This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-04-18 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, in order that an obligation may be extinguished by another which substitutes the same, it is imperative that it be so declared in unequivocal terms, or that the old and new obligation be in every point incompatible with each other.[47] Novation of a contract is never presumed. In the absence of an express agreement, novation takes place only when the old and the new obligations are incompatible on every point.[48] | |||||
|
2007-02-09 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| A rehash of arguments may not necessarily be pro forma per se. In Security Bank and Trust Company, Inc. v. Cuenca,[51] the Court declared that a motion for reconsideration is not pro forma just because it reiterated the arguments earlier passed upon and rejected by the appellate court; a movant may raise the same arguments precisely to convince the court that its ruling was erroneous.[52] The Court also held that the pro forma rule will not be applicable if the arguments were not sufficiently passed upon and answered in the decision sought to be reconsidered, and elucidated the raison d' etre of the pro forma principle as follows:x x x a pro forma motion had no other purpose than to gain time and to delay or impede the proceedings. Hence, "where the circumstances of a case do not show an intent on the part of the movant merely to delay the proceedings, our Court has refused to characterize the motion as simply pro forma." x x x | |||||
|
2003-04-08 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The procedural rule on pro-forma motions pointed out by the Tius should not be blindly applied to meritorious motions for reconsideration. As long as the same adequately raises a valid ground[15] (i.e., the decision or final order is contrary to law), this Court has to evaluate the merits of the arguments to prevent an unjust decision from attaining finality. In Security Bank and Trust Company vs. Cuenca,[16] we ruled that a motion for reconsideration is not pro-forma for the reason alone that it reiterates the arguments earlier passed upon and rejected by the appellate court. We explained there that a movant may raise the same arguments, if only to convince this Court that its ruling was erroneous. Moreover, the rule (that a motion is pro-forma if it only repeats the arguments in the previous pleadings) will not apply if said arguments were not squarely passed upon and answered in the decision sought to be reconsidered. In the case at bar, no ruling was made on some of the petitioner Ongs' arguments. For instance, no clear ruling was made on why an order distributing corporate assets and property to the stockholders would not violate the statutory preconditions for corporate dissolution or decrease of authorized capital stock. Thus, it would serve the ends of justice to entertain the subject motion for reconsideration since some important issues therein, although mere repetitions, were not considered or clearly resolved by this Court. | |||||
|
2003-03-05 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| An employment contract, like any other contract, is perfected at the moment (1) the parties come to agree upon its terms; and (2) concur in the essential elements thereof: (a) consent of the contracting parties, (b) object certain which is the subject matter of the contract and (c) cause of the obligation.[23] Based on the perfected contract, Private Respondent Guerrero complied with his obligations thereunder and rendered his services on board the vessel. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the contract had an object, which was the rendition of service by private respondent on board the vessel. The non-deployment of the ship overseas did not affect the validity of the perfected employment contract. After all, the decision to use the vessel for coastwise shipping was made by petitioner only and did not bear the written conformity of private respondent. A contract cannot be novated by the will of only one party.[24] The claim of petitioner that it processed the contract of private respondent with the POEA only after he had started working is also without merit. Petitioner cannot use its own misfeasance to defeat his claim. | |||||