This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-06-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In the absence of a manifest and specific intent from which the same may be gleaned, moreover, Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 cannot be construed as an additional alternative to existing general retirement laws and/or an exception to the prohibition against separate or supplementary insurance retirement or pension plans as aforesaid. Aside from the fact that a meaning that does not appear nor is intended or reflected in the very language of the statute cannot be placed therein by construction,[27] petitioner would likewise do well to remember that repeal of laws should be made clear and express. Repeals by implication are not favored as laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation and full knowledge of all laws existing on the subject,[28] the congruent application of which the courts must generally presume.[29] For this reason, it has been held that the failure to add a specific repealing clause particularly mentioning the statute to be repealed indicates that the intent was not to repeal any existing law on the matter, unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exists in the terms of the new and old laws.[30] | |||||
|
2005-04-12 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Gabriel Q. Enriquez, the Chairman of the Committee on Discipline and the Assistant Administrator for Administrative Services, issued a Memorandum[4] to the petitioner dated September 3, 2001, requiring him to submit within three (3) days from notice thereof, his counter-affidavit and/or comment on the complaint. The petitioner, through counsel, submitted his Comment[5] dated October 13, 2001. Appended thereto was the Audit Report of the Commission on Audit (COA) Regional Office No. 8. | |||||
|
2004-06-15 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| On November 11, 2003, NASECORE filed a Motion for Production of Documents to enable it to evaluate MERALCO's Application. [7] | |||||