ART 6-10

What does Article 6 of the Civil Code provide about waiver of rights?

Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public policy, public order, morals or good customs, or is prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.

Define waiver, and are waivers presumed?

• Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right;

• waivers are not presumed and must be clearly and convincingly shown, either by express stipulation or by acts admitting no other reasonable explanation.

Enumerate the requisites for a valid waiver of a right.

(1) The right must be in existence at the time of the waiver;

(2) it must be exercised by a duly capacitated person actually possessing the right;

(3) it must be made knowingly and intelligently, i.e., with knowledge of the facts basic to the right and awareness of the consequences of waiving it.

Why does ignorance of a material fact negate a waiver?

• Because a person cannot validly waive a right he does not know exists;

• waiver requires actual or constructive knowledge of the right or the facts upon which it depends, and cannot be established by consent given under a mistake or misapprehension of fact (Consunji vs. Court of Appeals).

BAR: A tenant with a statutory preferential right to purchase public land executes an agreement waiving that right. Is the waiver valid?

• No.

• The preferential right of tenants under Commonwealth Act No. 539 embodies a public policy — providing landless citizens with lots for homes and livelihood

• Rights protecting great public interests cannot be defeated by private stipulation, so the waiver is null and void as contrary to public policy (Gongon vs. Court of Appeals).

BAR: An employee disabled on the job signs a satisfaction receipt for less compensation than the law entitles him to. Does this constitute a valid waiver of his statutory entitlement?

• No.

• The law does not consider valid any agreement to receive less compensation than a worker is entitled to recover under the law, so signing a satisfaction receipt does not constitute a waiver (Franklin Baker Co. of the Philippines vs. Alillana).

BAR: An illegally dismissed employee accepts separation pay and terminal leave benefits. Does this bar her from later contesting her dismissal as illegal, on a theory of estoppel or waiver?

No. Acceptance of separation pay and terminal leave benefits does not amount to estoppel or waiver of the employee's right to contest an illegal dismissal (San Miguel Corporation vs. Cruz).

BAR: A husband and wife privately agree to allow each other to commit adultery or concubinage, waiving their right to fidelity. Is this agreement valid?

No. Since marriage is a social institution greatly affected by public interest and whose purity is a basic state concern, such an agreement is void as contrary to public interest and morals, and rights promoting great public interests cannot be defeated by private stipulation.

BAR: A university and a professor agree that the professor need not meet the Master's Degree requirement for college faculty. Is this waiver valid?

No. Such a waiver is against education regulations and prejudices the rights of students and the public, who are entitled to expect that the university acts within the bounds of law and hires only qualified teaching personnel; it is a waiver prejudicial to third persons with rights recognized by law (Son, et al. vs. UST).

What does Article 7 of the Civil Code provide about repeal of laws?

• Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance is not excused by disuse, custom, or contrary practice;

• when courts declare a law unconstitutional, the law is void and the Constitution governs;

• administrative acts, orders, and regulations are valid only when not contrary to law or the Constitution.

Distinguish express repeal from implied repeal.

• Express repeal — is literally declared by the new law, either by specifically naming the repealed provisions or by a general clause repealing all inconsistent laws;

• implied repeal — occurs when a new law contains provisions contrary to or inconsistent with a former law, without expressly repealing it — and repeals/amendments by implication are not favored.

BAR: A new law contains a repealing clause stating merely "all laws or parts of laws in conflict or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are repealed," without naming any specific law. Is this an express repealing clause?

No. Such a clause is in the nature of an implied repeal, not an express one, because it fails to identify or designate the act or acts intended to be repealed, so the presumption against implied repeals and the rule of strict construction against implied repeals apply (Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association, Inc. vs. Feliciano).

Under statutory construction, is a special statute repealed by a later general statute?

No, not unless the intent to repeal or alter is manifest, even if the terms of the general law are broad enough to include cases covered by the special law (Manila Railroad Co. vs. Rafferty).

What presumption applies when courts assess the constitutionality of a statute?

Every presumption favors the validity of the statute, and whenever possible, courts give statutes a meaning that avoids conflict with the Constitution.

Under the partial-unconstitutionality doctrine, when will an unconstitutional portion of a statute NOT be severed from the valid remainder?

• When the parts are so mutually dependent and connected — as conditions, considerations, inducements, or compensations for each other — that the legislature intended them as a whole and would not have passed the valid part independently;

• in that case, the unconstitutional parts drag down the dependent, conditional, or connected valid parts with them (Lidasan vs. COMELEC).

When are administrative rules and regulations valid?

• When promulgated pursuant to the procedure or authority conferred by law,

• and when their scope stays within the statutory authority granted by the legislature, carrying into effect the law's general provisions without extending or amending the law itself.

