This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-08-19 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Indeed, the rules of procedure need not always be applied in a strict, technical sense, since they were adopted to help secure and not override substantial justice.[41] "In clearly meritorious cases, the higher demands of substantial justice must transcend rigid observance of procedural rules."[42] | |||||
|
2012-08-29 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| A vested right is defined as one which is absolute, complete and unconditional, to the exercise of which no obstacle exists, and which is immediate and perfect in itself and not dependent upon a contingency.[18] The term "vested right" expresses the concept of present fixed interest which, in right reason and natural justice, should be protected against arbitrary State action, or an innately just and imperative right which enlightened free society, sensitive to inherent and irrefragable individual rights, cannot deny. To be vested, a right must have become a title legal or equitable to the present or future enjoyment of property.[19] | |||||
|
2012-07-04 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| However, the petitioner's claim of vested right is not one which is written on stone. In Go, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[61] we define and explained "vested right" in the following manner: A vested right is one whose existence, effectivity and extent do not depend upon events foreign to the will of the holder, or to the exercise of which no obstacle exists, and which is immediate and perfect in itself and not dependent upon a contingency. The term "vested right" expresses the concept of present fixed interest which, in right reason and natural justice, should be protected against arbitrary State action, or an innately just and imperative right which enlightened free society, sensitive to inherent and irrefragable individual rights, cannot deny. | |||||