You're currently signed in as:
User

WINSTON F. GARCIA v. MARIO I. MOLINA

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

2013-04-02
VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Garcia v. Molina,[14] we declared the formal charges issued by petitioner Government Service Insurance System President without prior conduct of a preliminary investigation as null and void. In this case, while respondent was given the opportunity to submit a written explanation (not a preliminary investigation proper[15]), she was not formally charged, and no formal investigation had been conducted before the petitioner rendered her decision to dismiss the respondent (Administrative Order No. 003), as required by the civil service rules.
2012-10-09
MENDOZA, J.
The Court is not unaware of the use of the words "private citizen" in the subject provision and the plain meaning rule of statutory construction which requires that when the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to mean exactly what it says.  The Court, however, finds that a simplistic interpretation is not in keeping with the intention of the statute and prevailing jurisprudence.  It is a well-established rule that laws should be given a reasonable interpretation so as not to defeat the very purpose for which they were passed.  As such, "a literal interpretation is to be rejected if it would be unjust or lead to absurd results."[20]  In Secretary of Justice v. Koruga,[21] the Court emphasized this principle and cautioned us on the overzealous application of the plain meaning rule: The general rule in construing words and phrases used in a statute is that in the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, they should be given their plain, ordinary, and common usage meaning.  However, a literal interpretation of a statute is to be rejected if it will operate unjustly, lead to absurd results, or contract the evident meaning of the statute taken as a whole.  After all, statutes should receive a sensible construction, such as will give effect to the legislative intention and so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion.  Indeed, courts are not to give words meanings that would lead to absurd or unreasonable consequences.[22]