This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-09-08 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| But Rolando asserts that his situation deserves an exception to the application of Article 1956. He blames Atty. Salonga for the lack of a written document, claiming that said lawyer used his legal knowledge to dupe him. Rolando thus imputes bad faith on the part of L&J and Atty. Salonga. The Court, however, finds no deception on the part of L&J and Atty. Salonga. For one, despite the lack of a document stipulating the payment of interest, L&J nevertheless devotedly paid interests on the loan. It only stopped when it suffered from financial difficulties that prevented it from continuously paying the 6% monthly rate. For another, regardless of Atty. Salonga's profession, Rolando who is an architect and an educated man himself could have been a more reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. To top it all, he admitted that he had no prior communication with Atty. Salonga. Despite Atty. Salonga being a complete stranger, he immediately trusted him and lent his company P350,000.00, a significant amount. Moreover, as the creditor, he could have requested or required that all the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, which include the payment of interest, be put down in writing to ensure that he and L&J are on the same page. Rolando had a choice of not acceding and to insist that their contract be put in written form as this will favor and safeguard him as a lender. Unfortunately, he did not. It must be stressed that "[c]ourts cannot follow one every step of his life and extricate him from bad bargains, protect him from unwise investments, relieve him from one-sided contracts, or annul the effects of foolish acts. Courts cannot constitute themselves guardians of persons who are not legally incompetent."[23] | |||||
|
2002-10-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| defiance of mother time in his private practice of law, a fact perhaps remarkable, this simple ejectment case as any other case turns upon sensible not blind compassion where the party has to his favor the tilt of equity and law. Our chief resource in resolving cases is legal reasoning and no amount of plea for charitable dole-outs will replace the reckoning of the rule of law. This Court has said long ago: "The law furnishes no protection to the inferior simply because he is inferior, any more than it protects the strong because he is strong. The law furnishes protection to both alike - to one no more or less than to the other. It makes no distinction between the wise and the foolish, the great and the small, the strong and the weak x x x x There must be, in addition, a violation of law, the commission of what the law knows as an actionable wrong, before the courts are authorized to lay hold of the situation and remedy it."[14] WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 58420, "Manuel D. Melotindos v. Melecio Tobias, represented by Josefina B. Pineda, his authorized | |||||
|
2002-10-04 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| foolish, the great and the small, the strong and the weak. The foolish may lose all they have to the wise; but that does not mean that the law will give it back to them again. Courts cannot follow one every step of his life and extricate him from bad bargains, protect him from unwise investments, relieve him from one-sided contracts, or annul the effects of foolish acts.[27] Petitioners however, are not without recourse for the loss of their property. Although they cannot go after respondent MBTC, they have in their favor the undertaking executed by George Neri and other members of his family. The undertaking also bound respondent Asiancars, as | |||||