Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALEJANDRO B. TY v. AURELIO C. TRAMPE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 177056 2009-09-18	OFFICE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL v. AYALA LAND INCORPORATED CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Given the foregoing, the Court finds no more need to address the issue persistently raised by respondent SM Prime concerning the unconstitutionality of Rule XIX of the IRR. In addition, the said issue was not among those that the parties, during the pre-trial conference for Civil Cases No. 12-08 and No. 00-1210, agreed to submit for resolution of the RTC. It is likewise axiomatic that the constitutionality of a law, a regulation, an ordinance or an act will not be resolved by courts if the controversy can be, as in this case it has been, settled on other grounds.[39]
	GR No. 181613 2009-09-11	ROSALINDA A. PENERA v. COMELEC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Courts of justice, when confronted with apparently conflicting statutes, should endeavor to reconcile the same instead of declaring outright the invalidity of one as against the other. Such alacrity should be avoided. The wise policy is for the judge to harmonize them if this is possible, bearing in mind that they are equally the handiwork of the same legislature, and so give effect to both while at the same time also according due respect to a coordinate department of the government.[40]
	GR NO. 141667 2006-07-17	REPUBLIC v. INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION GARCIA, J.
It is a rule of statutory construction that repeals by implication are not favored. An implied repeal will not be allowed unless it is convincingly and unambiguously demonstrated that the two laws are so clearly repugnant and patently inconsistent with each other that they cannot co-exist. This is based on the rationale that the will of the legislature cannot be overturned by the judicial function of construction and interpretation. Courts cannot take the place of Congress in repealing statutes. Their function is to try to harmonize, as much as possible, seeming conflicts in the laws and resolve doubts in favor of their validity and co-existence.[14]
	GR No. 155591 2004-09-22	DR. PABLO R. OLIVARES v. MAYOR JOEY MARQUEZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioners opposed the motion, arguing that the trial court has jurisdiction over the case as the issue raised pertains to the authority of respondents to assess and collect the real estate taxes. Petitioners cite the case of Ty vs. Trampe,[4] wherein the Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 163) of Pasig to entertain the petition for prohibition as it questions the power of the assessor to impose and collect any tax, and not merely the reasonableness thereof.