This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-08-23 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We have further said that a procedural rule that is amended for the benefit of litigants in furtherance of the administration of justice shall be retroactively applied to likewise favor actions then pending, as equity delights in equality.[102] We may even relax stringent procedural rules in order to serve substantial justice and in the exercise of this Court's equity jurisdiction.[103] Equity jurisdiction aims to do complete justice in cases where a court of law is unable to adapt its judgments to the special circumstances of a case because of the inflexibility of its statutory or legal jurisdiction.[104] | |||||
|
2008-03-27 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The above provision of law was clarified in Reyes v. Lim, where we ruled that "[t]here 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."[58] | |||||
|
2006-01-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| x x x [T]he alleged payment by the petitioner as rentals were given to the former owner (Lopez) and not to the private respondent who was not privy to the transaction. As a matter of fact, it never benefited financially from the alleged transaction. Aside from that, the postdated checks the "private respondent" admitted to have received, as rental payments for September to December 1995, were never encashed. On the contrary, the private respondent even offered to return the same to the petitioner, but was refused. [T]herefore, it did not amount to payment.[12] We have held that "[t]here 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."[13] Article 22 of the Civil Code provides that "[e]very 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." The principle of unjust enrichment under Article 22 requires two conditions: (1) that a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification, and (2) that such benefit is derived at another's expense or damage.[14] | |||||