This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-02-24 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The Court has declared that a contract where there is no mutuality between the parties partakes of the nature of a contract of adhesion,[33] and any obscurity will be construed against the party who prepared the contract, the latter being presumed the stronger party to the agreement, and who caused the obscurity.[34] PNB should then suffer the consequences of its failure to specifically indicate the rates of interest in the credit agreement. We spoke clearly on this in Philippine Savings Bank v. Castillo,[35] to wit:The unilateral determination and imposition of the increased rates is violative of the principle of mutuality of contracts under Article 1308 of the Civil Code, which provides that '[t]he contract must bind both contracting parties; its validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them.' A perusal of the Promissory Note will readily show that the increase or decrease of interest rates hinges solely on the discretion of petitioner. It does not require the conformity of the maker before a new interest rate could be enforced. Any contract which appears to be heavily weighed in favor of one of the parties so as to lead to an unconscionable result, thus partaking of the nature of a contract of adhesion, is void. Any stipulation regarding the validity or compliance of the contract left solely to the will of one of the parties is likewise invalid. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||