This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-03-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| When the language of the law is clear and explicit, there is no room for interpretation, only application. And if statutory construction be necessary, the statute should be interpreted to assure its being in consonance with, rather than repugnant to, any constitutional command or prescription.[1] It is upon these basic principles that the petition must be granted. | |||||
|
2010-03-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's actions do constitute forum shopping, as this term was defined in Santos v. Commission on Elections,[27] cited by the COMELEC in its Comment, the pertinent portions of which read as follows: Santos is Guilty of Forum-Shopping | |||||
|
2008-01-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In laying down the said guidelines, the Court is not unaware of its ruling in Santos v. Commission on Elections,[31] that the filing of a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc of a division's dismissal of a pre-proclamation case, and the simultaneous filing of a certiorari petition before this Court questioning the Omnibus Resolution/list constitutes forum shopping. The Santos doctrine shall continue to apply to every case with a similar or parallel factual setting. | |||||