This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-06-10 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| It is ingrained in jurisprudence that the constitutional prohibition on the impairment of the obligation of contracts does not prohibit every change in existing laws. To fall within the prohibition, the change must not only impair the obligation of the existing contract, but the impairment must be substantial.[27] What constitutes substantial impairment was explained by this Court in Clemons v. Nolting:[28] | |||||