Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NEGROS NAVIGATION CO. v. CA

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR No. 149121 2010-04-20	NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. AUGUSTO BASA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Moreover, respondents' stand on the non-applicability of the DBP case to other cases, absent any statement thereof to such effect, contravenes the principle of stare decisis which urges that courts are to apply principles declared in prior decisions that are substantially similar to a pending case.[60]
	GR No. 121833 2008-10-17	ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION v. CA TINGA, J.
Nonetheless, there are exceptional circumstances wherein the ship agent could still be held answerable despite the abandonment of the vessel, as where the loss or injury was due to the fault of the shipowner and the captain. The international rule is to the effect that the right of abandonment of vessels, as a legal limitation of a shipowner's liability, does not apply to cases where the injury or average was occasioned by the shipowner's own fault.[38] Likewise, the shipowner may be held liable for injuries to passengers notwithstanding the exclusively real and hypothecary nature of maritime law if fault can be attributed to the shipowner.[39]
	GR NO. 126890 2006-11-28	UNITED PLANTERS SUGAR MILLING COMPANY v. CA CARPIO, J.
PHILSUCOR further appealed to this Court but we dismissed its petition outright in the Resolution of 30 March 1998 in G.R. No. 132731. This ruling became final on 6 August 1998. The doctrine of stare decisis provides that a conclusion reached in one case should, for the sake of certainty, be applied to those which follow, if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different.[37] Accordingly, we apply the conclusion in the PHILSUCOR Case here.
	GR NO. 142358 2006-01-31	GRAND PLACEMENT v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the decision and disturb not what is settled. Stare decisis simply means that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. It proceeds from the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike.[42] Thus, where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue.[43]
	GR No. 144705 2005-11-15	NANCY L. TY v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS PROMULGATED: AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Time and again, the Court has held that it is a very desirable and necessary judicial practice that when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same. Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled. Stare decisis simply means that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. It proceeds from the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike.[13] Thus, where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue.[14]
	GR NO. 146486 2005-03-04	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The legal maxim "stare decisis et non quieta movere" (follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been settled) states that where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue.[32]
	GR No. 148737 2004-06-16	ERNESTO PLEYTO v. MARIA D. LOMBOY QUISUMBING, J.
Respondents counter that the deduction of 50% of the gross income as reasonable and necessary living expenses by the appellate court is in accord with established jurisprudence, pointing to our decision in Negros Navigation Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals.[21]
	GR No. 137980 2000-06-20	TALA REALTY SERVICES CORP. v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
That the principle of stare decisis applies in the instant case, even though the subject property is different, may be gleaned from the pronouncement in Negros Navigation Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,[10] to wit -
	GR No. 120646 2000-02-14	PEOPLE v. APOLINAR DANDO KAPUNAN, J.
The trial court correctly awarded the amount of P50,000 as indemnity for the death for Cesar Castro. Said amount is awarded without need of further proof other than the death of the victim.[35] In addition, the heirs are also entitled to receive a compensation for the loss of earning capacity of the victim. The formula for computing the same as established in decided cases[36] is as follows: Net Earning Capacity = Life Expectancy x Gross Annual Income - Necessary Living Expenses The life expectancy is equivalent to two thirds (2/3) multiplied by the difference of 80 and the age of the deceased.[37] Since Castro was 47 years old at the time of his death, his life expectancy was 22 more years.[38] Celso Castro testified that his father earned P3,000.00 monthly or P36,000.00 annually from the sash factory. In addition, the victim's annual income from farming, as found by the trial court, was P53,000.00. The gross annual income of the deceased was P89,000.00. Allowing for necessary living expenses of fifty percent (50%) of his gross earnings, his total net earning capacity amounts to P979,000.00.[39]