Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION v. JOSE T. CALDERON

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 157632 2006-12-06	JOSE S. ROQUE v. JAIME T. TORRES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Furthermore, respondent's palpable display of bad faith in claiming a superior right to the property over petitioner's son entitles petitioner to damages resulting therefrom. In order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries which he sustained, he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal responsibility by the person causing it.[13] In other words, in order that the law will give redress for an act causing damage, the act must be not only hurtful, but wrongful.[14]
	GR NO. 169578 2006-11-30	TERESITA DIO v. ST. FERDINAND MEMORIAL PARK CALLEJO, SR., J.
A contract of adhesion, wherein one party imposes a readymade form of contract on the other, is not strictly against the law.[29] A contract of adhesion is as binding as ordinary contracts, the reason being that the party who adheres to the contract is free to reject it entirely.[30] Contrary to petitioner's contention, not every contract of adhesion is an invalid agreement. As we had the occasion to state in Development Bank of the Philippines v. Perez:[31]
	GR NO. 147748 2006-04-19	VISITACION GAVINA GAW v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Evidently, petitioner not only failed to comply with her obligation to immediately inform respondent PPI of the fact of death, she encroached on respondent PPI's sole and exclusive right to make all negotiations and necessary arrangements with a mortuary of its choice for the rendition of memorial services. She likewise breached the contract when she availed of a coffin different from that provided under her memorial plan. Verily, she must be solely responsible for the expenses incurred.[15] Pre-Need Agreement No. 93945-5 is, indeed, a contract of adhesion in that the stipulations therein were unilaterally prepared and imposed by private respondent on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. This does not mean, however, that petitioner cannot be bound by its terms nor can she unilaterally change it to suit her whim. A contract of adhesion is "as binding as ordinary contracts, the reason being that the party who adheres to the contract is free to reject it entirely."[16] Neither will the Court interpret the terms and conditions of the pre-need plan since its language is explicit and leaves no doubt as to the intention of the parties. As the Court held in The Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals:[17]
	GR NO. 147275 2006-03-31	VICENTE ONGKEKO v. BPI EXPRESS CARD CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Indeed, petitioner's surety undertaking partakes the nature of a contract of adhesion, in that the stipulations were unilaterally prepared and imposed by respondent on a take-it-or-leave-it basis; however, the Court has also ruled that such a contract is "as binding as ordinary contracts, the reason being that the party who adheres to the contract is free to reject it entirely."[12]