This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-08-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, petitioners were unable to establish the third element of estoppel. It bears stressing that if there be any injury, detriment, or prejudice to the petitioners by the action of the Board of Directors in passing Resolution Nos. 38 and 39 and subsequently Resolution No. 53-06, such injury was due to petitioners' own fault. Petitioner Estacio failed to account for and ascertain on a daily basis a total of 86 bills collected and uncollected by the bill collectors of PELCO I, resulting in unremitted bills amounting to P123,807.14. In the case of petitioner Manliclic, he admitted having used the amount of P4,813.111 from his collection. Estoppel is a shield against injustice; a party invoking its protection should not be allowed to use the same to conceal his or her own lack of diligence.[44] | |||||
|
2004-11-22 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| While there is no more question as to the agency relationship between Baluyot and MMPCI, there is no indication that MMPCI let the public, or specifically, Atty. Linsangan to believe that Baluyot had the authority to alter the standard contracts of the company. Neither is there any showing that prior to signing Contract No. 28660, MMPCI had any knowledge of Baluyot's commitment to Atty. Linsangan. One who claims the benefit of an estoppel on the ground that he has been misled by the representations of another must not have been misled through his own want of reasonable care and circumspection.[52] Even assuming that Atty. Linsangan was misled by MMPCI's actuations, he still cannot invoke the principle of estoppel, as he was clearly negligent in his dealings with Baluyot, and could have easily determined, had he only been cautious and prudent, whether said agent was clothed with the authority to change the terms of the principal's written contract. Estoppel must be intentional and unequivocal, for when misapplied, it can easily become a most convenient and effective means of injustice.[53] In view of the lack of sufficient proof showing estoppel, we refuse to hold MMPCI liable on this score. | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
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] | |||||