This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-09-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner is therefore barred by the principle of conclusiveness of judgment from again invoking good faith in the application for the issuance of the writ. Similarly, in the case of Hanil Development Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals,[26] the Court debunked the claim of good faith by a party who maliciously sought the issuance of a writ of attachment, the bad faith of said party having been previously determined in a final decision which voided the assailed writ. Thus | |||||
|
2005-08-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is a time-honored rule that a contract constitutes the law between the parties and they are, therefore, bound by its stipulations. If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.[11] The agreement or the contract between the parties is the formal expression of the parties' rights, duties and obligations[12] and where there is nothing in it which is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy or public good, its validity must be sustained.[13] | |||||