This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-04-29 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| According to petitioner, the CA erred in affirming the ruling of the trial court, admitting in evidence a receipt dated May 2, 1991 marked as Exhibit "A" and its submarkings, although the same was merely a photocopy, thus, violating the best evidence rule. However, the records show that petitioner never objected to the admissibility of the said evidence at the time it was identified, marked and testified upon in court by private complainant. The CA also correctly pointed out that petitioner also failed to raise an objection in his Comment to the prosecution's formal offer of evidence and even admitted having signed the said receipt. The established doctrine is that when a party failed to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the time they were offered in evidence, such objection shall be considered as waived.[5] | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Contracts of sale are perfected by mutual consent whereby the seller obligates himself, for a price certain, to deliver and transfer ownership of a specified thing or right to the buyer over which the latter agrees.[24] Mutual consent being a state of mind, its existence may only be inferred from the confluence of two acts of the parties: an offer certain as to the object of the contract and its consideration, and an acceptance of the offer which is absolute in that it refers to the exact object and consideration embodied in said offer.[25] While it is impossible to expect the acceptance to echo every nuance of the offer, it is imperative that it assents to those points in the offer which, under the operative facts of each contract, are not only material but motivating as well. Anything short of that level of mutuality produces not a contract but a mere counter-offer awaiting acceptance.[26] More particularly on the matter of the consideration of the contract, the offer and its acceptance must be unanimous both on the rate of the payment and on its term. An acceptance of an offer which agrees to the rate but varies the term is ineffective. [27] | |||||
|
2006-01-23 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The real nature of a contract may be determined from the express terms of the written agreement and from the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the contracting parties.[4] In the construction or interpretation of an instrument, the intention of the parties is primordial and is to be pursued.[5] If the terms of the contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.[6] If the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail over the former.[7] The denomination or title given by the parties in their contract is not conclusive of the nature of its contents.[8] | |||||
|
2005-11-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, no objection was raised by counsel for petitioners in their written opposition/comment to private respondents' offer of evidence[12] regarding the fact that what was marked and submitted to the court was the photocopy. In Blas vs. Angeles-Hutalla,[13] the Court held thus:The established doctrine is that when a party failed to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the time they were offered in evidence, such objection shall be considered as waived. In Tison v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court set out the applicable principle in the following terms: | |||||