This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-07-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A reading of this provision clearly shows that the acts complained of are beyond the scope of a petition for prohibition and mandamus. The use of the permissive word "may" implies that the public respondents have discretion when their duty to execute evictions and/or demolitions shall be performed. Where the words of a statute are clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.[18] | |||||
|
2011-01-21 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Considering that the construction of a statute given by administrative agencies deserves respect,[35] the uniform administrative constructions of the relevant aforequoted laws defining what are government-owned or -controlled corporations as applied to RPN is highly persuasive. | |||||