This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-03-31 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We agree with petitioner's contention that the rule excluding parol evidence to vary or contradict a written agreement, does not extend so far as to preclude the admission of extrinsic evidence, to show prior or contemporaneous collateral parol agreements between the parties. Such evidence may be received regardless of whether or not the written agreement contains reference to such collateral agreement. [43] As the Court ruled in United Kimberly-Clark Employees Union, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark Philippines, Inc. [44] | |||||