Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HERBERT CANG v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 123650 2009-03-23	WESTMONT BANK v. INLAND CONSTRUCTION CARPIO MORALES, J.
Both the trial court's and the appellate court's inferences and conclusion that petitioner ratified its account officer's act are thus rationally based on evidence and circumstances duly highlighted in their respective decisions. Absent any serious abuse or evident lack of basis or capriciousness of any kind, the lower courts' findings of fact are conclusive upon this Court.[30]
	GR NO. 164948 2006-06-27	DIWATA RAMOS LANDINGIN v. REPUBLIC CALLEJO, SR., J.
However, in Cang v. Court of Appeals,[30] the Court also ruled that the liberality with which this Court treats matters leading to adoption insofar as it carries out the beneficent purposes of the law to ensure the rights and privileges of the adopted child arising therefrom, ever mindful that the paramount consideration is the overall benefit and interest of the adopted child, should be understood in its proper context and perspective. The Court's position should not be misconstrued or misinterpreted as to extend to inferences beyond the contemplation of law and jurisprudence. Thus, the discretion to approve adoption proceedings is not to be anchored solely on best interests of the child but likewise, with due regard to the natural rights of the parents over the child.[31]
	GR No. 125297 2003-06-06	ELVIRA YU OH v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In the case of Cang vs. Court of Appeals,[18] this Court held that "jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action determines the jurisdiction of the court."[19] R.A. No. 7691 was not yet in force at the time of the commencement of the cases in the trial court. It took effect only during the pendency of the appeal before the Court of Appeals.[20] There is therefore no merit in the claim of petitioner that R.A. No. 7691 should be retroactively applied to this case and the same be remanded to the MTC. The Court has held that a "law vesting additional jurisdiction in the court cannot be given retroactive effect."[21]