Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 183297 2009-12-23	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. OMAR G. MARUHOM NACHURA, J.
As we explained in Camarines Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Court of Appeals:[16]
	GR No. 155407 2008-11-11	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY v. VS.LEONILO A. MAGLASANG LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In expropriation proceedings, the value of the land and its character at the time it was taken by the government are the criteria for determining just compensation.[9] This is so because, there are instances when the expropriating agency takes over the property prior to the expropriation suit, in which situation just compensation shall be determined as of the time of taking.[10] The reason for the rule, as pointed out in Republic v. Lara,[11] is that
	GR NO. 146365 2005-02-28	SIMPLICIO A. PALANCA v. ULYSSIS GUIDES JOINED BY HER HUSBAND LORENZO GUIDES TINGA, J.
The most basic tenet of due process is the right to be heard. A court denies a party due process if it renders its orders without giving such party an opportunity to present its evidence.[42] Thus, in the application of this principle, what is sought to be safeguarded against is not the lack of previous notice, but the denial of the opportunity to be heard. The question is not whether petitioner succeeded in defending his interest, but whether he had the opportunity to present his side.[43] Petitioner was provided opportunities to present his case but these he utterly squandered.