Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. MUNICIPALITY OF NAGA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 180016 2014-04-29	LITO CORPUZ v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
The second paragraph of Art. 5 is an application of the humanitarian principle that justice must be tempered with mercy. Generally, the courts have nothing to do with the wisdom or justness of the penalties fixed by law. "Whether or not the penalties prescribed by law upon conviction of violations of particular statutes are too severe or are not severe enough, are questions as to which commentators on the law may fairly differ; but it is the duty of the courts to enforce the will of the legislator in all cases unless it clearly appears that a given penalty falls within the prohibited class of excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment." A petition for clemency should be addressed to the Chief Executive.[22]
	GR No. 180050 2010-05-12	RODOLFO G. NAVARRO v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA PERALTA, J.
Where the law is free from ambiguity, the court may not introduce exceptions or conditions where none is provided from considerations of convenience, public welfare, or for any laudable purpose;[10] neither may it engraft into the law qualifications not contemplated,[11] nor construe its provisions by taking into account questions of expediency, good faith, practical utility and other similar reasons so as to relax non-compliance therewith.[12] Where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation, but only for application.[13]
	GR No. 127882 2004-12-01	LA BUGAL-B’LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION v. VICTOR O. RAMOS PANGANIBAN, J.
Precisely for that reason, to fulfill the legislative intent behind the inclusion of the phrase among other things in the second paragraph of Section 81,[67] the DENR structured and formulated in DAO 99-56 the said additional government share. Such a share was to consist not of taxes, but of a share in the earnings or cash flows of the mining enterprise. The additional government share was to be paid by the contractor on top of the basic share, so as to achieve a fifty-fifty sharing -- between the government and the contractor -- of net benefits from mining. In the Ramos-DeVera paper, the explanation of the three options or formulas[68] -- presented in DAO 99-56 for the computation of the additional government share -- serves to debunk the claim that the government's take from an FTAA consists solely of taxes, fees and duties.