Lawyerly

GR No. 183952

2013-09-09

BERSAMIN, J.

As a final word, it is necessary to state that no court can shirk from enforcing the contractual stipulations in the manner they have agreed upon and written. As a rule, the courts, whether trial or appellate, have no power to make or modify contracts between the parties. Nor can the courts save the parties from disadvantageous provisions.[59] The same precepts hold sway when it comes to enforcing fee arrangements entered into in writing between clients and attorneys. In the exercise of their supervisory authority over attorneys as officers of the Court, the courts are bound to respect and protect the attorney's lien as a necessary means to preserve the decorum and respectability of the Law Profession.[60] Hence, the Court must thwart any and every effort of clients already served by their attorneys' worthy services to deprive them of their hard-earned compensation. Truly, the duty of the courts is not only to see to it that attorneys act in a proper and lawful manner, but also to see to it that attorneys are paid their just and lawful fees.[61]

GR No. 174986

2009-07-07

ARMAND O. RAQUEL-SANTOS v. CA

NACHURA, J.

Article 1159 of the Civil Code provides that contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. Being the primary law between the parties, the contract governs the adjudication of their rights and obligations.A court has no alternative but to enforce the contractual stipulations in the manner they have been agreed upon and written.[68]

GR No. 163898

2008-12-23

ROBERTO BARBASA v. ARTEMIO G. TUQUERO

QUISUMBING, J.

Quite common in lease contracts, this clause functions to strengthen the coercive force of the obligation and to provide, in effect, for what could be the liquidated damages resulting from a breach. There is nothing immoral or illegal in such indemnity/penalty clause, absent any showing that it was forced upon or fraudulently foisted on the obligor.[20] (Emphasis supplied.)

GR No. 149338

2008-07-28

UNLAD RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RENATO P. DRAGON

NACHURA, J.

Rescission has the effect of "unmaking a contract, or its undoing from the beginning, and not merely its termination."[16] Hence, rescission creates the obligation to return the object of the contract. It can be carried out only when the one who demands rescission can return whatever he may be obliged to restore. To rescind is to declare a contract void at its inception and to put an end to it as though it never was. It is not merely to terminate it and release the parties from further obligations to each other, but to abrogate it from the beginning and restore the parties to their relative positions as if no contract has been made.[17]

GR No. 171312

2008-02-04

SPS. LINO FRANCISCO AND GUIA FRANCISCO v. DEAC CONSTRUCTION

TINGA, J,

Article 1191 of the Civil Code provides that the power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. The rescission referred to in this article, more appropriately referred to as resolution, is not predicated on injury to economic interests on the part of the party plaintiff, but of breach of faith by the defendant which is violative of the reciprocity between the parties.[19] The right to rescind may be waived, expressly or impliedly.

GR NO. 160026

2007-12-10

EDMERITO ANG GOBONSENG v. UNIBANCARD CORPORATION

AZCUNA, J.

Hence, unless the stipulated amounts are exorbitant, the court will sustain the amounts agreed upon by the parties because, as stated in Pryce Corporation v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation,[17] obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. If the terms of the contract clearly express the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of the stipulations would be controlling. The court has to enforce the contractual stipulations in the manner that they have been agreed upon for as long as they are not unconscionable or contrary to morals and public policy.

GR NO. 169656

2007-10-11

FELSAN REALTY v. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

NACHURA, J.

Considering that the parties entered into a contract, it shall constitute the law between them.[17] The agreement between the parties is the formal expression of the parties' rights, duties and obligations.[18] Being the primary law between the parties, it governs the adjudication of their rights and obligations.[19] When the terms of the contract are clear and leave no room for interpretation, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall, therefore, control.[20] A court has no alternative but to enforce the contractual stipulations in the manner they have been agreed upon and written.[21] The petitioner was, therefore, bound to respect the decision of the respondent not to continue on with the lease. Absent any allegation that a stipulation is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, it must be complied with in good faith.[22]

GR No. 168779

2007-09-14

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN S. GO

NACHURA, J.

b. Penalty charges 8% p.a. on amortization or portion thereof for more than 30 days.[19] The CA correctly held that the 8% penalty charge is valid. This Court has recognized a penalty clause as an accessory obligation which the parties attach to a principal obligation for the purpose of insuring the performance thereof by imposing on the debtor a special prestation (generally consisting in the payment of a sum of money) in case the obligation is not fulfilled or is irregularly or inadequately fulfilled.[20]

GR NO. 164307

2007-03-05

SPS. RODELIO AND ALICIA POLTAN v. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The question of whether a penalty is reasonable or iniquitous is addressed to the sound discretion of the courts. To be considered in fixing the amount of penalty are factors such as - but not limited to - the type, extent and purpose of the penalty; the nature of the obligation; the mode of the breach and its consequences; the supervening realities; the standing and relationship of the parties; and the like.[47]

GR NO. 153874

2007-03-01

TITAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. UNI-FIELD ENTERPRISES

CARPIO, J.

