This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2000-02-16 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Obviously, private respondents did not transgress the third and fifth elements above-mentioned. Petitioner has not shown that she suffered actual damage[7] nor that private respondents acted with evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.[8] | |||||
|
2000-01-20 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| Since the law alleged to have been violated, R.A. No. 3019, as amended, is a special law, the applicable rule in the computation of the prescriptive period is Section 2 of Act No. 3326,[17] as amended, which provides:SEC. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. | |||||