This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-07-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A reading of this provision clearly shows that the acts complained of are beyond the scope of a petition for prohibition and mandamus. The use of the permissive word "may" implies that the public respondents have discretion when their duty to execute evictions and/or demolitions shall be performed. Where the words of a statute are clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.[18] | |||||
|
2014-04-29 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Anent the non-suspension of the execution of the sentence, retired Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino and retired Associate Justice Carolina C. Griño-Aquino, in their book, The Revised Penal Code,[21] echoed the above-cited commentary, thus: The second paragraph of Art. 5 is an application of the humanitarian principle that justice must be tempered with mercy. Generally, the courts have nothing to do with the wisdom or justness of the penalties fixed by law. "Whether or not the penalties prescribed by law upon conviction of violations of particular statutes are too severe or are not severe enough, are questions as to which commentators on the law may fairly differ; but it is the duty of the courts to enforce the will of the legislator in all cases unless it clearly appears that a given penalty falls within the prohibited class of excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment." A petition for clemency should be addressed to the Chief Executive.[22] | |||||
|
2011-01-21 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Considering that the construction of a statute given by administrative agencies deserves respect,[35] the uniform administrative constructions of the relevant aforequoted laws defining what are government-owned or -controlled corporations as applied to RPN is highly persuasive. | |||||