This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-04-08 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| This, however, is merely a general rule. Provided that a party puts in issue in its pleading any of the four (4) items enumerated in the second paragraph of Rule 130, Section 9, "a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the agreement[.]"[41] Raising any of these items as an issue in a pleading such that it falls under the exception is not limited to the party initiating an action. In Philippine National Railways v. Court of First Instance of Albay,[42] this court noted that "if the defendant set up the affirmative defense that the contract mentioned in the complaint does not express the true agreement of the parties, then parol evidence is admissible to prove the true agreement of the parties[.]"[43] Moreover, as with all possible objections to the admission of evidence, a party's failure to timely object is deemed a waiver, and parol evidence may then be entertained. | |||||
|
2013-03-06 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Despite the enumeration of expenditures, the claim of petitioners for actual damages cannot be granted. In People v. Buenavidez,[14] this Court stressed that only expenses supported by receipts, and not merely a list thereof, shall be allowed as bases for the award of actual damages. As admitted by petitioners themselves,[15] none of these expenses, which were incurred over a span of seven years, was backed up by documentary proof such as a receipt or an invoice. Considering, therefore, that adequate compensation is awarded only if the pecuniary loss suffered is proven[16] by competent proof and by the best evidence obtainable showing the actual amount of loss,[17] the CA correctly denied petitioners' claims for actual damages. | |||||
|
2009-09-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the assailed clauses amount to a contract of adhesion imposed on WG&A on a "take-it-or-leave-it" basis. A contract of adhesion is so-called because its terms are prepared by only one party, while the other party merely affixes his signature signifying his adhesion thereto. Although not invalid, per se, a contract of adhesion is void when the weaker party is imposed upon in dealing with the dominant bargaining party, and its option is reduced to the alternative of "taking it or leaving it," completely depriving such party of the opportunity to bargain on equal footing.[51] | |||||
|
2009-08-19 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Verily, it is a cardinal rule of evidence, not just one of technicality but of substance, that the written document is the best evidence of its own contents. It is also a matter of both principle and policy that when the written contract is established as the repository of the parties' stipulations, any other evidence is excluded, and the same cannot be used to substitute for such contract, or even to alter or contradict the latter.[31] The original surety agreement is the best evidence that could establish the parties' respective rights and obligations. In effect, the RTC merely allowed the amendment of the complaint, which consequently included the substitution of the altered surety agreement with a copy of the original. | |||||