Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LEONCIO GABRIEL v. MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 200402 2013-06-13	PRIVATIZATION v. STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SERENO, C.J.
Petitioner cannot be compelled to accept the bid of Dong-A Consortium since this forced consent treads on the government's freedom to contract. The freedom of persons to enter into contracts is a policy of the law,[36] and courts should move with all necessary caution and prudence when interfering with it.[37]
	GR NO. 153674 2006-12-20	AVON COSMETICS v. LETICIA H. LUNA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Agreements in violation of orden público must be considered as those which conflict with law, whether properly, strictly and wholly a public law (derecho) or whether a law of the person, but law which in certain respects affects the interest of society. [21] Plainly put, public policy is that principle of the law which holds that no subject or citizen can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public good.[22] As applied to contracts, in the absence of express legislation or constitutional prohibition, a court, in order to declare a contract void as against public policy, must find that the contract as to the consideration or thing to be done, has a tendency to injure the public, is against the public good, or contravenes some established interests of society, or is inconsistent with sound policy and good morals, or tends clearly to undermine the security of individual rights, whether of personal liability or of private property.[23]
	GR No. 157860 2003-12-01	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. PROVINCE OF TARLAC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The freedom of contract is both a constitutional and statutory right and to uphold this right, courts should move with all the necessary caution and prudence in holding contracts void.[15] Furthermore, a duly executed contract carries with it the presumption of validity.[16] In the assailed decision, the Court of Appeals simply ruled that the absence of a prior appraised valuation by the local committee on awards rendered the donation null and void. This, to our mind, did not sufficiently overcome the presumption of validity of the contract, considering that there is no express provision in the law which requires that the said valuation is a condition sine qua non for the validity of a donation.