This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-12-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The doctrine though is not cast in stone for upon a showing that circumstances attendant in a particular case override the great benefits derived by our judicial system from the doctrine of stare decisis, the Court is justified in setting it aside. [56] For the Court, as the highest court of the land, may be guided but is not controlled by precedent. Thus, the Court, especially with a new membership, is not obliged to follow blindly a particular decision that it determines, after re-examination, to call for a rectification. [57] | |||||
|
2010-04-20 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The Court, as the highest court of the land, may be guided but is not controlled by precedent. Thus, the Court, especially with a new membership, is not obliged to follow blindly a particular decision that it determines, after re-examination, to call for a rectification.[5] The adherence to precedents is strict and rigid in a common-law setting like the United Kingdom, where judges make law as binding as an Act of Parliament.[6] But ours is not a common-law system; hence, judicial precedents are not always strictly and rigidly followed. A judicial pronouncement in an earlier decision may be followed as a precedent in a subsequent case only when its reasoning and justification are relevant, and the court in the latter case accepts such reasoning and justification to be applicable to the case. The application of the precedent is for the sake of convenience and stability. | |||||
|
2005-12-09 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The foregoing terms and conditions show that it is a contract to sell and not a contract of sale. For one, the conspicuous absence of a definite manner of payment of the purchase price in the agreement confirms the conclusion that it is a contract to sell. This is because the manner of payment of the purchase price is an essential element before a valid and binding contract of sale can exist.[9] Although the Civil Code does not expressly state that the minds of the parties must also meet on the terms or manner of payment of the price, the same is needed, otherwise there is no sale.[10] As held in Toyota Shaw, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,[11] a definite agreement on the manner of payment of the price is an essential element in the formation of a binding and enforceable contract of sale. | |||||
|
2004-10-20 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Granting arguendo, that the amount of US$36 million was a definite offer, it would remain as a mere offer in the absence of evidence of its acceptance. To produce a contract, there must be acceptance, which may be express or implied, but it must not qualify the terms of the offer.[47] The acceptance of an offer must be unqualified and absolute to perfect the contract.[48] In other words, it must be identical in all respects with that of the offer so as to produce consent or meeting of the minds.[49] | |||||