This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-06-08 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Under the principle of ejusdem generis, where a statute describes things of a particular class or kind accompanied by words of a generic character, the generic word will usually be limited to things of a similar nature with those particularly enumerated, unless there be something in the context of the statute which would repel such inference.[13] The COA correctly ruled that the "other programs/projects" under R.A. No. 8292 and its Implementing Rules should be of the same nature as instruction, research, and extension. In BSU's case, the disbursements were for rice subsidy and health care allowances which are, in no way, intended for academic programs similar to instruction, research, or extension. Section 4 (d) cannot, therefore, be relied upon by BSU as the legal basis for the grant of the allowances. | |||||
|
2006-07-14 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The foregoing were judicial admissions which were conclusive on the municipality, the party making them.[10] Respondent municipality thus could not find solace in the legal maxim of ejusdem generis[11] which means "of the same kind, class or nature." Under this maxim, where general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things, the general words will apply only to persons or things of the same general nature or class as those enumerated.[12] Instead, what applied in this case was the legal maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius which means that the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of others.[13] Hence, because of the distinct and definite meanings alluded to the two terms by the zoning ordinance, respondents could not insist that "gasoline service station" under Section 44 necessarily included "gasoline filling station" under Section 21. Indeed, the activities undertaken in a "gas service station" did not automatically embrace those in a "gas filling station." | |||||
|
2005-09-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Thus, in Vlasons Enterprises Corporation v. Court of Appeals[14] we held that: The proceeding for the seizure of property in virtue of a search warrant does not end with the actual taking of the property by the proper officers and its delivery, usually constructive, to the court. The order for the issuance of the warrant is not a final one and cannot constitute res judicata. Such an order does not ascertain and adjudicate the permanent status or character of the seized property. By its very nature, it is provisional, interlocutory. It is merely the first step in the process to determine the character and title of the property. That determination is done in the criminal action involving the crime or crimes in connection with which the search warrant was issued. Hence, such a criminal action should be prosecuted, or commenced if not yet instituted, and prosecuted. The outcome of the criminal action will dictate the disposition of the seized property... We have also ruled in Ching v. Salinas, Sr., et al.[15] that: The RTC had jurisdiction to delve into and resolve the issue whether the petitioner's utility models are copyrightable and, if so, whether he is the owner of a copyright over the said models. It bears stressing that upon the filing of the application for search warrant, the RTC was duty-bound to determine whether probable cause existed, in accordance with Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure[.] Further, the copyright certificates issued in favor of MANLY constitute merely prima facie evidence of validity and ownership. However, no presumption of validity is created where other evidence exist that may cast doubt on the copyright validity. Hence, where there is sufficient proof that the copyrighted products are not original creations but are readily available in the market under various brands, as in this case, validity and originality will not be presumed and the trial court may properly quash the issued warrant for lack of probable cause. | |||||