Baylon v judge sison amno9273600apr61995 q is the

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: n, or its validity, or its discharge, or the remedy for its enforcement, impairs the contract. (Black’s Law Dictionary) Note: Franchises, privileges, licenses, etc. do not come within the context of the provision, since these things are subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress when the common good so requires. Q: PAL (a former GOCC) and Kuwait Airways entered into a Commercial Agreement and Joint Services Agreement. Can the execution of the Commercial Memorandum of Understanding between Kuwait and Philippine Government automatically terminate the aforementioned agreement? A: No, because an act of the Phil. Gov’t negating the commercial agreement between the two airlines would infringe the vested rights of a private individual. Since PAL was already under private ownership at the time the CMU was entered into, the Court cannot presume that any and all commitments made by the Phil. Gov’t are unilaterally binding on the carrier even if this comes at the expense of diplomatic embarrassment. Even granting that the police power of the State may be exercised to impair the vested rights of privately‐owned airlines, the deprivation of property still requires due process of law. (Kuwait Airline Corporation v. PAL, G.R. No. 156087, May 8, 2009) Q: May there be a valid impairment of contracts even if the act in question is done by an entity other than the legislature? A: Yes. The act need not be by a legislative office; but it should be legislative in nature. (Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Assoc. v. DILG Sec, G.R. No. 143076, June 10, 2003) o. LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND FREE ACCESS TO COURTS Q. What is the significance of this provision? A. It is the basis for the provision of Section 17, Rule 5 of the New Rules of Court allowing litigation in forma pauperis . Those protected include low paid employees, domestic servants and laborers. (Cabangis v. Almeda Lopez, G.R. No. 47685, September 20, 1940) They need not b e persons so poor that they must be supporte...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/12/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online