This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-10-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Basic is the principle in statutory construction that interpreting and harmonizing laws is the best method of interpretation in order to form a uniform, complete, coherent, and intelligible system of jurisprudence, in accordance with the legal maxim interpretare et concordare leges legibus est optimus interpretandi modus.[41] Simply because a later statute relates to a similar subject matter as that of an earlier statute does not result in an implied repeal of the latter.[42] | |||||
|
2010-03-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, petitioner's theory of implied repeal must fail. Well-entrenched is the rule that an implied repeal is disfavored. T he apparently conflicting provisions of a law or two laws should be harmonized as much as possible, so that each shall be effective.[20] For a law to operate to repeal another law, the two laws must actually be inconsistent. The former must be so repugnant as to be irreconcilable with the latter act.[21] This petitioner failed to establish. | |||||
|
2006-03-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| extant in Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 512 is not expressly repealed by Section 76 of Rep. Act No. 7942; and neither are the former statutes impliedly repealed by the former. These two provisions can stand together even if Section 76 of Rep. Act No. 7942 does not spell out the grant of the privilege to exercise eminent domain which was present in the old law. It is an established rule in statutory construction that in order that one law may operate to repeal another law, the two laws must be inconsistent.[39] The former must be so repugnant as to be irreconciliable with the latter act. Simply because a latter | |||||
|
2000-03-13 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| A careful examination of Section 18 in relation to Section 22 of the 1991 Revised Rule of Summary Procedure and Rule 40, Section 2 in relation to Rule 13, Sections 9 and 10,[44] and Rule 36, Section 2[45] of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, leads to no other conclusion than that the rules regarding finality of judgments also apply to cases covered by the rules on summary procedure. Nothing in Section 18 of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure conflicts with the prevailing rule that a judgment or order which is not appealed or made subject of a motion for reconsideration within the prescribed fifteen-day period attains finality.[46] Hence, the principle expressed in the maxim interpretare et concordare legibus est optimus interpretandi, or that every statute must be so construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence [47] applies in interpreting both sets of Rules. | |||||