because the incorporators failed to abide by the required filing of by-laws embodied in Section 46 of the Corporation Code. There is no outright "demise" of corporate existence. Proper notice and hearing are cardinal components of due process in any democratic institution, agency or society. In other words, the incorporators must be given the chance to explain their neglect or omission and remedy the same.

Case: Reyes vs CA G.R. No. 118233 December 10, 1999 Facts: The Sangguniang Bayan of San Juan, Metro Manila implemented several tax ordinances on the following: 1) Ord. No. 87 - imposing municipal tax on business of printing and publication; 2) Ord. No. 91 - transfer tax on sale, donation, barter, or any other mode of transferring ownership or title of real property; 3) Ord. No. 95 - social housing tax; 4) Ord. No. 100 - new rates of business taxes; 5) Ord. No. 101 - levying an annual Ad Valorem tax on real property. These ordinances in question took effect in the months of September and October 1992. However, it was only on May 21, 1993 that petitioners filed an appeal with the Department of Justice assailing the constitutionality of these tax ordinances allegedly because they were promulgated without previous public hearings thereby constituting deprivation of property without due process of law. Respondent Secretary of Justice dismissed the appeal for having been filed out of time citing Section 187, R.A. No. 7160. Sec. 187 of R.A. 7160, providesSec. 187 Procedure for Approval and Effectivity of Tax Ordinances and Revenue Measures; Mandatory Public Hearings. The procedure for approval of local tax ordinances and revenue measures shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Code:That any question on the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or revenue measures may be raised on appeal within thirty (30) days from the effectivity thereof to the Secretary of Justice who shall render a decision within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the appeal:x x x Provided, finally, That within thirty (30) days after receipt of the decision or the lapse of the sixty-day period without the Secretary of Justice acting upon the appeal, the aggrieved party may file appropriate proceedings with a court of competent jurisdiction. Issue: WON Sec. 187 of RA 7160 on process of appeal is mandatory and failures to appeal within prescribe period renders the dismissal of the case. Held: Yes. Clearly, the law requires that the dissatisfied taxpayer who questions the validity or legality of a tax ordinance must file his appeal to the Secretary of Justice, within 30 days from effectivity thereof.In case the Secretary decides the appeals, a period also of 30 days is allowed for an aggrieved party to go to court.But if the Secretary does not act

thereon, after the lapse of 60 days, a party could already proceed to seek relief in court.These three separate periods are clearly given for compliance as a prerequisite before seeking redress in a competent court.Such statutory periods are set to prevent delays as well as enhance the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial functions. For this reason, the courts construe these provisions of statutes as mandatory. Case: Gachon vs. Devera, Jr. G.R. No. 116695. June 20, 1997 Facts: A complaint for forcible entry was filed by, respondent Guevara against petitioners Gachon and Guevara before the MTCC. Summons was served on and received by petitioners directing them to file an answer within the reglementary period of 10 days. However, petitioners failed to do so because he was abroad. Petitioners filed with the MTCC an urgent motion for extension of time to file an answer. The MTCC denied the motion on the ground that it was a prohibited pleading under the Rule on Summary Procedure. It likewise denied all other pleadings and MR. The MTCC issued a decision resolving the complaint for forcible entry in favor of herein private respondents. Aggrieved, they filed a petition for certiorari and injunction before RTC. RTC likewise dismiss petition Issue: Are the provisions of the Rules on Summary Procedure on the period of pleadings to be applied STRICTLY or LIBERALLY. Held: Applied strictly. Sec. 5. Answer. Within ten (10) days from service of summons, the defendant shall file his answer to the complaint and serve a copy thereof on the plaintiff . . . Sec. 6. Effect of failure to answer. Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint within the period above provided, the Court, motu proprio, or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for therein: . . . The word "shall" ordinarily connotes an imperative and indicates the mandatory character of a statute. This, however, is not an absolute rule in statutory construction. The import of the word ultimately depends upon a consideration of the entire provision, its nature, object and the consequences that would follow from construing it one way or the other.

