This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-02-02 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner was not able to provide any proof that the consent of the Republic, through the appropriate government agencies, i.e. the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Land Management Bureau, Land Registration Authority, and the Office of the President, was secured by the OSG when it executed the agreement with her.[40] The lack of authority on the part of the OSG rendered the compromise agreement between the parties null and void because although it is the duty of the OSG to represent the State in cases involving land registration proceedings, it must do so only within the scope of the authority granted to it by its principal, the Republic of the Philippines.[41] | |||||
|
2006-11-16 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution gives this Court the power to "[p]romulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts." It is within the inherent power of the Court to suspend its own rules in particular cases in order to do justice.[15] In Kathy-O Enterprises v. NLRC,[16] the Court found the reason for the 3-day delay in the filing of the appeal with the NLRC justifiable, having been caused by "inadvertence amounting to excusable negligence." The Court observed that due to the presence of an upward stroke, the "5" in "25 January" appeared to be and could have been mistaken as an "8," thus leading KATHY-O's counsel to misread "25 January," the date of receipt stamped by his receiving clerk on the copy of the decision intended for said counsel, as "28 January." We held:When proper, no serious impediment bars the allowance of tardy appeals under the Rules of Court, in recognition of this Court's inherent power to suspend adjective rules. It is a different matter, however, when the period to appeal is provided by statute, as in labor cases. For obvious reasons, this Court cannot ordinarily suspend the statute's operation. x x x Nevertheless, if only to be able to dispense substantial justice, strict observance of the period to appeal may not be exacted. Thus, in Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. of the Philippines v. Lariosa,[17] an appeal in a labor dispute was given due course despite the lapse of fourteen (14) days from notice of the decision, due to the fact that the Notice of Decision received by Lariosa's lawyer advised the parties that the appeal could be taken to the NLRC within ten (10) "working" days not calendar days from notice of the decision. For the same reason was the appeal in Chong Guan Trading v. NLRC[18] allowed. While in City Fair Corporation v. NLRC,[19] we ruled that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it entertained an appeal filed one (1) day late considering that the "facts and circumstances of the case warrant liberality considering the amount and the issue involved." | |||||
|
2005-05-17 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Article 1878 of the New Civil Code provides that an SPA is required for a compromise. Furthermore, the power of attorney should expressly mention the action for which it is drawn; as such, a compromise agreement executed by one in behalf of another, who is not duly authorized to do so by the principal, is void and has no legal effect, and the judgment based on such compromise agreement is null and void.[47] The judgment may thus be impugned and its execution may be enjoined in any proceeding by the party against whom it is sought to be enforced.[48] A compromise must be strictly construed and can include only those expressly or impliedly included therein.[49] | |||||
|
2004-09-09 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the Receipt/Agreement is not a promise to pay that "amounts to an offer to compromise and requires a special power of attorney or the express consent of petitioner."[81] A compromise agreement is "a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced."[82] No such reciprocal concessions[83] were made in this case. Thus, the Receipt/Agreement is but an outright admission of petitioner of its obligation, after making partial payment, to pay the balance of its account. And even if we were to consider the same as a compromise, from its nature as a contract, the absence of an SPA does not render it void, but merely unenforceable.[84] | |||||