Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR NO. 155647 2007-11-23	METROPOLITAN BANK v. JIMMY GO NACHURA, J.
Second. The trust receipts subject of this case partake of the nature of contracts of adhesion. A contract of adhesion is defined as one in which one party imposes a ready-made form of contract which the other party may accept or reject, but which the latter cannot modify; one party prepares the stipulations in the contract, while the other party merely affixes his signature or his "adhesion" thereto, giving no room for negotiation, and resulting in deprivation of the latter of the opportunity to bargain on equal footing.[38]
	GR NO. 164307 2007-03-05	SPS. RODELIO AND ALICIA POLTAN v. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A contract of adhesion is defined as one in which one of the parties imposes a ready-made form of contract, which the other party may accept or reject, but which the latter cannot modify. One party prepares the stipulation in the contract, while the other party merely affixes his signature or his "adhesion" thereto, giving no room for negotiation and depriving the latter of the opportunity to bargain on equal footing.[33]
	GR NO. 164349 2006-01-31	RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF PHILIPPINES v. ALFONSO VERCHEZ CARPIO MORALES, J.
A contract of adhesion is defined as one in which one of the parties imposes a ready-made form of contract, which the other party may accept or reject, but which the latter cannot modify. One party prepares the stipulation in the contract, while the other party merely affixes his signature or his "adhesion" thereto, giving no room for negotiation and depriving the latter of the opportunity to bargain on equal footing.[38] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) While a contract of adhesion is not necessarily void and unenforceable, since it is construed strictly against the party who drafted it or gave rise to any ambiguity therein, it is stricken down as void and unenforceable or subversive of public policy when the weaker party is imposed upon in dealing with the dominant bargaining party and is reduced to the alternative of taking it or leaving it, completely deprived of the opportunity to bargain on equal footing.[39]
	GR No. 118030 2004-01-15	PROVIDENT INSURANCE CORP. v. CA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
We are not persuaded. A bill of lading is in the nature of a contract of adhesion, defined as one where one of the parties imposes a ready-made form of contract which the other party may accept or reject, but which the latter cannot modify. One party prepares the stipulation in the contract, while the other party merely affixes his signature or his "adhesion" thereto, giving no room for negotiation and depriving the latter of the opportunity to bargain on equal footing. Nevertheless, these types of contracts have been declared as binding as ordinary contracts, the reason being that the party who adheres to the contract is free to reject it entirely.[7]
	GR No. 136603 2002-01-18	EMILIO Y. TAÑEDO v. ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION PARDO, J.
As to the second issue, even if the "continuing guarantee" were considered as one of adhesion, we find the contract of "surety" valid because petitioner was "free to reject it entirely".[12] Petitioner was a stockholder and officer of Cheng Ban Yek and Co., Inc. and it was common business and banking practice to require "sureties" to guarantee corporate obligations.