Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROYAL L. RUTTER v. PLACIDO J. ESTEBAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 171101 2011-07-05	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
Manila Motor Co., Inc., v. Flores [257] and De Agbayani v. Philippine National Bank, [258] cited by the ponencia, and Republic v. Herida, [259] and Republic v. CFI, [260] cited by Justice Brion, all involve the application of the debt moratorium laws. In those cases, the Court held that during the period from the effectivity of the debt moratorium laws until they were struck down as unconstitutional in Rutter v. Esteban, [261] the parties could not be faulted for relying on the belief that the payment of debts was suspended by virtue of the debt moratorium laws. In Fernandez v. P. Cuerva & Co., [262] another case relied on by the ponencia, another statute the Reorganization Law was the invalid act declared by the Court. In Rieta v. People, [263] also relied on by the ponencia, again another statute General Order No. 60 issued by former President Ferdinand Marcos under his martial law legislative power was invalidated.
	GR No. 148208 2004-12-15	CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS PUNO, J.
In the Philippine setting, this Court declared the continued enforcement of a valid law as unconstitutional as a consequence of significant changes in circumstances. Rutter v. Esteban[29] upheld the constitutionality of the moratorium law - its enactment and operation being a valid exercise by the State of its police power[30] - but also ruled that the continued enforcement of the otherwise valid law would be unreasonable and oppressive. It noted the subsequent changes in the country's business, industry and agriculture. Thus, the law was set aside because its continued operation would be grossly discriminatory and lead to the oppression of the creditors. The landmark ruling states:[31]
	GR No. 148208 2004-12-15	CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS PUNO, J.
In the Philippine setting, this Court declared the continued enforcement of a valid law as unconstitutional as a consequence of significant changes in circumstances. Rutter v. Esteban[29] upheld the constitutionality of the moratorium law - its enactment and operation being a valid exercise by the State of its police power[30] - but also ruled that the continued enforcement of the otherwise valid law would be unreasonable and oppressive. It noted the subsequent changes in the country's business, industry and agriculture. Thus, the law was set aside because its continued operation would be grossly discriminatory and lead to the oppression of the creditors. The landmark ruling states:[31]
	GR No. 148208 2004-12-15	CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS PUNO, J.
Most, if not all, international human rights instruments include some prohibition on discrimination and/or provisions about equality.[75] The general international provisions pertinent to discrimination and/or equality are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR);[76] the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD);[77] the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).