This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-09-15 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| On the matter of unjust enrichment, the fundamental doctrine of unjust enrichment is the transfer of value without just cause or consideration. The elements of this doctrine are: enrichment on the part of the defendant; impoverishment on the part of the plaintiff; and lack of cause. The main objective is to prevent one to enrich himself at the expense of another.[20] It is based on the equitable postulate that it is unjust for a person to retain benefit without paying for it.[21] It is well to stress that the check of Sarande had been cleared by the PCI Bank for which reason the former issued the check to Ong. A check which has been cleared and credited to the account of the creditor shall be equivalent to a delivery to the creditor of cash in an amount equal to the amount credited to his account.[22] | |||||
|
2005-10-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Indeed, not only is the award of payment of irrigation fees based on the law governing the NIA, it is likewise based on the equitable postulate that having benefited from the services provided by respondent, it is unjust for petitioners to retain benefit without paying for it.[35] | |||||