Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HI-CEMENT CORPORATION v. INSULAR BANK OF ASIA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 171628 2011-06-13	ARMANDO V. ALANO v. PLANTER'S DEVELOPMENT BANK DEL CASTILLO, J.
The rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is not without exception. A review of factual issues is allowed when there is a misapprehension of facts or when the inference drawn from the facts is manifestly mistaken. [47] This case falls under exception.
	GR No. 180257 2011-02-23	EUSEBIO GONZALES v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL VELASCO JR., J.
Fourth, the solidary liability of Gonzales is clearly stipulated in the promissory notes which uniformly begin, "For value received, the undersigned (the "BORROWER") jointly and severally promise to pay x x x." Solidary liability cannot be presumed but must be established by law or contract.[22] Article 1207 of the Civil Code pertinently states that "there is solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the obligation requires solidarity." This is true in the instant case where Gonzales, as accommodation party, is immediately, equally, and absolutely bound with the spouses Panlilio on the promissory notes which indubitably stipulated solidary liability for all the borrowers. Moreover, the three promissory notes serve as the contract between the parties. Contracts have the force of law between the parties and must be complied with in good faith.[23]
	GR No. 156125 2010-08-25	FRANCISCO MUÑOZ v. ERLINDA RAMIREZ BRION, J.
This Court is not a trier of facts. However, if the inference, drawn by the CA, from the facts is manifestly mistaken, as in the present case, we can review the evidence to allow us to arrive at the correct factual conclusions based on the record. [33]
	GR No. 118249 2003-02-14	MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. CA CARPIO, J.
In its Decision of December 22, 1993,[13] the Court of Appeals set aside the questioned orders of the trial court for lack of sufficient basis, to wit:"In the case at bar, while the right of petitioner to terminate the lease contract is clear, and in fact ruled upon with finality or is res judicata, private respondent's mere claim of an extended/expanded contract is unclear and disputed, to the effect that the granting of the writ of preliminary injunction at this stage of the proceeding, being based on the doubtful genuineness and validity of the alleged extended agreement, has not been successfully established."