This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-12-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Contracts constitute the law between the parties. They must be read together and interpreted in a manner that reconciles and gives life to all of them. The intent of the parties, as shown by the clear language used, prevails over post facto explanations that find no support from the words employed by the parties or from their contemporary and subsequent acts showing their understanding of such contracts.[19] | |||||
|
2005-05-06 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The hornbook rule on interpretation of contracts gives primacy to the intention of the parties, which is the law among them. Ultimately, their intention is to be deciphered not from the unilateral post facto assertions of one of the parties, but from the language used in the contract. And when the terms of the agreement, as expressed in such language, are clear, they are to be understood literally, just as they appear on the face of the contract.[52] | |||||
|
2004-11-10 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Suffice it to state that this flip-flopping stance of NIA of adopting and discarding positions to suit its convenience cannot be countenanced. A person who, by his deed or conduct has induced another to act in a particular manner, is barred from adopting an inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct that thereby causes loss or injury to another.[43] Indeed, the application of the principle of estoppel is proper and timely in heading off NIA's efforts at renouncing its previous acts to the prejudice of Hydro which had dealt with it honestly and in good faith. | |||||
|
2000-03-02 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| All told, when the text of a contract is explicit and leaves no doubt as to its intention, the court may not read into it any other intention that would contradict its plain import.[11] Arbitration being the mode of settlement between the parties expressly provided for by their Agreement, the Third Party Complaint should have been dismissed. | |||||