This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-11-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Under the doctrine of estoppel, an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. A party, having performed affirmative acts upon which another person based his subsequent actions, cannot thereafter refute his acts or renege on the effects of the same, to the prejudice of the latter.[15] | |||||
|
2005-07-29 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Anent the first assignment of error, there are divergent jurisprudential doctrines touching on this issue. On the one hand are the cases of Martinez v. Merced,[20] Marquez v. Secretary of Labor,[21] Ducat v. Court of Appeals,[22] Bayoca v. Nogales,[23] Jimenez v. Patricia,[24] Centeno v. Centeno,[25] and ABS-CBN Supervisors Employee Union Members v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation,[26] all adhering to the doctrine that a party's active participation in the actual proceedings before a court without jurisdiction will estop him from assailing such lack of jurisdiction. Respondent heavily relies on this doctrinal jurisprudence. | |||||