This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-10-04 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The resolution of these cases calls for a reexamination of facts. While generally, the Court is not a trier of facts, a recognized exception thereto is a situation where the findings of fact of the CA and the trial court are conflicting. [23] | |||||
|
2010-08-02 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The most fundamental rule in the interpretation of contracts is that, if the terms are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of the contract provisions shall control.[14] Its meaning should be determined without reference to extrinsic facts or aids. The intention of the parties must be gathered from that language, and from that language alone. Stated differently, where the language of a written contract is clear and unambiguous, the contract must be taken to mean that which, on its face, it purports to mean, unless some good reason can be assigned to show that the words should be understood in a different sense. Courts cannot make for the parties better or more equitable agreements than they themselves have been satisfied to make, or rewrite contracts because they operate harshly or inequitably as to one of the parties, or alter them for the benefit of one party and to the detriment of the other, or by construction, relieve one of the parties from the terms which he voluntarily consented to, or impose on him those which he did not.[15] | |||||