Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 200402 2013-06-13	PRIVATIZATION v. STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SERENO, C.J.
To substitute the valuation of Dong-A Consortium for that of APT is to unduly interfere with the judgment of a government agency tasked to liquidate nonperforming assets of the government. APT and PMO are mandated to determine the most advantageous prices that will improve the financial situation of the government. Given that discretion, they cannot be directed by the courts to do a particular act or be enjoined from doing an act within their prerogatives.[32]
	GR No. 166471 2011-03-22	TAWANG MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE v. LA TRINIDAD WATER DISTRICT CARPIO, J.
In Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, Inc.,[8] the Court held that, "What one cannot do directly, he cannot do indirectly."[9] In Akbayan Citizens Action Party v. Aquino,[10] quoting Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.,[11] the Court held that, "This Court has long and consistently adhered to the legal maxim that those that cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly."[12] In Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,[13] the Court held that, "No one is allowed to do indirectly what he is prohibited to do directly."[14]