This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-09-24 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In a similar vein, it is well-settled that the interpretation given to a rule or regulation by those charged with its execution is entitled to the greatest weight by the courts construing such rule or regulation.[126] While there are exceptions[127] to this rule, the PDB has not convinced us that a departure is warranted in this case. Given the non-applicability of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the BSP's own position, in light of Circular No. 769-80, deserves respect from the Court. | |||||
|
2010-03-09 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The Civil Service Commission CESB in fact has certified that the position requires the appropriate CES eligibility. It is settled that the construction given to a statute by an administrative agency charged with the interpretation and application of that statute is entitled to great respect and should be accorded great weight by the courts.[7] | |||||
|
2009-04-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| SECTION 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. - Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim. (Emphasis ours.) Although the foregoing provision appears under the rules on proceedings before the trial court, the power to dismiss provided therein is among the residual prerogatives which the Court of Appeals[25] and even this Court may exercise by virtue of Section 2, Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of Court.[26] | |||||
|
2003-09-24 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| On November 20, 2000, this Court rendered the now assailed Decision ruling among others that the Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed the petition on the sole ground of the impropriety of the special civil action of mandamus because the petition was also one of certiorari.[12] It further ruled that a shipyard like PHILSECO is a public utility whose capitalization must be sixty percent (60%) Filipino-owned.[13] Consequently, the right to top granted to KAWASAKI under the Asset Specific Bidding Rules (ASBR) drafted for the sale of the 87.67% equity of the National Government in PHILSECO is illegal---not only because it violates the rules on competitive bidding--- but more so, because it allows foreign corporations to own more than 40% equity in the shipyard.[14] It also held that "although the petitioner had the opportunity to examine the ASBR before it participated in the bidding, it cannot be estopped from questioning the unconstitutional, illegal and inequitable provisions thereof."[15] Thus, this Court voided the transfer of the national government's 87.67% share in PHILSECO to Philyard Holdings, Inc., and upheld the right of JG Summit, as the highest bidder, to take title to the said shares, viz: | |||||
|
2002-02-06 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| x x x x In this connection, We can also say that the interpretation given by the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources to the provisions of section 2 of Lands Administrative Order No. 6 appears to be reasonable for it merely reflects the intent of the law in placing the disposition of lands within the Tambobong Estate in the hands of the officials of the Land Department (Executive Order No. 376; Commonwealth Act No. 539; Lands Administrative Order No. R-3). The underlying idea seems to be that those officials are considered in a better position to decide controversies regarding the disposition of said Estate (underscoring supplied). The same precept was enunciated in Bagatsing v. Committee on Privatization[40] where we upheld the action of the Commission on Audit (COA) in validating the sale of Petron Corporation to Aramco Overseas Corporation on the basis of COA's interpretation of its own circular that set bidding and audit guidelines on the disposal of government assets - | |||||