As a general principle, rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken, are considered absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. By their very nature, these rules are regarded as mandatory. The Rule on Summary Procedure, in particular, was promulgated for the purpose of achieving "an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases." For this reason, the Rule frowns upon delays and prohibits altogether the filing of motions for extension of time. Consistent with this reasoning is Section 6 of the Rule, which allows the trial court to render judgment, even motu proprio, upon the failure of a defendant to file an answer within the reglementary period. Indeed, the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, mandating the promulgation of the Rule on Summary Procedure, authorizes the Court to stipulate that the period for filing pleadings in cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure shall be non-extendible.It is clear that the use of the word "shall" in the Rule on Summary Procedure underscores the mandatory character of the challenged provisions. Giving the provisions a directory application would subvert the nature of the Rule on Summary Procedure and defeat its objective of expediting the adjudication of suits. Case: De Mesa vs Mencias G.R. No. L-24583 October 29, 1966 Facts: Francisco De Mesa and Maximino Argana were opponents for the mayoralty of Muntinlupa, Rizal in the 1963 elections. De Mesa won the election and thereafter proclaimed and assumed office. Meanwhile, the defeated candidate Argana, filed an election protest against De Mesa charging him of the perpetration of frauds, terrorism and other irregularities in certain precincts. De Mesa, on the other hand filed a counter-protest and sought to shift responsibility for irregularities to the protestant and his followers. However, while the case is pending Mayor De Mesa was assassinated. Protestant Argana moved for the constitution of committees on revision of ballots. Accordingly, the court a quo required the protestee's widow and children to appear within fifteen days from notice in order to be substituted for said protestee, if they so desired. They did not, however, comply. Proceeding ex parte, on June 11, 1964, the protestant Argana

reiterated his move for the appointment of commissioners on revision of ballots, And so, without notice to the protestee and/or his legal representative as indeed none had thus far been named the trial court granted the motion aforesaid. With the constitution of the committee on revision of ballots in which, incidentally, Ramon Antilon Jr. was motu proprio named and then served as commissioner for the deceased protestee, the trial court, in its decision of August 10, 1964 adjudged the protestant Maximino Argana as the duly elected mayor of Muntinlupa, in the 1963 elections. De Mesas widow and local chapter of the LP which deceased was member filed a petition which include among others for the reconsideration of the August 10, 1964 decision upon the ground that, for failure to order the protestant to procure the appointment of a legal representative of the deceased protestee after his widow and children had failed to appear, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Rules of Court, it was legally improper for the trial court to have proceeded ex parte with the election case The trial court denied the movants' petition for leave to represent the deceased protestee, and order stricken from the record their motion for reconsideration and new trial and their cautionary notice of appeal. The movants elevated the case to CA on a petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction. Issue: WON Sec 17, Rule 3 of the old Rules of Court connotes a directory or mandatory compliance. Held: Yes. The death of the protestee De Mesa did not abate the proceedings in the election protest filed against him, it may be stated as a rule that an election contest survives and must be prosecuted to final judgment despite the death of the protestee. With the death of De Mesa, however, contingency not expressly provided for by the Revised Election Code was ushered in. Nevertheless, precisely by express mandate of Rule 134 of the Rules of Court, said rules, though not generally applicable to election cases, may however be applied "by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient."

SEC. 17. Death of party. After a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court shall order, upon proper notice, the legal representative of the deceased to appear and to be substituted for the deceased, within a period of thirty (30) days, or within such time as may be granted. If the legal representative fails to appear within said time, the court may order the opposing party to produce the appointment of a legal representative of the deceased within a time to be specified by the court, and the representative shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the interest of the deceased. . . . (Rule 3.) The trial court, it will be recalled in its order of May 6, 1964, required the widow and children of the deceased protestee to appear and be substituted for and on his behalf and to protect his interest in the case. But when they failed to comply at the instance of the protestant, declared said widow and children nonsuited, proceeded with the case ex parte, and effectively blocked all attempts at intervention and/or substitution in behalf of the deceased protestee. It is our considered view that Section 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court applies to election contests to the same extent and with the same force and effect as it does in ordinary civil actions. And we declare that unless and until the procedure therein detailed is strictly adhered to, proceedings taken by a court in the absence of a duly appointed legal representative of the deceased protestee must be stricken down as null and void. Considering that, in the case at bar, the trial court failed to order the protestant to procure the appointment of a legal representative of the deceased protestee after the latter's widow and children had failed to comply with the court order requiring their appearance to be substituted in lieu of their predecessor, but instead in derogation of the precepts of the Rule in question and in the total absence of a legal representative of the deceased protestee. It is no argument against this conclusion to contend that the requirement for the procurement of a legal representative of a deceased litigant is couched in the permissive term "may" instead of the mandatory word "shall." While the ordinary acceptations of these terms may indeed be resorted to as guides in the ascertainment of the mandatory or directory character of statutory provisions, they are in no wise absolute and inflexible criteria in the vast areas of law and equity. Depending upon a consideration of the entire provision, its nature, its object and the consequences that would follow from construing it one way or the other,

