Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. LIM SIO WAN

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 161151 2014-03-24	BJDC CONSTRUCTION v. NENA E. LANUZO BERSAMIN, J.
Negligence, the Court said in Layugan v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[17] is "the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do,[18] or as Judge Cooley defines it, '(t)he failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.'"[19] In order that a party may be held liable for damages for any injury brought about by the negligence of another, the claimant must prove that the negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of the injury. Proximate cause is defined as "that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred."[20]
	GR No. 175350 2012-06-13	EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION v. SPECIAL STEEL PRODUCTS DEL CASTILLO, J.
Equitable is correct. There is unjust enrichment when (1) a person is unjustly benefited, and (2) such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another.[69] In the instant case, the fraudulent scheme concocted by Uy allowed him to improperly receive the proceeds of the three crossed checks and enjoy the profits from these proceeds during the entire time that it was withheld from SSPI. Equitable, through its gross negligence and mislaid trust on Uy, became an unwitting instrument in Uy's scheme. Equitable's fault renders it solidarily liable with Uy, insofar as respondents are concerned. Nevertheless, as between Equitable and Uy, Equitable should be allowed to recover from Uy whatever amounts Equitable may be made to pay under the judgment. It is clear that Equitable did not profit in Uy's scheme. Disallowing Equitable's cross-claim against Uy is tantamount to allowing Uy to unjustly enrich himself at the expense of Equitable. For this reason, the Court allows Equitable's cross-claim against Uy.
	GR No. 170865 2012-04-25	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SPS. CHEAH CHEE CHONG AND OFELIA CAMACHO CHEAH DEL CASTILLO, J.
"Proximate cause is 'that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred.' x x x To determine the proximate cause of a controversy, the question that needs to be asked is: If the event did not happen, would the injury have resulted? If the answer is no, then the event is the proximate cause."[34]
	GR No. 158562 2010-04-23	RAMON R. YAP v. VS.COMMISION ON AUDIT LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We have ruled before that there is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains the money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience.[30] In the case at bar, the assailed COA Decision No. 2002-213 dated September 24, 2002 and the CAO II's 1st Indorsement dated December 12, 2000 recognized that petitioner's appointment to the Board of Directors of MGC "entitled him to honoraria equivalent to fifty percent (50%) of his basic salary at NDC and various allowances attached to the office."[31] Furthermore, petitioner's own assertion in his Motion for Reconsideration of COA Decision No. 2002-213 belies his claim of being totally uncompensated, since petitioner stated therein that "[a]s the NDC representative in MGC, he was not getting the entire compensation package for such position."[32] Thus, petitioner did not render his services to MGC for free, because it did not appear that his honoraria were among the expenditures that were disallowed by respondent COA.
	GR No. 163794 2008-11-28	REPUBLIC v. NORMELITO J. BALLOCANAG NACHURA, J.
Nemo cum alterius detrimento locupletari potest.[28] This basic doctrine on unjust enrichment simply means that a person shall not be allowed to profit or enrich himself inequitably at another's expense.[29] There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience.[30] Article 22 of the Civil Code states the rule in this wise:ART. 22. Every person who, through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.