Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PASTOR M. ENDENCIA v. SATURNINO DAVID

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 209287 2015-02-03	MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III BERSAMIN, J.
The consolidated petitions distinctly raised the question of the constitutionality of the acts and practices under the DAP, particularly their non-conformity with Section 25(5), Article VI of the Constitution and the principles of separation of power and equal protection. Hence, the matter is still entirely within the Court's competence, and its determination does not pertain to Congress to the exclusion of the Court. Indeed, the interpretation of the GAA and its definition of savings is a foremost judicial function. This is because the power of judicial review vested in the Court is exclusive. As clarified in Endencia and Jugo v. David:[12]
	GR No. 164686 2014-10-22	FOREST HILLS GOLF v. GARDPRO BERSAMIN, J.
The interpretation and application of laws have been assigned to the Judiciary under our system of constitutional government. Indeed, defining and interpreting the laws are truly a judicial function.[32] Hence, the CA could not be denied the authority to interpret the provisions of the articles of incorporation and by-laws of Forest Hills, because such provisions, albeit in the nature of private laws, impacted on the definition of the rights and obligations of the parties. This, notwithstanding that Section 16.4 of the by-laws gave to the Board of Directors of Forest Hills the authority to decide all questions on the construction of its articles of incorporation and by-laws, and its rules and regulations.
	GR No. 176657 2010-09-01	DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS v. FRANCO T. FALCON LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This Court has stated that the definition of a term in a statute is not conclusive as to the meaning of the same term as used elsewhere.[66] This is evident when the legislative definition is expressly made for the purposes of the statute containing such definition.[67]
	GR NO. 139554 2006-07-21	ARMITA B. RUFINO v. BALTAZAR N. ENDRIGA CARPIO, J.
This Court may, in the exercise of its sound discretion, brush aside procedural barriers[19] and take cognizance of constitutional issues due to their paramount importance. It is the Court's duty to apply the 1987 Constitution in accordance with what it says and not in accordance with how the Legislature or the Executive would want it interpreted.[20] This Court has the final word on what the law means.[21] The Court must assure respect for the constitutional limitations embodied in the 1987 Constitution.