This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-08-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "Concededly, parties may validly stipulate the unilateral rescission of a contract."[55] Such is the case here since the parties conferred upon GSIS the right to unilaterally rescind the MOA in the earlier quoted Sec. 2.4 and hereinafter reproduced: Section 2.4. Should GOLDLOOP fail to start the construction works within the thirty (30) working days from date all relevant permits and licenses from concerned agencies are obtained, or within six (6) months from the date of the execution of this Agreement, whichever is earlier, or at any given time abandon the same or otherwise commit any breach of their obligations and commitments under this Agreement, this agreement shall be deemed terminated and cancelled without need of judicial action by giving thirty (30) days written notice to that effect to GOLDLOOP who hereby agrees to abide by the decision of the GSIS. x x x [56] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2011-11-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In Associated Bank v. Pronstroller,[58] the Court affirmed the judgments of the trial and appellate courts cancelling the titles of the spouses Vaca, who were transferees pendente lite of Associated Bank, despite the fact that the spouses Vaca were not parties to the case between Associated Bank and the Pronstrollers. The Court explained therein: Admittedly, during the pendency of the case, respondents timely registered a notice of lis pendens to warn the whole world that the property was the subject of a pending litigation. | |||||
|
2011-06-15 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Lis pendens, which literally means pending suit, refers to the jurisdiction, power or control which a court acquires over property involved in a suit, pending the continuance of the action, and until final judgment. Founded upon public policy and necessity, lis pendens is intended to keep the properties in litigation within the power of the court until the litigation is terminated, and to prevent the defeat of the judgment or decree by subsequent alienation. Its notice is an announcement to the whole world that a particular property is in litigation and serves as a warning that one who acquires an interest over said property does so at his own risk or that he gambles on the result of the litigation over said property.[50] | |||||
|
2010-07-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Accordingly, the authority to act for and to bind a corporation may be presumed from acts of recognition in other instances when the power was exercised without any objection from its board or shareholders.[19] | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| While a corporation is a juridical person, it cannot act except through its board of directors as a collective body, which is vested with the power and responsibility to decide whether the corporation should enter into a contract that will bind the corporation, subject to the articles of incorporation, by-laws, or relevant provisions of law.[7] This grant to the board of all corporate powers is explicit under Section 23 of the Corporation Code, stating: "All corporate powers shall be exercised, and all corporate business shall be conducted by the board of directors." | |||||
|
2009-03-23 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| It bears noting that in Westmont Bank v. Pronstroller,[27] the therein petitioner Westmont Bank, through a management committee, proved that it rejected the letter-agreement entered into by its assistant vice-president. Consequently, the therein respondent had to prove by citing other instances of the said officer's apparent authority to bind the bank-therein petitioner. | |||||