This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-04-25 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| This argument is far-fetched and borders on the incredible. At the outset, it should be pointed out that there is no ambiguity whatsoever in the language of the documents used. The confirmations of sale and purchase unequivocally state that IITC acted as a principal buyer and seller of treasury bills. The language used is as clear as day and cannot be more explicit. Thus, because the words of the documents in question are clear and readily understandable by any ordinary reader, there is no need for the interpretation or construction thereof.[34] This was emphasized in the case of Pichel v. Alonzo:[35] | |||||