Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FLOREZIL AGUJETAS v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 197676 2014-02-04	REMMAN ENTERPRISES v. PROFESSIONAL REGULATORY BOARD OF REAL ESTATE SERVICE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that repeals by implication are not favored. In order to effect a repeal by implication, the later statute must be so irreconcilably inconsistent and repugnant with the existing law that they cannot be made to reconcile and stand together. The clearest case possible must be made before the inference of implied repeal may be drawn, for inconsistency is never presumed. There must be a showing of repugnance clear and convincing in character. The language used in the later statute must be such as to render it irreconcilable with what had been formerly enacted. An inconsistency that falls short of that standard does not suffice.[15] Moreover, t he failure to add a specific repealing clause indicates that the intent was not to repeal any existing law, unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exist in the terms of the new and old laws.[16]
	AM No. P-95-1167 2010-02-09	CARMELITA LLEDO v. ATTY. CESAR V. LLEDO NACHURA, J.
Under the first instance of implied repeal, we are guided by the principle that in order to effect a repeal by implication, the later statute must be so irreconcilably inconsistent with and repugnant to the existing law that they cannot be reconciled and made to stand together. The clearest case of inconsistency must be made before the inference of implied repeal can be drawn, for inconsistency is never presumed.[23]
	GR No. 189868 2009-12-15	KABATAAN PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE RAYMOND V. PALATINO v. COMELEC CARPIO MORALES, J.
Respecting the authority of the COMELEC under RA 6646 and RA 8436 to fix other dates for pre-election acts, the same is not in conflict with the mandate of continuing voter registration under RA 8189. This Court's primary duty is to harmonize laws rather than consider one as repealed by the other. The presumption is against inconsistency or repugnance and, accordingly, against implied repeal. For Congress is presumed to know the existing laws on the subject and not to enact inconsistent or conflicting statutes.[10]
	GR No. 181613 2009-09-11	ROSALINDA A. PENERA v. COMELEC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Well-settled is the rule in statutory construction that implied repeals are disfavored. In order to effect a repeal by implication, the later statute must be so irreconcilably inconsistent and repugnant with the existing law that they cannot be made to reconcile and stand together. The clearest case possible must be made before the inference of implied repeal may be drawn, for inconsistency is never presumed. There must be a showing of repugnance clear and convincing in character. The language used in the later statute must be such as to render it irreconcilable with what had been formerly enacted. An inconsistency that falls short of that standard does not suffice.[39]
	GR No. 162267 2008-07-04	PCI LEASING v. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
x x x x (Emphasis supplied) Neither is there an implied repeal of R.A. No. 4136. As a rule, repeal by implication is frowned upon, unless there is clear showing that the later statute is so irreconcilably inconsistent and repugnant to the existing law that they cannot be reconciled and made to stand together.[29] There is nothing in R.A. No. 4136 that is inconsistent and incapable of reconciliation.
	GR NO. 162155 2007-08-28	CIR v. PRIMETOWN PROPERTY GROUP CORONA, J.
A repealing clause like Sec. 27 above is not an express repealing clause because it fails to identify or designate the laws to be abolished. [32] Thus, the provision above only impliedly repealed all laws inconsistent with the Administrative Code of 1987.