This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2016-02-10 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Unjust enrichment exists when a person unjustly retains a benefit at the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience.[44] The prevention of unjust enrichment is a recognized public policy of the State, as embodied in Article 22 of the Civil Code which 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."[45] | |||||
|
2016-02-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Unjust enrichment exists "when a person unjustly retains a benefit at the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience."[62] The prevention of unjust enrichment is a recognized public policy of the State and is based on Article 22 of the Civil Code.[63] | |||||
|
2015-09-14 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In Loria v. Muñoz, Jr.,[97] Carlos Loria asked Ludolfo Muñoz, Jr. "to advance [P]2,000,000.00 for a subcontract of a [P]50,000,000.00 river-dredging project in Guinobatan."[98] Loria informed Muñoz that the project would be awarded to Sunwest Construction and Development Corporation, and Sunwest would subcontract to Muñoz.[99] Muñoz agreed to Loria's proposal.[100] When the river-dredging project was finished, Loria did not return the P2,000,000.00 despite Muñoz's demand.[101] Complaint for sum of money.[102] Loria raised the argument that Muñoz "should not be allowed to recover the money"[103] since they were in pari delicto.[104] This court held that under the principle of unjust enrichment, the sum of money should be returned.[105] In so ruling, this court cited Gonzalo v. Tarnate, Jr.[106] where it was explained that: . . . the application of the doctrine of in pari delicto is not always rigid. An accepted exception arises when its application contravenes well-established public policy. In this jurisdiction, public policy has been defined as "that principle of the law which holds that no subject or citizen can lawfully do that which has a tendency to hi injurious to the public or against the public good." | |||||
|
2015-06-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Fourth, the ponencia 's reliance on the doctrine of in pari delicto in justifying the partial invalidity of the mortgage is fatally flawed. The phrase means, in essence, that since both parties are equally at fault, the court will not involve itself in resolving one side's claim over the other, and whoever possesses whatever is in dispute may continue to do so in the absence of a superior claim.[22] Nonetheless, the application of the doctrine of in pari delicto is not always rigid. An accepted exception arises when its application contravenes well-established public policy.[23] As we held in Prudential Bank v. Panis.[24] | |||||
|
2014-10-15 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In Gonzalo v. Tarnate, Jr.,[58] the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) awarded the contract to Dominador Gonzalo to improve the Sadsadan-Maba-ay section of the Mountain Province Road. Gonzalo then subcontracted the supply of materials and labor to John Tarnate, Jr. without the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Highways. The parties agreed to a total subcontract fee of 12% of the project's contract price.[59] | |||||
|
2014-10-15 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Generally, parties to an illegal contract may not recover what they gave under the contract.[68] Under the doctrine of in pari delicto, "no action arises, in equity or at law, from an illegal contract[.] No suit can be maintained for its specific performance, or to recover the property agreed to be sold or delivered, or the money agreed to be paid, or damages for its violation[.]"[69] | |||||