Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROLANDO N. CANET v. MAYOR JULIETA A. DECENA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 164152 2010-01-21	CIR v. JULIETA ARIETE CARPIO, J.
When a tax provision speaks unequivocally, it is not the province of a Court to scan its wisdom or its policy.[27] The more correct course of dealing with a question of construction is to take the words to mean exactly what they say. Where a provision of law expressly limits its application to certain transactions, it cannot be extended to other transactions by interpretation.[28]
	GR NO. 159268 2006-10-27	BALAGTAS MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE v. CA AZCUNA, J.
Consequently, where a general rule is established by a statute with exceptions, the Court will not curtail the former nor add to the latter by implication.[10] Courts may not, in the guise of interpretation, enlarge the scope of a statute and include therein situations not provided nor intended by the lawmakers.[11] Statutes which are plain and specific should be applied without attempted construction and interpretation. Thus, where a provision of law expressly limits its application to certain transactions, it cannot be extended to other transactions by interpretation.[12]
	GR NOS. 165510-33 2006-07-28	BENJAMIN T.ROMUALDEZ v. SIMEON V. MARCELO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Even on the assumption that there is in fact a legislative gap caused by such an omission, neither could the Court presume otherwise and supply the details thereof, because a legislative lacuna cannot be filled by judicial fiat. Indeed, courts may not, in the guise of the interpretation, enlarge the scope of a statute and include therein situations not provided nor intended by the lawmakers. An omission at the time of the enactment, whether careless or calculated, cannot be judicially supplied however after later wisdom may recommend the inclusion. Courts are not authorized to insert into the law what they think should be in it or to supply what they think the legislature would have supplied if its attention has been called to the omission.[28]
	GR NO. 147749 2006-06-22	SAN PABLO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. CIR CORONA, J.
Where the law enumerates the subject or condition upon which it applies, it is to be construed as excluding from its effects all those not expressly mentioned. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Anything that is not included in the enumeration is excluded therefrom and a meaning that does not appear nor is intended or reflected in the very language of the statute cannot be placed therein.[20] The rule proceeds from the premise that the legislature would not have made specific enumerations in a statute if it had the intention not to restrict its meaning and confine its terms to those expressly mentioned.[21]
	GR No. 155336 2004-11-25	CHR EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION v. CHR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
From the 1987 Constitution and the Administrative Code, it is abundantly clear that the CHR is not among the class of Constitutional Commissions. As expressed in the oft-repeated maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the express mention of one person, thing, act or consequence excludes all others. Stated otherwise, expressium facit cessare tacitum what is expressed puts an end to what is implied.[21]