Articles 1229[23] and 2227[24] of the Civil Code empower the courts to reduce the penalty if it is iniquitous or unconscionable. The determination of whether the penalty is iniquitous or unconscionable is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and depends on several factors such as the type, extent, and purpose of the penalty, the nature of the obligation, the mode of breach and its consequences.[25]

	GR No. 183952 2013-09-09	CZARINA T. MALVAR v. KRAFT FOOD PHILS. BERSAMIN, J.
As a final word, it is necessary to state that no court can shirk from enforcing the contractual stipulations in the manner they have agreed upon and written. As a rule, the courts, whether trial or appellate, have no power to make or modify contracts between the parties. Nor can the courts save the parties from disadvantageous provisions.[59] The same precepts hold sway when it comes to enforcing fee arrangements entered into in writing between clients and attorneys. In the exercise of their supervisory authority over attorneys as officers of the Court, the courts are bound to respect and protect the attorney's lien as a necessary means to preserve the decorum and respectability of the Law Profession.[60] Hence, the Court must thwart any and every effort of clients already served by their attorneys' worthy services to deprive them of their hard-earned compensation. Truly, the duty of the courts is not only to see to it that attorneys act in a proper and lawful manner, but also to see to it that attorneys are paid their just and lawful fees.[61]
	GR No. 174986 2009-07-07	ARMAND O. RAQUEL-SANTOS v. CA NACHURA, J.
Article 1159 of the Civil Code provides that contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. Being the primary law between the parties, the contract governs the adjudication of their rights and obligations.A court has no alternative but to enforce the contractual stipulations in the manner they have been agreed upon and written.[68]
	GR No. 163898 2008-12-23	ROBERTO BARBASA v. ARTEMIO G. TUQUERO QUISUMBING, J.
Quite common in lease contracts, this clause functions to strengthen the coercive force of the obligation and to provide, in effect, for what could be the liquidated damages resulting from a breach. There is nothing immoral or illegal in such indemnity/penalty clause, absent any showing that it was forced upon or fraudulently foisted on the obligor.[20] (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 149338 2008-07-28	UNLAD RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RENATO P. DRAGON NACHURA, J.
Rescission has the effect of "unmaking a contract, or its undoing from the beginning, and not merely its termination."[16] Hence, rescission creates the obligation to return the object of the contract. It can be carried out only when the one who demands rescission can return whatever he may be obliged to restore. To rescind is to declare a contract void at its inception and to put an end to it as though it never was. It is not merely to terminate it and release the parties from further obligations to each other, but to abrogate it from the beginning and restore the parties to their relative positions as if no contract has been made.[17]
	GR No. 171312 2008-02-04	SPS. LINO FRANCISCO AND GUIA FRANCISCO v. DEAC CONSTRUCTION TINGA, J,
Article 1191 of the Civil Code provides that the power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. The rescission referred to in this article, more appropriately referred to as resolution, is not predicated on injury to economic interests on the part of the party plaintiff, but of breach of faith by the defendant which is violative of the reciprocity between the parties.[19] The right to rescind may be waived, expressly or impliedly.
	GR NO. 160026 2007-12-10	EDMERITO ANG GOBONSENG v. UNIBANCARD CORPORATION AZCUNA, J.
Hence, unless the stipulated amounts are exorbitant, the court will sustain the amounts agreed upon by the parties because, as stated in Pryce Corporation v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation,[17] obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. If the terms of the contract clearly express the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of the stipulations would be controlling. The court has to enforce the contractual stipulations in the manner that they have been agreed upon for as long as they are not unconscionable or contrary to morals and public policy.
	GR NO. 169656 2007-10-11	FELSAN REALTY v. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA NACHURA, J.
Considering that the parties entered into a contract, it shall constitute the law between them.[17] The agreement between the parties is the formal expression of the parties' rights, duties and obligations.[18] Being the primary law between the parties, it governs the adjudication of their rights and obligations.[19] When the terms of the contract are clear and leave no room for interpretation, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall, therefore, control.[20] A court has no alternative but to enforce the contractual stipulations in the manner they have been agreed upon and written.[21] The petitioner was, therefore, bound to respect the decision of the respondent not to continue on with the lease. Absent any allegation that a stipulation is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, it must be complied with in good faith.[22]
	GR No. 168779 2007-09-14	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN S. GO NACHURA, J.
b. Penalty charges 8% p.a. on amortization or portion thereof for more than 30 days.[19] The CA correctly held that the 8% penalty charge is valid. This Court has recognized a penalty clause as an accessory obligation which the parties attach to a principal obligation for the purpose of insuring the performance thereof by imposing on the debtor a special prestation (generally consisting in the payment of a sum of money) in case the obligation is not fulfilled or is irregularly or inadequately fulfilled.[20]
	GR NO. 164307 2007-03-05	SPS. RODELIO AND ALICIA POLTAN v. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The question of whether a penalty is reasonable or iniquitous is addressed to the sound discretion of the courts. To be considered in fixing the amount of penalty are factors such as - but not limited to - the type, extent and purpose of the penalty; the nature of the obligation; the mode of the breach and its consequences; the supervening realities; the standing and relationship of the parties; and the like.[47]
	GR NO. 153874 2007-03-01	TITAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. UNI-FIELD ENTERPRISES CARPIO, J.
Articles 1229[23] and 2227[24] of the Civil Code empower the courts to reduce the penalty if it is iniquitous or unconscionable. The determination of whether the penalty is iniquitous or unconscionable is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and depends on several factors such as the type, extent, and purpose of the penalty, the nature of the obligation, the mode of breach and its consequences.[25]

PRYCE CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT