This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-04-03 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Memorandum of Agreement executed between the petitioner and respondent on December 7, 1990 is the law between the parties. In resolving an issue based upon a contract, we must first examine the contract itself, especially the provisions thereof which are relevant to the controversy.[24] The general rule is that if the terms of an agreement are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall prevail.[25] It is further required that the various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly.[26] | |||||
|
2006-04-19 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In resolving an issue based on contract, this Court must first examine the contract itself, keeping in mind that when the terms of the agreement are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall prevail.[48] The intention of the contracting parties should be ascertained by looking at the words used to project their intention, that is, all the words, not just a particular word or two or more words standing alone. The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly.[49] The parts and clauses must be interpreted in relation to one another to give effect to the whole. The legal effect of a contract is to be determined from the whole read together.[50] | |||||