This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-04-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In Hon. Constantino-David et. al. v. Pangandaman-Gania,[49] an En Banc decision, we clarified the application of City Warden of the Manila City Jail v. Estrella,[50] and held that this case does not give the OSG the license to sign the certification against forum shopping in behalf of government agencies at all times. We explained that the reason we authorized the Solicitor General to sign the certification against forum shopping is because it was then acting as a 'People's Tribune,' an instance when the Solicitor takes a position adverse and contrary to the Government's because it is incumbent upon him to present to the Court what he considers would legally uphold government's best interest, although the position may run counter to a client's position; in this case, the Solicitor General appealed the trial court's order despite the City Warden's apparent acquiesance to it and in the process took a position contrary to the City Warden's. | |||||
|
2010-06-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In reconciling Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 with Section 28, Subsection (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 186,[23] as amended, uppermost in the mind of the Court is the fact that the best method of interpretation is that which makes laws consistent with other laws which are to be harmonized rather than having one considered repealed in favor of the other.[24] Time and again, it has been held that every statute must be so interpreted and brought in accord with other laws as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence - interpretere et concordare legibus est optimus interpretendi.[25] Thus, if diverse statutes relate to the same thing, they ought to be taken into consideration in construing any one of them, as it is an established rule of law that all acts in pari materia are to be taken together, as if they were one law.[26] We find that a temporary and limited application of the more beneficent gratuities provided under Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 is in accord with the pre-existing and general prohibition against separate or supplementary insurance retirement and/or pension plans under Section 28, Subsection (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 186. | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| We reiterate our holding in City Warden of the Manila City Jail v. Estrella,[48] that the signature of the Solicitor General on the verification and certification of non-forum shopping in a petition before the CA or with this Court is substantial compliance with the requirement under the Rules, considering that the OSG is the legal representative of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and its agencies and instrumentalities; more so, in a criminal case where the People or the State is the real party-in-interest and is the aggrieved party.[49] | |||||
|
2003-08-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| On this score, we cannot agree with petitioner. The definition of "teacher" in Section 2 of Rep. Act 4670 practically covers the entire gamut of the teaching profession including "all other persons performing supervisory and/or administrative functions in all schools, colleges and universities operated by the Government or its political subdivisions."[24] However, the Magna Carta has not been shown to be inconsistent with BP Blg. 12, or vice versa. It is a rule in statutory construction that every statute must be so interpreted and brought in accord with other laws as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence.[25] Thus petitioner's submission, in our view, lacks sufficient legal basis. | |||||
|
2003-08-14 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the OSG executed the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping in behalf of the CSC, citing as bases therefor City Warden of the Manila City Jail v. Estrella,[30] and Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. S.C. Johnson and Son, Inc.[31] Some clarification is in order to avoid perpetuating a misconception. | |||||