This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-07-01 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The principle of laches is a creation of equity which, as such, is applied not really to penalize neglect or sleeping upon one's right, but rather to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable situation.[26] The time-honored rule anchored on public policy is that relief will be denied to a litigant whose claim or demand has become "stale," or who has acquiesced for an unreasonable length of time, or who lias not been vigilant or who has slept on his rights either by negligence, folly or inattention. In other words, public policy requires, for peace of society, the discouragement of claims grown stale for non-assertion; thus laches is an impediment to the assertion or enforcement of a right which has become, under the circumstances, inequitable or unfair to permit.[27] | |||||
|
2014-03-24 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The same reasoning applies to the failure to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping. We can likewise relax our treatment of the defect. Additionally, while the 2005 NLRC Rules specifically stated that a certificate of non-forum shopping should be attached, the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure[21] no longer requires it. Jurisprudence, too, is replete with instances when the Court relaxed the rules involving the attachment of the certificate of non-forum shopping.[22] Under these circumstances, we see no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in admitting the petition. | |||||
|
2013-04-10 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court's disquisitions point favorably toward the direction of petitioners' argument. In Heirs of Domingo Hernandez, Sr. v. Mingoa, Sr.,[38] the Court ruled that | |||||
|
2011-09-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Laches means the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by observance of due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert his right either has abandoned or declined to assert it. Laches thus operates as a bar in equity.[38] The essential elements of laches are: (a) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation complained of; (b) delay in asserting complainant's rights after he had knowledge of defendant's acts and after he has had the opportunity to sue; (c) lack of knowledge or notice by defendant that the complainant will assert the right on which he bases his suit; and (d) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event the relief is accorded to the complainant.[39] | |||||
|
2011-06-01 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, liberality and leniency were accorded in some cases.[13] In these cases, however, those who did not sign were relatives of the lone signatory, so unlike in this case, where Malcaba is not a relative who is similarly situated with the other petitioners and who cannot speak for them. In the case of Heirs of Domingo Hernandez, Sr. v. Plaridel Mingoa, Sr.,[14] it was written: In the instant case, petitioners share a common interest and defense inasmuch as they collectively claim a right not to be dispossessed of the subject lot by virtue of their and their deceased parents' construction of a family home and occupation thereof for more than 10 years. The commonality of their stance to defend their alleged right over the controverted lot thus gave petitioners xxx authority to inform the Court of Appeals in behalf of the other petitioners that they have not commenced any action or claim involving the same issues in another court or tribunal, and that there is no other pending action or claim in another court or tribunal involving the same issues. | |||||