Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FILINVEST LAND v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 180898 2012-04-18	PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION v. PETROLEUM DISTRIBUTORS MENDOZA, J.
Article 2226 of the Civil Code allows the parties to a contract to stipulate on liquidated damages to be paid in case of breach. It is attached to an obligation in order to insure performance and has a double function: (1) to provide for liquidated damages, and (2) to strengthen the coercive force of the obligation by the threat of greater responsibility in the event of breach.[36] As a general rule, contracts constitute the law between the parties, and they are bound by its stipulations.[37] For as long as they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy, the contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient.[38]
	GR No. 164195 2009-12-04	APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
Similarly, in Asia Trust Development v. Concept Trading Corporation,[62] the Court, given that the principal obligation had been partially complied with by the respondent, affirmed the reduction of the penalty charges from 36% to 3% per annum. The Court, in Filinvest v. Court of Appeals,[63] deemed that the penalty of P15,000.00 per day, resulting in the aggregate amount of P3,990,000.00, was steep and excessive, and reduced it to P1,881,867.66, considering that there had been substantial compliance in good faith on the part of the party obliged to pay penalty.
	GR No. 180824 2009-08-28	URBAN CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTORS PHILIPPINES v. INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Anent the award of liquidated damages, Article 2227 of the Civil Code provides that liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable. In the case at bar, the liquidated damages computed on the basis of the GCA is P11,432,190 (1/10 of 1% of P38,885,000.00, which is P38,885.00 per day for the 294 days from October 1, 1991 to July 21, 1992). However, finding said amount to be unconscionable and citing Filinvest Land, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[15] the appellate court set the liquidated damages at P2,940,000.00 or at P10,000.00 per day.
	GR No. 172835 2007-12-13	AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. PENNSWELL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
What is clear from the factual findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals is that the chemical formulation of respondent's products is not known to the general public and is unique only to it. Both courts uniformly ruled that these ingredients are not within the knowledge of the public. Since such factual findings are generally not reviewable by this Court, it is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[47] We need not delve into the factual bases of such findings as questions of fact are beyond the pale of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Factual findings of the trial court when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court.[48]
	GR No. 172384 2007-09-12	ERMINDA F. FLORENTINO v. SUPERVALUE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A penal clause is an accessory undertaking to assume greater liability in case of breach. It is attached to an obligation in order to insure performance and has a double function: (1) to provide for liquidated damages, and (2) to strengthen the coercive force of the obligation by the threat of greater responsibility in the event of breach.[29] The obligor would then be bound to pay the stipulated indemnity without the necessity of proof of the existence and the measure of damages caused by the breach.[30] Article 1226 of the Civil Code states:Art. 1226. In obligations with a penal clause, the penalty shall substitute the indemnity for damages and the payment of interests in case of noncompliance, if there is no stipulation to the contrary. Nevertheless, damages shall be paid if the obligor refuses to pay the penalty or is guilty of fraud in the fulfillment of the obligation.
	GR NO. 149118 2006-02-16	FLAVIANA LIM CAJAYON v. SPS. SANTIAGO AND FORTUNATA BATUYONG TINGA, J.
[30] Filinvest Land v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138980, 20 September 2005, citing Alvarez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142843, 6 August 2003, 408 SCRA 419.