Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. ENRIQUE A. AGANA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 159618 2011-02-01	BAYAN MUNA v. ALBERTO ROMULO VELASCO JR., J.
The view makes much of the above quoted second par. of Sec. 17, RA 9851 as requiring the Philippine State to surrender to the proper international tribunal those persons accused of crimes sanctioned under said law if it does not exercise its primary jurisdiction to prosecute such persons. This view is not entirely correct, for the above quoted proviso clearly provides discretion to the Philippine State on whether to surrender or not a person accused of the crimes under RA 9851. The statutory proviso uses the word "may." It is settled doctrine in statutory construction that the word "may" denotes discretion, and cannot be construed as having mandatory effect.[73] Thus, the pertinent second pararagraph of Sec. 17, RA 9851 is simply permissive on the part of the Philippine State.
	GR No. 129008 2004-01-13	TEODORA A. RIOFERIO v. CA TINGA, J,
Certainly, the incorporation of the word "may" in the provision is clearly indicative of the optional character of the preliminary hearing. The word denotes discretion and cannot be construed as having a mandatory effect.[23] Subsequently, the electivity of the proceeding was firmed up beyond cavil by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with the inclusion of the phrase "in the discretion of the Court", apart from the retention of the word "may" in Section 6,[24] in Rule 16 thereof.
	GR No. 128759 2002-08-01	RAYMUNDO TOLENTINO v. DE GUZMAN QUISUMBING, J.
the basic rules of fair play and justice.[10] Moreover, there is nothing in Article 1605 of the Civil Code that prohibits the institution of an action different from the one provided therein. Said article uses the word "may". It is a settled doctrine in statutory construction that the word "may" denotes discretion, and cannot be construed as having a mandatory effect.[11] Thus, it is not obligatory for the aggrieved party, under Article 1605 of the Civil Code, to file an action for reformation of instruments. He can avail of another action that he thinks is most appropriate and effective under the circumstances. WHEREFORE, there being no error committed by the Court of Appeals, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 13, 1996, and its resolution dated March 31, 1997, in CA-G.R. CV No. 21005, are AFFIRMED.
	GR No. 128759 2002-08-01	RAYMUNDO TOLENTINO v. DE GUZMAN QUISUMBING, J.
the basic rules of fair play and justice.[10] Moreover, there is nothing in Article 1605 of the Civil Code that prohibits the institution of an action different from the one provided therein. Said article uses the word "may". It is a settled doctrine in statutory construction that the word "may" denotes discretion, and cannot be construed as having a mandatory effect.[11] Thus, it is not obligatory for the aggrieved party, under Article 1605 of the Civil Code, to file an action for reformation of instruments. He can avail of another action that he thinks is most appropriate and effective under the circumstances. WHEREFORE, there being no error committed by the Court of Appeals, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 13, 1996, and its resolution dated March 31, 1997, in CA-G.R. CV No. 21005, are AFFIRMED.