Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OCTAVIO A. KALALO v. ALFREDO J. LUZ

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 134269 2010-07-07	LEARNING CHILD v. AYALA ALABANG VILLAGE ASSOCIATION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Estoppel has been characterized as harsh or odious, and not favored in law. When misapplied, estoppel becomes a most effective weapon to establish an injustice, inasmuch as it shuts a man's mouth from speaking the truth and debars the truth in a particular case. Estoppel cannot be sustained by mere argument or doubtful inference; it must be clearly proved in all its essential elements by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. x x x.[49]
	GR No. 175554 2008-12-23	EDSEL LIGA v. ALLEGRO RESOURCES CORP. TINGA, J.
The filing by Allegro of the Motion to Release Cash Bond in Favor of the Plaintiff did not operate to estop it from claiming a monthly rental rate of P40,000.00. Estoppel cannot be sustained by mere argument or doubtful inference.[31] Allegro did not abandon its stance nor did it represent to Liga that it was doing so. Liga cannot feign ignorance of such fact since Allegro's petition for review before the Court of Appeals puts as an issue the reduction by the RTC of the monthly rentals from P40,000.00 to P20,000.00.[32] Allegro never made any deed or representation that could have misled Liga.
	GR No. 151963 2004-09-09	AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION SERVICES PHILS. PANGANIBAN, J.
Estoppel likewise applies. For one, respondent lacked "knowledge and x x x the means of knowledge of the truth as to the facts in question";[73] namely, whether petitioner's counsel had any authority to bind his principal. Moreover, respondent relied "in good faith"[74] upon petitioner's conduct and statements; and its action "based thereon [was] of such character as to change the position or status of the party claiming the estoppel, to his injury, detriment or prejudice."[75] If it was also true that petitioner's counsel exceeded his authority in entering into the Receipt/Agreement, the negligence or omission of petitioner to assert its right within a reasonable time only warranted a presumption that it either abandoned or declined to assert it.[76]
	GR No. 149454 and GR No. 149507 2004-05-28	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CASA MONTESSORI INTERNATIONALE PANGANIBAN, J.
In the instant case, CASA never made any deed or representation that misled BPI. The former's omission, if any, may only be deemed an innocent mistake oblivious to the procedures and consequences of periodic audits. Since its conduct was due to such ignorance founded upon an innocent mistake, estoppel will not arise.[97] A person who has no knowledge of or consent to a transaction may not be estopped by it.[98] "Estoppel cannot be sustained by mere argument or doubtful inference x x x."[99] CASA is not barred from questioning BPI's error even after the lapse of the period given in the notice.
	GR No. 147410 2004-02-05	INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY v. ASSET BUILDERS CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
"Estoppel cannot be sustained by mere argument or doubtful inference; it must be clearly proved in all its essential elements by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence."[81] It is hardly separable from the waiver of a right.[82] The party claiming estoppel must show the following elements: "(1) lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge of the truth as to the facts in question; (2) reliance, in good faith, upon the conduct or statements of the party to be estopped; and (3) action or inaction based thereon of such character as to change the position or status of the party claiming the estoppel, to his injury, detriment or prejudice."[83]