This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-11-20 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 11-077 and raffled to Branch 276, which is not a Special Commercial Court. On August 9, 2011, said branch issued a temporary restraining order,[9] and later, in an Order[10] dated August 24, 2011, granted the application for a writ of preliminary injunction. | |||||
|
2010-06-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is a rule in statutory construction that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment.[9] Because the law must not be read in truncated parts, its provisions must be read in relation to the whole law. The statute's clauses and phrases must not, consequently, be taken as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part thereof must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts in order to produce a harmonious whole.[10] Consistent with the fundamentals of statutory construction, all the words in the statute must be taken into consideration in order to ascertain its meaning.[11] | |||||
|
2009-02-27 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| SMART relies on two provisions of law to support its claim for tax exemption: Section 9 of SMART's franchise and Section 23 of the Public Telecoms Act. After a review of pertinent laws and jurisprudence - particularly of SMART Communications, Inc. v. City of Davao,[4] a case which, except for the respondent, involves the same set of facts and issues - we find SMART's claim for exemption to be unfounded. Consequently, we find the petition meritorious. | |||||