Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALFREDO M. OUANO v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 178087 2010-05-05	CIR v. KUDOS METAL CORPORATION DEL CASTILLO, J.
The doctrine of estoppel cannot be applied in this case as an exception to the statute of limitations on the assessment of taxes considering that there is a detailed procedure for the proper execution of the waiver, which the BIR must strictly follow. As we have often said, the doctrine of estoppel is predicated on, and has its origin in, equity which, broadly defined, is justice according to natural law and right.[22] As such, the doctrine of estoppel cannot give validity to an act that is prohibited by law or one that is against public policy.[23] It should be resorted to solely as a means of preventing injustice and should not be permitted to defeat the administration of the law, or to accomplish a wrong or secure an undue advantage, or to extend beyond them requirements of the transactions in which they originate.[24] Simply put, the doctrine of estoppel must be sparingly applied.
	GR NO. 152949 2007-08-14	AKLAN COLLEGE v. RODOLFO P. GUARINO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In the present case, the employment of respondent as Acting Dean is contrary to the express provisions of the 1970 Manual. It is settled that estoppel cannot give validity to an act that is prohibited by law, or one that is against public policy.[20] Neither can the defense of illegality be waived.[21] Hence, respondent's appointment as Acting Dean can never be deemed validated by estoppel.
	AM NO. P-06-2135 2007-05-25	ADORACION PAGUYO v. CHARLIE S. GATBUNTON GARCIA, J.
In Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[14] the Court emphasized the need for the republication of the Notice of Sheriff's Sale of a postponed extrajudicial sale for the latter's validity. In that case, we held, citing Ouano v. CA:[15]
	GR NO. 163269 2006-04-19	ROLANDO C. RIVERA v. PROMULGATED: SOLIDBANK CORPORATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
Undeniably, petitioner retired under the SRP and received P963,619.28 from respondent. However, petitioner is not proscribed, by waiver or estoppel, from assailing the post-retirement competitive employment ban since under Article 1409 of the New Civil Code, those contracts whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy are inexistent or void from the beginning. Estoppel cannot give validity to an act that is prohibited by law or one that is against public policy.[51]
	GR No. 153535 2005-07-28	SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. MINDANAO FERROALLOY CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
Further, the agreement involved here is a "contract of adhesion," which was prepared entirely by one party and offered to the other on a "take it or leave it" basis. Following the general rule, the contract must be read against petitioner, because it was the party that prepared it,[18] more so because a bank is held to high standards of care in the conduct of its business.[19]
	GR No. 125838 2003-06-10	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA CARPIO, J.
The Court held recently in Ouano v. Court of Appeals[22] that republication in the manner prescribed by Act No. 3135 is necessary for the validity of a postponed extrajudicial foreclosure sale. Another publication is required in case the auction sale is rescheduled, and the absence of such republication invalidates the foreclosure sale.