Practice question
Compare a lawful benefit proved to have ripened into company practice with an allowance established to violate a binding government compensation restriction. Why does the non-diminution principle not require the same outcome in both situations?
Legal references
- https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/45241 — Arco Metal Products Co., Inc. v. SAMARM-NAFLU, GR 170734, May 14, 2008, main decision.
- https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/69584 — Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Erece, Jr., GR 235673, July 22, 2024, main decision.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.