This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-06-22 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner, however, correctly argued that the principle of equity did not apply in this case. Equity, which has been aptly described as "justice outside legality," is applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or judicial rules of procedure.[18] Positive rules prevail over all abstract arguments based on equity contra legem.[19] Neither is the principle of unjust enrichment applicable since petitioner (who was to benefit from it) had a valid claim.[20] | |||||
|
2009-01-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As to petitioners' contention that they should be deemed real parties in interest based on the principle of equity, we rule otherwise. Equity, which has been aptly described as "justice outside legality," is applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or judicial rules of procedure. Positive rules prevail over all abstract arguments based on equity contra legem.[26] | |||||