This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-06-16 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Osea v. Malaya[117] and in other several cases,[118] the Court held that an appointment may be defined as the selection, by the authority vested with the power, of an individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office. The constitutionally mandated power of the President’s appointing power was statutorily recognized under Section 16, Chapter V, Book III, Title I of the Administrative Code. Book III of the Code pertains to the Office of the President, and Title I relates to the “Powers of the President.” Chapter V, on the other hand, focuses on the President’s “Power of Appointment” and its Section 16 provides:Section 16. Power of Appointment. - The President shall exercise the power to appoint such officials as provided for in the Constitution and laws. | |||||
|
2009-09-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In its Complaint,[29] respondent alleged: "That the above-described shipment was insured for P14,173,042.91 against all risks under plaintiff's Marine Cargo Risk Note No. 39821/Marine Open Policy No. 86-168."[30] Therefore, other than the marine cargo risk note, respondent should have also presented the marine insurance policy, as the same also served as the basis for its complaint. Section 7, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, provide: SECTION 7. Action or defense based on document. Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written instrument or document, the substance of such instrument or document shall be set forth in the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading, or said copy may, with like effect, be set forth in the pleading. | |||||
|
2007-08-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Petitioners contend that where a party assails the jurisdiction of the lower tribunal, the proper remedy is Rule 65 and not Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. They also argue that an action for cancellation of a certificate of title falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.[14] They also contend that the jurisdiction of the DARAB is limited to agrarian disputes and agrarian reform under Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657.[15] They cite the case of Llonillo v. Cruz,[16] where the Court of Appeals ruled that the DARAB has no jurisdiction to cancel a certificate of title duly issued in accordance with P.D. No. 1529.[17] | |||||
|
2004-03-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| unambiguous. Thus, the "plain meaning rule" or verba legis in statutory construction is applicable in this case. 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.[14] We are not unaware of our ruling in the case of Central Mindanao University v. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board,[15] wherein we declared the land subject thereof exempt from CARP coverage. However, respondent DECS' reliance | |||||