Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OIL v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 162372 2011-10-19	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The above interpretation applies equally to the phrase "financial assistance," which, contrary to the petitioners' assertion, should not be read independently of the purpose of an early retirement incentive plan. Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the construction of a particular word or phrase, which is in itself ambiguous, or is equally susceptible of various meanings, may be made clear and specific by considering the company of words in which it is found or with which it is associated. In other words, the obscurity or doubt of the word or phrase may be reviewed by reference to associated words.[59] Thus, the phrase "financial assistance," in light of the preceding words with which it is associated, should also be construed as an incentive scheme to induce employees to retire early or as an assistance plan to be given to employees retiring earlier than their retirement age.
	GR No. 166051 2008-04-08	SOLID HOMES v. EVELINA LASERNA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The constitutional mandate that, "no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based,"[22] does not preclude the validity of "memorandum decisions," which adopt by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the decisions of inferior tribunals.[23] In fact, in Yao v. Court of Appeals,[24] this Court has sanctioned the use of "memorandum decisions," a specie of succinctly written decisions by appellate courts in accordance with the provisions of Section 40,[25] B.P. Blg. 129, as amended,[26] on the grounds of expediency, practicality, convenience and docket status of our courts. This Court likewise declared that "memorandum decisions" comply with the constitutional mandate.[27]
	GR No. 159410 2008-01-28	NIXON T. KUA v. ROBERT DEAN S. BARBERS AZCUNA, J.
Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, which even petitioner himself recognizes but appears to have misapplied, where a particular word or phrase is ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various meanings, its meaning may be made clear and specific by considering the company of the words in which it is found or with which it is associated.[28] Stated differently, the obscurity or doubt on a particular word or phrase may be removed by reference to associated words.[29]
	GR NO. 160093 2007-07-31	MALARIA EMPLOYEES v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO ROMULO PUNO, C.J.
Section 31. Continuing Authority of the President to Reorganize his Office. The President, subject to the policy in the Executive Office and in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency, shall have continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the President. x x x The interpretation of petitioners is illogically restrictive and lacks legal basis. The residual powers granted to the President under Section 20, Title I, Book III are too broad to be construed as having a sole application to the Office of the President. As correctly stated by respondents, there is nothing in E.O. No. 292 which provides that the continuing authority should apply only to the Office of the President.[13] If such was the intent of the law, the same should have been expressly stated. To adopt the argument of petitioners would result to two conflicting provisions in one statute. It is a basic canon of statutory construction that in interpreting a statute, care should be taken that every part thereof be given effect, on the theory that it was enacted as an integrated measure and not as a hodge-podge of conflicting provisions. The rule is that a construction that would render a provision inoperative should be avoided; instead, apparently inconsistent provisions should be reconciled whenever possible as parts of a coordinated and harmonious whole.[14]
	GR NO. 159373 2006-11-16	JOSE R. MORENO v. PRIVATE MANAGEMENT OFFICE PUNO, J.
It is a basic canon of statutory construction that in interpreting a statute, care should be taken that every part thereof be given effect, on the theory that it was enacted as an integrated measure and not as a hodge-podge of conflicting provisions. The rule is that a construction that would render a provision inoperative should be avoided; instead, apparently inconsistent provisions should be reconciled whenever possible as parts of a coordinated and harmonious whole.[26]