Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

INTESTATE ESTATE OF LATE RICARDO P. PRESBITERO v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 139523 2006-05-26	SPS. FELIPE AND LETICIA CANNU v. SPS. GIL AND FERNANDINA GALANG AND NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Rescission will not be permitted for a slight or casual breach of the contract. Rescission may be had only for such breaches that are substantial and fundamental as to defeat the object of the parties in making the agreement.[36] The question of whether a breach of contract is substantial depends upon the attending circumstances[37] and not merely on the percentage of the amount not paid.
	GR NO. 146120 2006-01-27	DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH v. HTMC ENGINEERS COMPANY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It must be stressed at this point that HTMC's failure to accept the amendment proposed by the DOH did not, in any way, affect the validity and the subsistence of the four consultancy contracts which bound both parties upon its perfection as early as May 1996. A contract properly executed between parties continue to be the law between said parties and should be complied with in good faith.[9] There being a perfected contract, DOH cannot revoke or renounce the same without the consent of the other party. Just as nobody can be forced to enter into a contract, in the same manner, once a contract is entered into, no party can renounce it unilaterally or without the consent of the other.[10] It is a general principle of law that no one may be permitted to change his mind or disavow and go back upon his own acts, or to proceed contrary thereto, to the prejudice of the other party.[11] As no revision to the original agreement was ever arrived at, the terms of the original contract shall continue to govern over both the HTMC and the DOH with respect to the infrastructure projects as if no amendments were ever initiated. In the absence of a new perfected contract between HTMC and DOH, both parties shall continue to be bound by the stipulations of the original contract and all its natural effects.[12]
	AC. NO. 5760 2005-09-30	HEIRS OF TIBURCIO F. BALLESTEROS v. ATTY. MANILEÑO N. APIAG CARPIO, J.
Respondentï¿½s failure to file the pre-trial brief constitutes inexcusable negligence. As the Court held in Spouses Galen v. Atty. Paguirigan:[54] An attorney is bound to protect his client's interest to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. A failure to file brief for his client certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part. The respondent has indeed committed a serious lapse in the duty owed by him to his client as well as to the Court not to delay litigation and to aid in the speedy administration of justice. Moreover, respondent's non-appearance in the pre-trial conference held on 5 February 2002 was due to his assumption that the trial court would grant the Motion for Postponement filed by counsel for plaintiffs. The Court has repeatedly ruled that motions for postponements are granted only upon meritorious grounds and no party has the right to assume that such motion would be granted.[55] Respondent's reason for his non-appearance at the pre-trial conference is faulty and unacceptable.
	GR No. 139523 2005-05-26	SPS. FELIPE AND LETICIA CANNU v. SPS. GIL AND FERNANDINA GALANG AND NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Rescission will not be permitted for a slight or casual breach of the contract. Rescission may be had only for such breaches that are substantial and fundamental as to defeat the object of the parties in making the agreement.[36] The question of whether a breach of contract is substantial depends upon the attending circumstances[37] and not merely on the percentage of the amount not paid.