This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-01-30 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| From the foregoing reservation, it is evident that the Spouses Cabahug's receipt of the easement fee did not bar them from seeking further compensation from NPC. Even by the basic rules in the interpretation of contracts, we find that the CA erred in holding that the payment of additional sums to the Spouses Cabahug would be violative of the parties' contract and amount to unjust enrichment. Indeed, the rule is settled that a contract constitutes the law between the parties who are bound by its stipulations[20] which, when couched in clear and plain language, should be applied according to their literal tenor.[21] Courts cannot supply material stipulations, read into the contract words it does not contain[22] or, for that matter, read into it any other intention that would contradict its plain import.[23] Neither can they rewrite contracts because they operate harshly or inequitably as to one of the parties, or alter them for the benefit of one party and to the detriment of the other, or by construction, relieve one of the parties from the terms which he voluntarily consented to, or impose on him those which he did not.[24] | |||||
|
2011-12-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| For lack of any stipulation regarding the same in the parties' Sub-Contract Agreement, we find that the CA correctly brushed aside LVM's insistence on deducting its supposed E-VAT payments from the retention money demanded by the Joint Venture. Indeed, a contract constitutes the law between the parties who are, therefore, bound by its stipulations[24] which, when couched in clear and plain language, should be applied according to their literal tenor.[25] That there was no agreement regarding the offsetting urged by LVM may likewise be readily gleaned from the parties' contemporaneous and subsequent acts which are given primordial consideration in determining their intention.[26] The record shows that, except for deducting sums corresponding to the 10% retention agreed upon, 9% as contingency on sub-contract, 1% withholding tax and such other itemized miscellaneous expenses, LVM settled the Joint Venture's Billing Nos. 1 to 26 without any mention of deductions for the E-VAT payments it claims to have advanced.[27] It was, in fact, only on 16 May 2001 that LVM's Managing Director, Andres C. Lao, apprised the Joint Venture in writing of its intention to deduct said payments,[28] to wit: If you would recall, during our last meeting with Deputy Project Manager of the DPWH-PJHL, Eng. Jimmy T. Chan, last March 2001 at the PJHL Office in Palo, Leyte, our company made a commitment to pay up to 99% accomplishment and release the retention money up to the 23rd partial billing after receipt by our company of the 27th partial billing from JBIC and GOP relative to the above mentioned project. | |||||