This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-06-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, there is res judicata where the following four essential conditions concur, viz.: (1) there must be a final judgment or order; (2) the court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment or order on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the two cases, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.[24] | |||||
|
2015-02-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| At the outset, we note that in his brief[31] filed with the CA, appellant challenged "AAA's" credibility by highlighting the discrepancy between her testimony and the allegation in the Information in Criminal Case No. 207 as to the date of the commission of the third rape. "AAA" asserted that the third rape happened on August 21, 2003, while the Information stated that it occurred on August 4, 2003. In debunking appellant's argument, the CA held: The alleged inconsistency in the date of the third rape is trivial and forgivable, since a victim of rape cannot possibly give an exacting detail for each of the previous incidents as these may just be but mere fragments of a prolonged and continuing nightmare, a bad experience she might even be struggling to forget. Verily, the exact date of rape is not an essential element of the crime, and the mere failure to give a precise date, let alone an incorrect estimate, will not discredit the testimony of the victim.[32] | |||||
|
2014-06-09 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In this regard, petitioner is misguided when it relied upon the six (6)-year prescriptive period for initiating an action on the ground of quasi-contract or solutio indebiti under Article 1145 of the New Civil Code. There is solutio indebiti where: (1) payment is made when there exists no binding relation between the payor, who has no duty to pay, and the person who received the payment; and (2) the payment is made through mistake, and not through liberality or some other cause.[35] Here, there is a binding relation between petitioner as the taxing authority in this jurisdiction and respondent MERALCO which is bound under the law to act as a withholding agent of NORD/LB Singapore Branch, the taxpayer. Hence, the first element of solutio indebiti is lacking. Moreover, such legal precept is inapplicable to the present case since the Tax Code, a special law, explicitly provides for a mandatory period for claiming a refund for taxes erroneously paid. | |||||
|
2007-03-02 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| A compromise is binding and has the force of law between the parties, unless the consent of a party is vitiated-such as by mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation or undue influence-or when there is forgery, or if the terms of the settlement are so palpably unconscionable.[33] | |||||
|
2004-11-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| A compromise is an agreement between two or more persons who, aiming to prevent or put an end to a lawsuit, adjust their respective positions by mutual consent. Reciprocal concessions are the very heart and life of every compromise agreement. Each party approximates and concedes a point in the hope of gaining, balanced by the danger of losing, its own advantage. It is, in essence, a contract. It is binding and has the force of law between the parties unless it is a void contract under Article 1409 of the Civil Code, or unless the consent of a party is vitiated (such as by mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation or undue influence) or when there is forgery, or if the terms of the settlement are so palpably unconscionable.[33] It has upon the parties the effect and authority of res judicata,[34] and when the court renders a judgment based on the compromise agreement, the judgment becomes immediately executory, there being an implied waiver of the parties' right to appeal from the decision.[35] | |||||