Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MAYNARD R. PERALTA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AM No. 12-8-07-CA 2015-06-16	RE: LETTER OF CA JUSTICE VICENTE S.E. VELOSO FOR ENTITLEMENT TO LONGEVITY PAY FOR HIS SERVICES AS COMMISSION MEMBER III OF NLRC RE: REQUEST OF CA JUSTICE REMEDIOS A. SALAZAR-FERNANDO THAT HER SERVICES AS MTC JUDGE BRION, J.
The Dissent conveniently fails to mention that contemporaneous constructions of administrative or executive agencies are merely at best advisory and not binding on the courts, for by the Constitution and the law, the courts are given the task of finally determining what the law means.[33] We do so under our authority to state what the law is[34] and deference to an agency’s statutory interpretation should be withheld whenever it conflicts with the language of the statute, as in the present case.
	GR No. 166006 2008-03-14	PLANTERS PRODUCTS v. FERTIPHIL CORPORATION REYES, R.T., J.
When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a matter of equity and fair play.[55] It nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot always be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.[56]
	GR No. 113079 2001-04-20	ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Stated differently, when an administrative agency renders an opinion or issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing law and the administrative interpretation is at best advisory for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means.[16] Thus, an action by an administrative agency may be set aside by the judicial department if there is an error of law, abuse of power, lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with the letter and spirit of the law.[17]
	GR No. 140158 2001-01-29	FERNANDO T. BALTAZAR v. COMELEC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
A long line of cases establish the basic rule that the courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under their special technical knowledge and training.[7] However, when an administrative agency renders an opinion or issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing law and the administrative interpretation is at best advisory for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means.[8] Thus an action by an administrative agency may be set aside by the judicial department if there is an error of law, abuse of power, lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with the letter and spirit of the law.[9]