This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-02-23 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| The TOC, as a grant of authority from the government, is subject to the latter's control insofar as the grant affects or concerns the public.[105] Like all other franchises or licenses issued by the government, the TOC is issued subject to terms, conditions, and limitations under existing laws and agreements. This rule especially holds true in this instance since the TRB has the power to issue "the necessary 'Toll Operation Certificate' subject to such conditions as shall be imposed by the Board including inter alia" those specified under Section 3(e) of P.D. 1112. Thus, impliedly written into every TOC are the conditions prescribed therein. | |||||
|
2006-10-30 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| In Manila Jockey Club, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, this Court enunciated that in the interpretation of seemingly conflicting laws, efforts must be made to first harmonize them. This Court thus ruled: Consequently, every statute should be construed in such a way that will harmonize it with existing laws. This principle is expressed in the legal maxim "interpretare et concordare leges legibus est optimus interpretandi," that is, to interpret and to do it in such a way as to harmonize laws with laws is the best method of interpretation.[26] In the light of the foregoing considerations, therefore, the two (2) rules can stand together and are compatible with each other. When an application to litigate as an indigent litigant is filed, the court shall scrutinize the affidavits and supporting documents submitted by the applicant to determine if the applicant complies with the income and property standards prescribed in the present Section 19 of Rule 141 that is, the applicant's gross income and that of the applicant's immediate family do not exceed an amount double the monthly minimum wage of an employee; and the applicant does not own real property with a fair market value of more than Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP 300,000.00). If the trial court finds that the applicant meets the income and property requirements, the authority to litigate as indigent litigant is automatically granted and the grant is a matter of right. | |||||
|
2006-02-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The fact that no budgetary appropriations have been released to the VFP does not prove that it is a private corporation. The DBM indeed did not see it fit to propose budgetary appropriations to the VFP, having itself believed that the VFP is a private corporation.[33] If the DBM, however, is mistaken as to its conclusion regarding the nature of VFP's incorporation, its previous assertions will not prevent future budgetary appropriations to the VFP. The erroneous application of the law by public officers does not bar a subsequent correct application of the law.[34] | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| It should, furthermore, be borne in mind that cockfighting although authorized by law is still a form of gambling. Gambling is essentially antagonistic to the aims of enhancing national productivity and self-reliance.[24] As has been previously said, a statute which authorizes a gambling activity or business should be strictly construed, and every reasonable doubt resolved so as to limit rather than expand the powers and rights claimed by franchise holders under its authority.[25] | |||||