This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-02-14 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In addition, it is a rule of equity and applied not to penalize neglect or sleeping on one's rights, but rather to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly unfair situation.[11] There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches or staleness of demand; each case is to be determined according to its particular circumstances.[12] Ultimately, the question of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and, being an equitable doctrine, its application is controlled by equitable considerations.[13] It cannot be used to defeat justice or perpetrate fraud and injustice.[14] It is the better rule that courts, under the principle of equity, will not be guided or bound strictly by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches when to be so, a manifest wrong or injustice would result.[15] | |||||
|
2010-01-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| It is evident from these RMOs that the CIR was consistent in using the word "and" and has even underscored the word in RMO No. 63-97. This denotes that in addition to the filing of the verified information, the same should also be duly recorded in the Official Registry Book of the BIR. The conjunctive word "and" is not without legal significance. It means "in addition to." The word "and," whether it is used to connect words, phrases or full sentences, must be accepted as binding together and as relating to one another.[24] "And" in statutory construction implies conjunction or union.[25] | |||||
|
2009-11-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The essence of laches is the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, through due diligence, could have been done earlier, thus giving rise to a presumption that the party entitled to assert it had either abandoned or declined to assert it.[66] | |||||