Laxamana vs Baltazar GR L-5955 September 19, 1952

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION- WITH REGARD TO AN ISSUE OF A PARTICULAR STATUTE BEING PARAMOUNT OVER A GENERAL STATUTE IN CASE OF CONFLICT

Jose Laxamana (appointed by the provincial govt)

vs.

Jose T. Baltazar (municipal vice president) No. L-5955 19September1952

 

FACTS OF THE CASE:

July 1952 the mayor of Saxmoan Pampanga was suspended the vice-mayor Jose T. Baltazar, assumed office as mayor by virtue of sec. 2195 of the Revised Administrative Code. However the Provincial Governor acting under the Revised Election Code sec 21(a) with the consent of the Provincial Board appointed Jose L. Laxamana as mayor of Saxmoan, who immediately took the corresponding official oath.

 

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

If the provision in the revised administrative was repealed by the subsequent provision of the Revised election code.

In the revised administrative code it explicitly says that in the absence of the municipal president the vice-president should take its place.

Even after the enactment of the Revised Election Code the Dep't of the Interior and the ofc of the executive secretary have consistently held that in the case of suspension or other temporary disability shall by operation of the law assume the office of mayor.

 

HELD:

 

THE COURT DISMISSED THE QUO WARRANTO PETITION OF LAXAMANA

Consequently it is our ruling that when the mayor of a municipality is suspended, absent or temporarily unable, his duties should be discharged by the vice-mayor in accordance with sec. 2195 of the Revised Administrative Code.

 

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION LESSON:

Where one statute deals with a subject in general terms and another deals with the same subject in a more detailed way, the two shall be harmonized if possible but if there be any conflict the latter will prevail (When a general and a particular provision are inconsistent the latter is paramount to the former)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO G.R. No. 73748

  [President Corazon C. Aquino] was installed by direct sovereignty, the people. The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control of the entire country. It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a je jure government; and the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government. LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO (G.R. No. 73748 - May 22, 1986) (There is no "Full-Text" of this case. This is a Minute Resolution made by the SC.) Minute Resolutions EN BANC   SIRS/MESDAMES: Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court MAY 22, 1986. In G.R. No. 73748, Lawyers League for a Better Philippines vs. President Corazon C. Aquino, et al .; G.R. No. 73972, People's Crusade for Supremacy of the Constitution vs. Mrs. Cory Aquino, et al ., and G.R. No. 73990, Councilor Clifton U. Ganay vs. Corazon C. Aquino, et al ., the legitimacy of the government of President Aquin...
Read more

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine   GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000   FACTS : Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.   ISSUE : Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?   HELD : No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there...
Read more

Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003,

V erba legis , that is, wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their  ordinary meaning  except where technical terms are employed. ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. vs. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003. http://lapispapelatereyser.blogspot.com/2012/10/case-digest_9528.html FACTS: On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution, sponsored by Representative Felix William D. Fuentebella, which directed the Committee on Justice "to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)."   On June 2, 2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices of this Court for "culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other high crimes." The complaint ...
Read more