This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-11-26 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that ambiguities in a contract are interpreted against the party that caused the ambiguity. Any ambiguity in a contract whose terms are susceptible of different interpretations must be read against the party who drafted it.[14] In the extant case, respondent spouses, having imposed, unilaterally at that, the compounded interest rate, had the correlative duty of clarifying and reducing in writing how the said interest shall be earned. Having failed to do so, the silence of the agreement on the manner of earning interest is a valid argument for prohibiting them from charging interest at a compounded rate. | |||||