Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 184406 2012-03-14	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. PERFECTO OBIAS PEREZ, J.
It is correct that rules and regulations issued by administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce, have the force of law, and are entitled to great respect. Administrative issuances partake of the nature of a statute and have in their favor a presumption of legality.[13] And a literal reading of A.O. No. 13, as amended, will be in favor of the LBP.
	GR No. 171685 2010-10-11	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. GLENN Y. ESCANDOR VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In view of the foregoing rulings, we hold that both the SAC and the CA erred in not strictly observing the guidelines provided in Section 17 of RA No. 6657 and adopting DAR administrative orders implementing the same, specifically AO No. 5, series of 1998 which took effect on May 11, 1998 and thus already in force at the time of the filing of the complaints. And contrary to the stance of the CA, we held in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim[28] that Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 and DAR AO No. 6, series of 1992, are mandatory and not mere guides that the RTC may disregard.[29] We have stressed that the special agrarian court cannot ignore, without violating the agrarian law, the formula provided by the DAR for the determination of just compensation. This Court thus rejected the valuation fixed by the RTC because it failed to follow the DAR formula.[30]