This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-03-22 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| When the law is clear, there is nothing for the courts to do but to apply it. The duty of the Court is to apply the law the way it is worded. In Security Bank and Trust Company v. Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 61,[15] the Court held that: Basic is the rule of statutory construction that when the law is clear and unambiguous, the court is left with no alternative but to apply the same according to its clear language. As we have held in the case of Quijano v. Development Bank of the Philippines: | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Basic is the rule of statutory construction that when the law is clear and unambiguous, the Court is left with no alternative but to apply the same according to its clear language. There cannot be any room for interpretation or construction in the clear and unambiguous language of the law. This Court had steadfastly adhered to the doctrine that its first and fundamental duty is the application of the law according to its express terms, interpretation being called for only when such literal application is impossible. No process of interpretation or construction need be resorted to where a provision of law peremptorily calls for application. Where a requirement or condition is made in explicit and unambiguous terms, no discretion is left to the judiciary. It must see to it that its mandate is obeyed.[55] | |||||