Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RAFAEL GELOS v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 161796 2012-02-08	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ESTATE OF J. AMADO ARANETA VELASCO JR., J.
[S]ocial justice--or any justice for that matter--is for the deserving whether he be a millionaire in his mansion or a pauper in his hovel. It is true that, in a case of reasonable doubt, we are called upon to tilt the balance in favor of the poor simply because they are poor, to whom the Constitution fittingly extends its sympathy and compassion. But never is it justified to prefer the poor simply because they are poor, or to eject the rich simply because they are rich, for justice must always be served, for poor and rich alike, according to the mandate of the law.[59]
	GR No. 131481 2011-03-16	BUKLOD NANG MAGBUBUKID SA LUPAING RAMOS v. E. M. RAMOS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
On a final note, this Court has stressed more than once that social justice - or any justice for that matter - is for the deserving, whether he be a millionaire in his mansion or a pauper in his hovel. It is true that, in case of reasonable doubt, the Court is called upon to tilt the balance in favor of the poor to whom the Constitution fittingly extends its sympathy and compassion. But never is it justified to give preference to the poor simply because they are poor, or to reject the rich simply because they are rich, for justice must always be served for poor and rich alike, according to the mandate of the law.[70] Vigilance over the rights of the landowners is equally important because social justice cannot be invoked to trample on the rights of property owners, who under our Constitution and laws are also entitled to protection.[71]
	GR No. 174649 2008-09-26	LEOPOLDO JEREMIAS v. ESTATE OF LATE IRENE P. MARIANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
[S]ocial justice or any justice for that matter is for the deserving, whether he be a millionaire in his mansion or a pauper in his hovel. It is true that, in case of reasonable doubt, we are called upon to tilt the balance in favor of the poor, to whom the Constitution fittingly extends its sympathy and compassion. But never is it justified to prefer the poor simply because they are poor, or to reject the rich simply because they are rich, for justice must always be served, for poor and rich alike, according to the mandate of the law.[26]
	GR No. 138823 2008-09-17	CARIDAD MAGKALAS v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This Court has stressed more than once that social justice - or any justice for that matter - is for the deserving, whether he be a millionaire in his mansion or a pauper in his hovel. It is true that, in case of reasonable doubt, we are called upon to tilt the balance in favor of the poor to whom the Constitution fittingly extends its sympathy and compassion. But never is it justified to give preference to the poor simply because they are poor, or to reject the rich simply because they are rich, for justice must always be served for poor and rich alike, according to the mandate of the law.[11] (Underscoring supplied) Hence, there is a need to weigh and balance the rights and welfare of both contending parties in every case in accordance with the applicable law, regardless of their situation in life.
	GR No. 158693 2004-11-17	JENNY M. AGABON v. NLRC YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
We have repeatedly stressed that social justice or any justice for that matter is for the deserving, whether he be a millionaire in his mansion or a pauper in his hovel. It is true that, in case of reasonable doubt, we are to tilt the balance in favor of the poor to whom the Constitution fittingly extends its sympathy and compassion. But never is it justified to give preference to the poor simply because they are poor, or reject the rich simply because they are rich, for justice must always be served for the poor and the rich alike, according to the mandate of the law.[35]