Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION v. GLOBE TELECOM

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 212426 2016-01-12	SAGUISAG v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OCHOA SERENO, C.J.
The context drawn in the analysis above has been termed by Justice Arturo D. Brion's Dissenting Opinion as the beginning of a "patent misconception."[165] His dissent argues that this approach taken in analyzing the President's role as executor of the laws is preceded by the duty to preserve and defend the Constitution, which was allegedly overlooked.[166]
	GR No. 167195 2009-05-08	ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST v. T.J. ENTERPRISES TINGA, J.
A fortuitous event may either be an act of God, or natural occurrences such as floods or typhoons, or an act of man such as riots, strikes or wars.[21] However, when the loss is found to be partly the result of a person's participation-whether by active intervention, neglect or failure to act the whole occurrence is humanized and removed from the rules applicable to a fortuitous event.[22]
	GR No. 168115 2007-06-08	VICENTE ONG LIM SING v. FEB LEASING NACHURA, J.
It is settled that the parties are free to agree to such stipulations, clauses, terms, and conditions as they may want to include in a contract. As long as such agreements are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy, or public order, they shall have the force of law between the parties.[26] Contracting parties may stipulate on terms and conditions as they may see fit and these have the force of law between them.[27]
	GR NO. 163512 2007-02-28	DAISY B. TIU v. PLATINUM PLANS PHIL. QUISUMBING, J.
Article 1159[14] of the same Code also provides that obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. Courts cannot stipulate for the parties nor amend their agreement where the same does not contravene law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, for to do so would be to alter the real intent of the parties, and would run contrary to the function of the courts to give force and effect thereto.[15] Not being contrary to public policy, the non-involvement clause, which petitioner and respondent freely agreed upon, has the force of law between them, and thus, should be complied with in good faith.[16]