the convertibility of said terms either as mandatory or permissive is a standard recourse in statutory construction. "Where the statute provides for the doing of some act which is required by justice or public duty, or where it invests a public body, municipality or public officer with power and authority to take some action which concerns the public interest or rights of individuals, the permissive language will be construed as mandatory and the execution of the power may be insisted upon as a duty" (Black, Interpretation of Laws, pp. 540-543). Case: Querubin vs. CA G.R. No. 2581 December 2, 1948 Facts: Petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to continue taking cognizance of the appeal in the election case of Fidel Querubin vs. Felipe Mamuri, concerning the mayoralty of Ilagan. Isabel, because of the expiration of the three-month period provided for in section 178 of the Revised Election code, which read as follows: SEC.178. Appeal from the decision in election contests. x x x. Such appeal shall be decided within three months after the filing of the case in the office of the clerk of court to which the appeal has been taken. The record of the appealed case was received by the Court of Appeals on May 22, 1948. On August 23, 1948, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the three-month period provided for by section 178 of the Revised Election Code expired on August 22, 1948, and that, consequently, the Court of Appeals had lost its jurisdiction over the case. Issue: Whether or not CA has jurisdiction in deciding the election case although the required period to resolve it has expired Held: YES. The lapse of the period of time provided for said section should not have the effect of defeating the purposes of the system of judicial settlement of protests. To dismiss an election contest or the appeal taken therein because the respective courts, regardless of cause or reason, have failed to render final decisions within the time limits of said section, is to defeat the administration of justice upon factors beyond the control of the parties. The dismissal in such case will constitute a miscarriage of justice. The speedy trial required by the law would be turned into a denial of justice.

Case: Marcelino vs. Cruz, Jr. G.R. No. 42428 March 18, 1983 Facts: A petition for prohibition and writ of habeas corpus to enjoin respondent Judge Fernando Cruz, Jr. from promulgating his decision, entitled People of the Philippines versus Bernardino Marcelino, and for release from detention of petitioner, the accused in said case, on the ground of loss of jurisdiction of respondent trial court over the case for failure to decide the same within the period of ninety [90] days from submission thereof. Petitioner was charged with the crime of rape before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Trial was conducted and the same was concluded when the accused rested his case on August 4, 1975. On the date set for promulgation of the decision, counsel for accused moved for postponement, raising for the first time the alleged loss of jurisdiction of the trial court for failure to decide the case within 90 days from submission thereof for decision. Petitioner espouses the thesis that the three-month period prescribed by Section 11[l] of Article X of the 1973 Constitution, being a constitutional directive, is mandatory in character and that non-observance thereof results in the loss of jurisdiction of the court over the unresolved case. Issue: Whether or not the decision rendered beyond the period prescribed in the Constitution is null and void. Held: NO. The constitutional provision requiring that trial judges shall decide a case within 90 days from submission is merely a procedural rule and is not mandatory, but only directory. The provision in question indicates that it falls within the exception rather than the general rule. And there can be no doubt that said provision, having incorporated for reasons of expediency, relates merely to matters of procedure. The Supreme Court had at various times, upon proper application and for meritorious reason, allowed judges of inferior courts additional time beyond the three-month period within which to decide cases submitted to them. The reason is that a departure from said provision would result in less injury to the general public than would its strict application. To hold that non-compliance by the courts with the aforesaid provision would result in loss of jurisdiction, would make the courts, through which conflicts are resolved, the very instrument to foster unresolved causes by reason merely of having failed to render a decision within the allotted term.