This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-02-08 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Injunction may be issued only when the plaintiff appears to be entitled to the main relief he asks in his complaint.[15] This means that the plaintiff's allegations should show clearly that he has a cause of action. This means that he enjoys some right and that the defendant has violated it.[16] And, where the defendant is heard on the application for injunction, the trial court must consider, too, the weight of his opposition. | |||||
|
2009-11-27 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In support of its position, SEARBEMCO cites the case of Toyota Motor Philippines Corp. v. Court of Appeals[38] which holds that, "the contention that the arbitration clause has become dysfunctional because of the presence of third parties is untenable. Contracts are respected as the law between the contracting parties. As such, the parties are thereby expected to abide with good faith in their contractual commitments." SEARBEMCO argues that the presence of third parties in the complaint does not affect the validity of the provisions on arbitration. | |||||
|
2001-02-07 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The Agreement between petitioner DMC-USA and private respondent MMI is a contract. The provision to submit to arbitration any dispute arising therefrom and the relationship of the parties is part of that contract and is itself a contract. As a rule, contracts are respected as the law between the contracting parties and produce effect as between them, their assigns and heirs.[24] Clearly, only parties to the Agreement, i.e., petitioners DMC-USA and its Managing Director for Export Sales Paul E. Derby, Jr., and private respondents MMI and its Managing Director LILY SY are bound by the Agreement and its arbitration clause as they are the only signatories thereto. Petitioners Daniel Collins and Luis Hidalgo, and private respondent SFI, not parties to the Agreement and cannot even be considered assigns or heirs of the parties, are not bound by the Agreement and the arbitration clause therein. Consequently, referral to arbitration in the State of California pursuant to the arbitration clause and the suspension of the proceedings in Civil Case No. 2637-MN pending the return of the arbitral award could be called for[25] but only as to petitioners DMC-USA and Paul E. Derby, Jr., and private respondents MMI and LILY SY, and not as to the other parties in this case, in accordance with the recent case of Heirs of Augusto L. Salas, Jr. v. Laperal Realty Corporation,[26] which superseded that of Toyota Motor Philippines Corp. v. Court of Appeals.[27] | |||||