This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-06-16 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The primary rule in addressing any problem relating to the understanding or interpretation of a law (in this case, the provision granting longevity pay) is to examine the law itself to see what it plainly says. This is the plain meaning rule of statutory construction.[27] | |||||
|
2010-10-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| A cardinal rule in statutory construction is that when the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation. There is only room for application.[9] As the statute is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. This is what is known as the plain-meaning rule or verba legis. It is expressed in the maxim, index animi sermo, or "speech is the index of intention." Furthermore, there is the maxim verba legis non est recedendum, or "from the words of a statute there should be no departure."[10] | |||||
|
2009-10-09 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Remiendo, being above 15 and under 18 years of age at the time of the rape,[28] and having acted with discernment, but having already reached 21 years of age at the time of the imposition of his sentence by the trial court, his claim for the benefits of R.A. No. 9344 is rendered moot and academic in view of Section 40[29] thereof which provides - | |||||