This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-03-30 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The license was thus subject to Section 69 of PD 463, which reads: "Section 69. Maximum Area of Quarry License Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 14 hereof, a quarry license shall cover an area of not more than one hundred (100) hectares in any one province and not more than one thousand (1,000) hectares in the entire Philippines." (Italics supplied) The language of PD 463 is clear. It states in categorical and mandatory terms that a quarry license, like that of respondents, should cover a maximum of 100 hectares in any given province. This law neither provides any exception nor makes any reference to the number of applications for a license. Section 69 of PD 463 must be taken to mean exactly what it says. Where the law is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.[22] | |||||
|
2004-01-14 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the Del Mar case where a similar issue was raised when PAGCOR entered into a joint venture agreement with two other entities in the operation and management of jai alai games, the Court,[8] in an En Banc Resolution dated 24 August 2001, partially granted the motions for clarification filed by respondents therein insofar as it prayed that PAGCOR has a valid franchise, but only by itself (i.e. not in association with any other person or entity), to operate, maintain and/or manage the game of jai-alai. | |||||