Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MANUEL G. ABELLO v. CIR

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 176162 2012-10-09	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. CA MENDOZA, J.
These are consolidated petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the December 29, 2006 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 95293, entitled "Dr. Dante G. Guevarra and Atty. Augustus Cezar v. Civil Service Commission and Atty. Honesto L. Cueva."
	GR No. 198742 2012-08-10	TEODORA SOBEJANA-CONDON v. COMELEC REYES, J.
At the outset, it bears stressing that the Court's duty to interpret the law according to its true intent is exercised only when the law is ambiguous or of doubtful meaning. The first and fundamental duty of the Court is to apply the law. As such, when the law is clear and free from any doubt, there is no occasion for construction or interpretation; there is only room for application.[19] Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 is one such instance.
	GR NO. 158014 2007-08-28	ROSULO LOPEZ MANLANGIT v. SANDIGANBAYAN QUISUMBING, J.
Nowhere in the provision does it require that there first be a demand before an accountable officer is held liable for a violation of the crime. The law is very clear. Where none is provided, the court may not introduce exceptions or conditions, neither may it engraft into the law qualifications not contemplated.[17] Where the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to mean exactly what it says and the court has no choice but to see to it that its mandate is obeyed.[18] There is no room for interpretation, but only application.[19]
	GR NO. 168550 2006-08-10	URBANO M. MORENO TINGA, J.
Even assuming that there is an ambiguity in Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code which gives room for judicial interpretation,[14] our conclusion will remain the same.