This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-10-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The Court explained in Cambroon v. City of Butuan,[36] cited in Republic v. De Guzman,[37] to whom payment should be made in order to extinguish an obligation: Payment made by the debtor to the person of the creditor or to one authorized by him or by the law to receive it extinguishes the obligation. When payment is made to the wrong party, however, the obligation is not extinguished as to the creditor who is without fault or negligence even if the debtor acted in utmost good faith and by mistake as to the person of the creditor or through error induced by fraud of a third person. | |||||
|
2012-02-15 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| It is a well-settled rule that in a petition for review under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court.[20] It is the burden of the party seeking review of a decision of the CA or other lower tribunals to distinctly set forth in his petition for review, not only the existence of questions of law fairly and logically arising therefrom, but also questions substantial enough to merit consideration, or show that there are special and important reasons warranting the review that he seeks.[21] | |||||