This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-02-12 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Proceeding from the foregoing discussion, it is quite clear that there are two sets of transactions that should be treated separately and distinctly from one another following the civil law principle of relativity of contracts "which provides that contracts can only bind the parties who entered into it, and it cannot favor or prejudice a third person, even if he is aware of such contract and has acted with knowledge thereof."[60] Verily, as the Surety Bonds concern ASPAC's debt to TIDCORP and not TIDCORP's debt to the banks, the payments extensions (which conversely concern TIDCORP's debt to the | |||||
|
2013-01-14 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| It is undisputed that Sps. Mamaril are not parties to the Guard Service Contract. Neither did the subject agreement contain any stipulation pour autrui. And even if there was, Sps. Mamaril did not convey any acceptance thereof. Thus, under the principle of relativity of contracts, they cannot validly claim any rights or favor under the said agreement.[23] As correctly found by the CA: First, the Guard Service Contract between defendant-appellant BSP and defendant AIB Security Agency is purely between the parties therein. It may be observed that although the whereas clause of the said agreement provides that defendant-appellant desires security and protection for its compound and all properties therein, as well as for its officers and employees, while inside the premises, the same should be correlated with paragraph 3(a) thereof which provides that the security agency shall indemnify defendant-appellant for all losses and damages suffered by it attributable to any act or negligence of the former's guards. | |||||
|
2000-08-04 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Neither can actual damages be awarded. True, indemnification for damages contemplates not only actual loss suffered (damnum emergens) but unrealized profits (lucrum cessans) as well.[53] However, to be entitled to adequate compensation | |||||