Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 191995 2011-08-03	PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK v. JUSTINA CALLANGAN BRION, J.
In making this argument, the Bank ignores the fact that the first and fundamental duty of the Court is to apply the law.[11] Construction and interpretation come only after a demonstration that the application of the law is impossible or inadequate unless interpretation is resorted to.[12] In this case, we see the law to be very clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity; thus, no room exists for construction or interpretation.
	GR No. 148191 2003-11-25	CIR v. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
This Court has steadfastly adhered to the doctrine that its first and fundamental duty is the application of the law according to its express terms -- construction and interpretation being called for only when such literal application is impossible or inadequate without them.[96] In Quijano v. Development Bank of the Philippines,[97] we stressed as follows:"No process of interpretation or construction need be resorted to where a provision of law peremptorily calls for application." [98]