This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-03-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Also, petitioner RIC failed to controvert the claim of respondent Taripe that he was made to sign the contract of employment, prepared by petitioner RIC, as a condition for his hiring. Such contract in which the terms are prepared by only one party and the other party merely affixes his signature signifying his adhesion thereto is called contract of adhesion.[20] It is an agreement in which the parties bargaining are not on equal footing, the weaker party's participation being reduced to the alternative "to take it or leave it."[21] In the present case, respondent Taripe, in need of a job, was compelled to agree to the contract, including the five-month period of employment, just so he could be hired. Hence, it cannot be argued that respondent Taripe signed the employment contract with a fixed term of five months willingly and with full knowledge of the impact thereof. | |||||
|
2003-09-30 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, the inequality of bargaining positions and the resulting impairment of the other party's freedom to contract necessarily call upon us to exercise our mandate as a court of justice and equity. Indeed, we have ruled that contracts of such nature "obviously call for greater strictness and vigilance on the part of the courts of justice with a view to protecting the weaker party from abuses and imposition and prevent their becoming traps for the unwary."[42] | |||||