This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-02-25 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Villanueva does not impress. Her defense crumbles because she did not present proof of the supposed agreement. The receipt signed by her proved the transaction and her issuance of the postdated checks by listing the items bought and the postdated checks issued as payment. If the parties really agreed for Madarang to deposit the checks only after notice of the sufficiency of funds, then such agreement should have been incorporated in the receipt as an integral part of the transaction, or simply written in another document with Madarang's express conformity for Villanueva's protection. We simply cannot accept that Villanueva signed the receipt despite not including the supposed agreement that would shield her from probable criminal prosecution. In that regard, her being a businesswoman[23] presumably made her aware of the consequences of issuing unfunded checks.[24] All that she is claiming here is that the receipt did not express the true intention of the parties, implying that no written document substantiated her alleged defense. She did not claim at all that she had been coerced or intimidated into signing the receipt as written. Her self-serving statements on the agreement were entirely inadequate to establish her assertions, for they were not proof.[25] | |||||
|
2004-06-04 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| To include the full payment of the obligations with the SSS and Apex as a condition would be to unnecessarily stretch and put a new meaning to the provisions of the agreement. For, as a general rule, when the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, such written agreement is deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors-in-interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.[12] And, it is a familiar doctrine in obligations and contracts that the parties are bound by the stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions they have agreed to, which is the law between them, the only limitation being that these stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions are not contrary to law, morals, public order or public policy.[13] Not being repugnant to any legal proscription, the agreement entered into by the parties must be respected and each is bound to fulfill what has been expressly stipulated therein.[14] | |||||