BAR: An administrative agency issues a regulation that, in effect, amends a provision of the law it is meant to implement. Is the regulation valid?

No. An administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress; it must strictly comply with the legislative enactment, follow its terms, and cannot assert for itself a more extensive prerogative than the law allows (Teoxon vs. Members of the Board of Administrators).

What does Article 8 of the Civil Code provide about judicial decisions?

Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines.

What legal maxim explains the effect of judicial decisions under Article 8?

"Legis interpretatio legis vim obtinet" — the interpretation placed upon the written law by a competent court has the force of law (People vs. Jabinal).

Are decisions of the Court of Appeals and inferior courts as authoritative as Supreme Court decisions?

No. Supreme Court decisions are authoritative and precedent-setting, while decisions of the Court of Appeals and inferior courts are merely persuasive; judges have a duty to apply the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

As of what date is the Supreme Court's interpretation of a law deemed part of that law?

As of the date of the law's own enactment, since the Court's interpretation merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent the law was meant to carry into effect (People vs. Licera).

BAR: In 1964, relying on two then-prevailing Supreme Court decisions holding that no criminal liability attaches to firearm possession without a permit under certain circumstances, a person possesses a firearm without a permit. In 1967, the Supreme Court reverses those two decisions. Is the person now criminally liable?

No. When a doctrine of the Court is overruled and a different view adopted, the new doctrine applies prospectively and should not prejudice parties who relied on and acted in good faith on the old doctrine — this is especially true in criminal law, where punishability must be reasonably foreseeable; hence the accused, having relied on the doctrine as it stood in 1964, is absolved (People vs. Jabinal).

BAR: A judge contracts a second marriage in 1986, at a time when prevailing jurisprudence held that a judicial declaration of nullity of a void first marriage was not required. Shortly after, the Supreme Court reverses that doctrine and requires such a declaration. Is the judge administratively liable for immorality?

No. Since prevailing jurisprudence at the time of the second marriage did not require a prior judicial declaration of nullity, and the doctrine requiring it was announced only afterward, the second marriage cannot be the basis of administrative liability, applying the rule that new doctrines operate prospectively (Apiag vs. Cantero).

What does Article 9 of the Civil Code provide about judges deciding cases?

No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity, or insufficiency of the laws.

What must guide a judge when the law is silent, vague, or inadequate for the case before him?

He must always be guided by equity, fairness, and a sense of justice, and must not evade his responsibility to decide simply because no law squarely covers the dispute.

BAR: A wife's separate (paraphernal) property is demolished to make way for a building that benefits the conjugal partnership, but no provision of law expressly grants reimbursement for the demolished property upon liquidation. May the court still order reimbursement?

Yes. Invoking the ancient maxim against unjust enrichment at another's expense, the Court ruled the wife must be reimbursed for the value of the demolished property, since when statutes are silent or ambiguous, courts invoke fundamental principles like this to arrive at a just solution (In Re: Padilla).

BAR: The law is silent on what middle name an illegitimate child adopted solely by her biological father should use. May the court still resolve the matter?

Yes. Even absent an express statutory provision, the Court ruled the adopted child may use her biological mother's surname as her middle name because it is a Filipino custom, illustrating that courts must still decide despite the law's silence (In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Astorga Garcia).

How did Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation describe the effect of Article 9 on the notion that courts cannot engage in "judicial legislation"?

The Court said that myth has been exploded by Article 9, which requires courts to decide despite silence, obscurity, or insufficiency of the law — meaning courts, in a sense, "must legislate" to fill gaps in the law because the legislator's mind, like all human minds, is finite and cannot envisage every possible case.

What does Article 10 of the Civil Code provide?

In case of doubt in the interpretation and application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.

What is the primary duty of courts when the law is clear, before resorting to construction or interpretation?

Courts must first apply the law as written, without judicial addition or subtraction; construction and interpretation come into play only after it is shown that mere application is impossible or inadequate (Republic Flour Mills, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs).

According to the Code Commission, why was Article 10 considered necessary?

So that it may tip the scales in favor of right and justice when the law is doubtful or obscure, strengthening the courts' resolve to avoid an injustice that might otherwise seem authorized by some way of reading the law (In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Astorga Garcia).

When there is ambiguity in a law, to what must interpretation be faithful?

To the legislative purpose — what Congress intended must not be frustrated, and even if the language's meaning is doubtful, the interpretation should not be at war with the law's objective (Republic Flour Mills, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs).

Should a literal interpretation of a statute be followed if it would lead to injustice or an absurd result?

No. A literal interpretation is to be rejected if it would be unjust or lead to absurd results, since it is the essence of judicial duty to construe statutes to avoid such deplorable outcomes (Bello vs. Court of Appeals).