ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus
Latin maxim.
• “Where the law does not distinguish, neither should we.” (Sps. Plopenio v. DAR, G.R. No. 161090 and 161092, July 4, 2012)
Similar Posts
verba legis non est recedendum
Latin maxim. • “from the words of a statute there should be no departure” (Chavez v. JBC, En Banc, G.R. No. 202242, July 17, 2012)
ex dolo malo non oritur actio
Latin maxim. • “The law will not aid either party to an illegal agreement; it leaves the parties where it finds them.” (Bough v. Cantiveros, En Banc, G.R. No. 13300, September 29, 1919) • “A party to an illegal contract cannot come into a court of law and ask to have his illegal objects carried…
exception firmat regulam in casibus non exceptis
Latin maxim. • “a thing not being excepted must be regarded as coming within the purview of the general rule” (South African Airways v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 180356, February 16, 2010)
actus me incito factus non est meus actus
Latin maxim • “an act done by me against my will is not my act” (United States v. Ah Chong, En Banc, G.R. No. L-5272, March 19, 1910)
lex prospicit, non respicit
• “the law looks forward not backward” (Co v. CA, En Banc, G.R. No. 100776, October 28, 1993, citing Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No 97998, Jan. 27, 1992)
legis interpretation legis vim obtinet
Latin maxim. • “the interpretation placed upon the written law by a competent court has the force of law” (Co v. CA, En Banc, G.R. No. 100776, October 28, 1993, citing Peo. v. Jabinal, 55 SCRA 607, 611) the interpretation placed upon the written law by a competent court has the force of law.
