This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-09-18 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Basic is the rule that parties to a contract may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms, or conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, and public policy.[45] While greater vigilance is required in determining the validity of clauses arising from contracts of adhesion,[46] the Court has nevertheless consistently ruled that contracts of adhesion are not invalid per se and that it has, on numerous occasions, upheld the binding effect thereof.[47] | |||||
|
2009-02-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In interpreting such contracts, however, courts are expected to observe greater vigilance in order to shield the unwary or weaker party from deceptive schemes contained in ready-made covenants.[36] Thus, Article 24 of the Civil Code pertinently states:In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection. | |||||
|
2008-06-12 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Such stipulation in the bill of lading limiting respondents' liability for the loss of the subject cargoes is allowed under Art. 1749 of the Civil Code, and Sec. 4, paragraph (5) of the COGSA. Everett Steamship Corporation v. Court of Appeals[12] held:A stipulation in the bill of lading limiting the common carrier's liability for loss or destruction of a cargo to a certain sum, unless the shipper or owner declares a greater value, is sanctioned by law, particularly Articles 1749 and 1750 of the Civil Code which provide: | |||||