[A thing done between others does not harm or benefit others.

The rule that the right of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another.

The

rule that evidence of previous conduct or similar acts at one time is not admissible to prove that one did or did not do the same act at another time.

Rule refers to extrajudicial declaration The rule has reference to extrajudicial declarations. Hence, statements made in open court by a witness implicating persons aside from his own judicial admissions, are admissible as declarations from one who has personal knowledge of the facts testified to.

Exceptions to the res inter alios acta rule

(a) Admission by a co-partner or agent ( Sec. 29, Rule 130) (b) Admission by a co-conspirator ( Sec. 30, Rule 130) (c) Admission by privies ( Sec. 30, Rule 130)

Basis:

That the person making the statement is under the same circumstances as the person against whom it is offered. Such circumstances give him substantially the same interest and the same motive to make a statement about certain matters.

Harold V. Tamargo vs. Romulo Awingan, et al. G.R. No. 177727, Jan. 19,2010

Aside from the extrajudicial confession, which was later on recanted, no other piece of evidence was presented to prove the alleged conspiracy. There was no other prosecution evidence, direct or circumstantial, which the extrajudicial confession could corroborate. Therefore, the recanted confession, which was the sole evidence against respondents, had no probative value and was inadmissible as evidence against them

[As much as he deserved.]

In the law of contracts, a doctrine by which the law infers a promise to pay a reasonable amount of labor and materials furnished, even in the absence of a specifically legally enforceable agreement between the parties.

Prevents the unjust enrichment of the other party Addresses situations where no contract exists or where a contract exists but for some reason is unenforceable Describes a method used to determine the exact amount owed to a person

1. Valuable services were rendered 2. Services were rendered to the defendant 3. Services were accepted, used, and enjoyed by the defendant 4. Defendant was aware that the plaintiff, in performing the services, expected to be paid by the defendant

Urban Bank, Inc. vs. Atty. Magdaleno Pea [G.R. No. 145817; October 19, 2011]

Ruling of the Court: No. The Supreme Court ruled that said amount is unconscionable. Pea is entitled to payment for compensation for services rendered as agent of Urban Bank, but on the basis of the principles of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. In the first place, other than the self-serving testimony of Pea, there was no other evidence presented to support his claim that Borlongan agreed to pay him that 10% over the phone. The written authorization later issued merely confirms the power granted him to negotiate with the tenants. The written authorization proved the existence of agency but not the existence of any agreement as to how much Pea should be paid. Absent any such agreement, the principle of quantum meruit should be applied. In this case, Pea is entitled to receive what he merit for his services, or as much as he has earned. In dealing with the tenants, Pea didnt have to perform any extraordinary acts or legal maneuvering. Hence, he is entitled to receive P1.5 million for his legal services. He is also entitled to reimbursement for his expenses in securing the property, to wit, P1.5 million for the security guards he had to hire and another P1.5 million for settling and relocating the 23 tenants. Total of P4.5 million. The Supreme Court emphasized that lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration.

[No delegated powers can be further delegated]

It is also known as delegatus non potest delegare which means one to whom power is delegated cannot himself further delegate that power. One who has the power or authority from another to do an act must do it himself/herself as this is a trust or confidence reposed in that person personally. It cannot be assigned to stranger whose ability and integrity might not be known to the principal. The U.S. and the U.K. jurisdictions follow this principle.

The principle was first articulated in Canada in the year 1943 in the Canadian Bar Review. Delegata potestas non potest delegari was first cited by the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Sav. Bank, 104 U.S. 728 (1881). In this case, it was argued that the duty imposed by statute on the commissioner cannot be delegated to a collector. Delegata potestas non potest delegari is also mentioned in the catholic canon law, title XIII.

Jaworski vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) [GR 144463, 14 January 2004]

Issue:

Whether PAGCOR's legislative franchise include the right to vest another entity, SAGE, with the authority tooperate Internet gambling.

Held:

A legislative franchise is a special privilege granted by the state to corporations. It is a privilege of public concern which cannot be exercised at will and pleasure, but should be reserved for public control and administration, either by the government directly, or by public agents, under such conditions and regulations as the government may impose on them in the interest of the public. It is Congress that prescribes the conditions on which the grant of the franchise may be made. Thus the manner of granting the franchise, to whom it may be granted, the mode of conducting the business, the charter and the quality of the service to be rendered and the duty of the grantee to the public in exercising the franchise are almost always defined in clear and unequivocal language. Herein, PAGCOR has acted beyond the limits of its authority when it passed on or shared its franchise to SAGE. While PAGCOR is allowed under its charter to enter into operator's and/or management contracts, it is not allowed under the same charter to relinquish or share its franchise, much less grant a veritable franchise to another entity such as SAGE. PAGCOR can not delegate its power inview of the legal principle of delegata potestas delegare non potest, inasmuch as there is nothing in the charter to show that it has been expressly authorized to do so.