This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-10-04 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Considering that FBC had not completed the corrective/repair works in accordance with the Contract Documents and as approved or certified in writing by the Architect as to its completion, its demand for the payment of the final balance was premature. Under the Letter-Agreement dated June 5, 1986, final payment was subject to reconciliation of their accounts regarding the upgrading and downgrading done on the project. Obviously, this cannot be complied with unless FBC as the defaulting party completes the repair/corrective works for only then can the actual cost of additives and deductives be determined. In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. [41] When the substandard waterproofing caused extensive damage to the school building, it was incumbent upon FBC to institute at its own expense the proper repairs in accordance with the guaranty-warranty stated in the Construction Agreement. Thus, Rudlin cannot be said to have incurred delay in the reconciliation of accounts, as a precondition for final payment; instead, it is FBC who was guilty of delay by its stubborn refusal to replace or re-execute the defective waterproofing of the subject school building. | |||||
|
2004-06-04 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Thus, par. 3 of the agreement provides that the Leaño Spouses "bind themselves to assume as they hereby assume beginning on July 1, 1987, the payment of the unpaid balance x x x x" Hence, the Leaño Spouses merely bound themselves to assume, which they actually did upon the signing of the agreement, the obligations of the Barredo Spouses with the SSS and Apex. Nowhere in the agreement was it stipulated that the sale was conditioned upon their full payment of the loans with SSS and Apex. When the language of the contract is clear, it requires no interpretation,[8] and its terms should not be disturbed.[9] The primary and elementary rule of construction of documents is that when the words or language thereof is clear and plain or readily understandable by any ordinary reader thereof, there is absolutely no room for interpretation or construction anymore[10] and the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.[11] | |||||
|
2004-02-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Further, in order to claim exemption from liability by reason of a fortuitous event, such event should be the sole and proximate cause of the injury to or the loss or destruction of the object of the contract[28] or compromise, which was the payment to be made by petitioner. Certainly, this payment was not lost or destroyed, but merely delayed, thus causing injury to respondent. Granting arguendo such loss or destruction, the Christmas season could not have been the sole and proximate cause thereof. | |||||
|
2003-02-19 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The rule is that the intention of the parties thereto shall be accorded primordial consideration in determining the actual character of a contract.[27] In case of doubt, the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties shall be considered in such determination.[28] | |||||