This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-09-10 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Petitioners' counsel, when queried, hedged on what specific constitutional proscriptions or concepts had been infringed by the award of the subject automation project to Smartmatic TIM Corporation, although he was heard to say that "our objection to the system is anchored on the Constitution itself a violation [sic] of secrecy of voting and the sanctity of the ballot."[41] Petitioners also depicted the covering automation contract as constituting an abdication by the Comelec of its election-related mandate under the Constitution, which is to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections. Worse still, according to the petitioners, the abdication, with its anti-dummy dimension, is in favor of a foreign corporation that will be providing the hardware and software requirements.[42] And when pressed further, petitioners came out with the observation that, owing in part to the sheer length of the ballot, the PCOS would not comply with Art. V, Sec. 2 of the Constitution[43] prescribing secrecy of voting and sanctity of the ballot.[44] | |||||
|
2008-04-16 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The legal concept of a joint venture is of common law origin. It has no precise legal definition, but it has been generally understood to mean an organization formed for some temporary purpose. x x x It is in fact hardly distinguishable from the partnership, since their elements are similar - community of interest in the business, sharing of profits and losses, and a mutual right of control. x x x The main distinction cited by most opinions in common law jurisdictions is that the partnership contemplates a general business with some degree of continuity, while the joint venture is formed for the execution of a single transaction, and is thus of a temporary nature. x x x This observation is not entirely accurate in this jurisdiction, since under the Civil Code, a partnership may be particular or universal, and a particular partnership may have for its object a specific undertaking. x x x It would seem therefore that under Philippine law, a joint venture is a form of partnership and should be governed by the law of partnerships. The Supreme Court has however recognized a distinction between these two business forms, and has held that although a corporation cannot enter into a partnership contract, it may however engage in a joint venture with others. x x x (Citations omitted) [16] | |||||
|
2006-06-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| SO ORDERED.[40] Citing the ruling of this Court in Aurbach v. Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corporation,[41] the appellate court ruled that, under Philippine law, a joint venture is a form of partnership and is to be governed by the laws of partnership. The aggrieved parties filed a motion for reconsideration,[42] which the CA denied in its Resolution[43] dated March 7, 2005. | |||||
|
2004-01-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| interest";[18] in other words, it is of "paramount public interest"[19] and "transcendental importance."[20] This fact alone would justify relaxing the rule on legal standing, following the liberal policy of this Court whenever a case involves "an issue of overarching significance to our society."[21] Petitioners' legal standing should therefore be recognized and upheld. Moreover, this Court has held that taxpayers are allowed to sue when there is a claim of "illegal disbursement of public funds,"[22] or if public money is being "deflected to any improper purpose";[23] or when petitioners seek to | |||||
|
2000-11-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| A joint venture is an association of persons or companies jointly undertaking some commercial enterprise with all of them generally contributing assets and sharing risks. It requires a community of interest in the performance of the subject matter, a right to direct and govern the policy in connection therewith, and duty, which may be altered by agreement to share both in profit and losses.[26] Persons and business enterprises usually enter into a joint venture because it is exempt from corporate income tax.[27] Considered more of a partnership,[28] a joint venture is governed by the laws on contracts and on partnership. The joint venture created between NIDC and Kawasaki falls within the purview of an "association" pursuant to Section 5 of Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution and Section 11 of Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. Consequently, a joint venture that would engage in the business of operating a public utility, such as a shipyard, must observe the proportion of 60%-40% Filipino-foreign capitalization. | |||||