This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-11-23 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, [w]hen an agreement has been reduced to writing, the parties cannot be permitted to adduce evidence to prove alleged practices [that], to all purposes, would alter the terms of the written agreement. Whatever is not found in the writing is understood to have been waived and abandoned.[174] | |||||
|
2015-09-02 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Finally, it is well to consider this rule: that when the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is to be considered as containing all such terms, and, therefore, there can be, between the parties and their successors-in-interest, no evidence of the terms of the agreement other than the contents of the writing.[50] | |||||
|
2014-10-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The rule is that where the language of a contract is plain and unambiguous, its meaning should be determined without reference to extrinsic facts or aids. The intention of the parties must be gathered from that language, and from that language alone. Stated differently, where the language of a written contract is clear and unambiguous, the contract must be taken to mean that which, on its face, it purports to mean, unless some good reason can be assigned to show that the words should be understood in a different sense. Courts cannot make for the parties better or more equitable agreements than they themselves have been satisfied to make, or 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.[29] | |||||
|
2014-10-08 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The Court disagrees with the contentions of BPI Express Credit. The Terms and Conditions Governing the Issuance and Use of the BPI Express Credit Card[22] printed on the credit card application form spelled out the terms and conditions of the contract between BPI Express Credit and its card holders, including Armovit. Such terms and conditions determined the rights and obligations of the parties.[23] Yet, a review of such terms and conditions did not reveal that Armovit needed to submit her new application as the antecedent condition for her credit card to be taken out of the list of suspended cards. | |||||
|
2013-11-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In Norton Resources and Development Corporation v. All Asia Bank Corporation,[23] this Court ruled that [t]he agreement or contract between the parties is the formal expression of the parties' rights, duties and obligations. It is the best evidence of the intention of the parties. Thus, when the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement between the parties and their successors in interest. Time and again, we have stressed the rule that a contract is the law between the parties, and courts have no choice but to enforce such contract so long as it is not contrary to law, morals, good customs or public policy. Otherwise, courts would be interfering with the freedom of contract of the parties. Simply put, courts cannot stipulate for the parties or amend the latter's agreement, for to do so would be to alter the real intention of the contracting parties when the contrary function of courts is to give force and effect to the intention of the parties. | |||||
|
2013-07-31 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Basic is the principle that a contract is the law between the parties,[18] and its stipulations are binding on them, unless the contract is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.[19] Indeed, paragraph V of the MOA obligates petitioner to pay the taxes due from the sale of the Genicon laparoscopic instrument. Petitioner admits that he is the one "responsible in the payment of the EVAT and not the respondent, who merely acted as the marketer"[20] of the Genicon laparoscopic instrument. Hence, as between petitioner and respondent, petitioner bears the burden for the payment of VAT. | |||||
|
2013-03-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It has been explained by the Supreme Court in Norton Resources and Development Corporation v. All Asia Bank Corporation[50] in reiteration of the ruling in Benguet Corporation v. Cabildo[51] that: x x x A court's purpose in examining a contract is to interpret the intent of the contracting parties, as objectively manifested by them. The process of interpreting a contract requires the court to make a preliminary inquiry as to whether the contract before it is ambiguous. A contract provision is ambiguous if it is susceptible of two reasonable alternative interpretations. Where the written terms of the contract are not ambiguous and can only be read one way, the court will interpret the contract as a matter of law. x x x | |||||
|
2010-10-13 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| A contract of adhesion is defined as one in which one of the parties imposes a ready-made form of contract, which the other party may accept or reject, but which the latter cannot modify. One party prepares the stipulation in the contract, while the other party merely affixes his signature or his `adhesion' thereto, giving no room for negotiation and depriving the latter of the opportunity to bargain on equal footing.[24] | |||||