This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-03-28 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Likewise, in the case of Republic of the Philippines represented by the Commissioner of Customs v. UNIMEX Micro-Electronics GmBH,[13] which involved the seizure and detention of a shipment of computer game items which disappeared while in the custody of the Bureau of Customs, the Court upheld the decision of the CA holding that petitioner's liability may be paid in Philippine currency, computed at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of actual payment. | |||||
|
2011-02-09 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Were we to strictly interpret the "fresh period rule" in Neypes and make it applicable only to the period to appeal in civil cases, we shall effectively foster and encourage an absurd situation where a litigant in a civil case will have a better right to appeal than an accused in a criminal case - a situation that gives undue favor to civil litigants and unjustly discriminates against the accused-appellants. It suggests a double standard of treatment when we favor a situation where property interests are at stake, as against a situation where liberty stands to be prejudiced. We must emphatically reject this double and unequal standard for being contrary to reason. Over time, courts have recognized with almost pedantic adherence that what is contrary to reason is not allowed in law - Quod est inconveniens, aut contra rationem non permissum est in lege.[18] | |||||