This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2013-10-09 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In his concurring opinion in Universal Food Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[7] Justice J.B.L. Reyes clarifies: It is probable that the petitioner's confusion arose from the defective technique of the new Code that terms both instances as "rescission" without distinction between them; unlike the previous Spanish Code of 1889 that differentiated between "resolution" for breach of stipulations from "rescission" by reason of lesion or damage. But the terminological vagueness does not justify confusing one case with the other, considering the patent difference in causes and results of either action.[8] | |||||