When the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation.

"Xxx. In Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court10 the Court enunciated:

It bears stressing that the first and fundamental duty of the Court is to apply the law. When the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation. As has been our consistent ruling, where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no occasion for interpretation; there is only room for application (Cebu Portland Cement Co. v. Municipality of Naga, 24 SCRA 708 [1968])

Where the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to mean exactly what it says and the court has no choice but to see to it that its mandate is obeyed (Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople, 138 SCRA 273 [1985]; Luzon Surety Co., Inc. v. De Garcia, 30 SCRA 111 [1969]; Quijano v. Development Bank of the Philippines, 35 SCRA 270 [1970]).

Only when the law is ambiguous or of doubtful meaning may the court interpret or construe its true intent.l^vvphi1.net Ambiguity is a condition of admitting two or more meanings, of being understood in more than one way, or of referring to two or more things at the same time. A statute is ambiguous if it is admissible of two or more possible meanings, in which case, the Court is called upon to exercise one of its judicial functions, which is to interpret the law according to its true intent."


G. R. No. 120721 February 23, 2005

MANUEL G. ABELLO, JOSE C. CONCEPCION, TEODORO D. REGALA, AVELINO V. CRUZ, petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_120721_2005.html