This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2013-07-24 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Hence, the resulting situation is that the spouses Luna are constrained to part with their money while the spouses Bonrostro, despite being remiss in their obligation to pay the monthly amortization, are relieved from paying higher penalties at the expense of the former. This is aside from the fact that the spouses Bonrostro are in continued possession of the subject property and are enjoying the beneficial use thereof. Under the circumstances and considering that the spouses Bonrostro are obviously in delay in complying with their obligation to pay the amortizations due from February 1993 to January 1995 for which the spouses Luna paid P214,492.62,[45] the CA correctly ordered the reimbursement to the latter of the said amount with interest. "Delay in the performance of an obligation is looked upon with disfavor because, when a party to a contract incurs delay, the other party who performs his part of the contract suffers damages thereby."[46] As discussed, the spouses Luna obviously suffered damages brought about by the failure of the spouses Bonrostro to comply with their obligation on time. "And, sans elaboration of the matter at hand, damages take the form of interest x x x."[47] Under Article 2209 of the Civil Code, "[i]f the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest x x x." There being no stipulation on interest in case of delay in the payment of amortization, the CA thus correctly imposed interest at the legal rate which is now 12% per annum. | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, the records are unclouded that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the drug items seized from defendant-appellant during the buy-bust operation were properly preserved and safeguarded. The specimen was adequately marked, and then dispatched to the Crime Laboratory for the requisite Chemistry Report conducted by Forensic Chemist Engr. Leonard Jabonillo. What is even more telling is the fact that accused-appellant was not shown to have challenged the custody or the issue of disposition and preservation of the subject drug before the RTC. And neither did he raise objections before the Court of Appeals. Accused-appellant cannot be allowed too late in the day to question the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.[37] Thus, in People v. Sta. Maria,[38] this Court underscored the rule that objection to the admissibility of evidence raised for the first time on appeal cannot be considered:Indeed, the police officers' alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.[39] | |||||
|
2008-04-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Due process requires that in reaching a decision, a tribunal must consider the entire evidence presented.[37] All the parties to the case, therefore, are considered bound by the favorable or unfavorable effects resulting from the evidence.[38] As already mentioned, in arriving at a decision, the entirety of the evidence presented will be considered, regardless of the party who offered them in evidence. In this light, the more vital consideration is not whether a piece of evidence was properly attributed to one party, but whether it was accorded the apposite probative weight by the court. The testimony of an adverse witness is evidence in the case and should be given its proper weight, and such evidence becomes weightier if the other party fails to impeach the witness or contradict his testimony. | |||||
|
2008-04-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| An agreement or the contract between the parties is the formal expression of the parties' rights, duties and obligations. It is the best evidence of the intention of the parties.[53] The parties' intention is to be deciphered from the language used in the contract, not from the unilateral post facto assertions of one of the parties, or of third parties who are strangers to the contract.[54] Thus, when the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.[55] | |||||
|
2007-10-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Considering that the parties entered into a contract, it shall constitute the law between them.[17] The agreement between the parties is the formal expression of the parties' rights, duties and obligations.[18] Being the primary law between the parties, it governs the adjudication of their rights and obligations.[19] When the terms of the contract are clear and leave no room for interpretation, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall, therefore, control.[20] A court has no alternative but to enforce the contractual stipulations in the manner they have been agreed upon and written.[21] The petitioner was, therefore, bound to respect the decision of the respondent not to continue on with the lease. Absent any allegation that a stipulation is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, it must be complied with in good faith.[22] | |||||
|
2007-01-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The agreement or contract between the parties is the formal expression of the parties' rights, duties and obligations.[7] It is the best evidence of the intention of the parties.[8] Thus, when the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.[9] Furthermore, it is a cardinal rule that if the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall control.[10] | |||||
|
2006-10-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Note also that when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, it must so state in the form of a timely objection and it cannot raise the objection to the evidence for the first time on appeal.[7] Because of a party's failure to timely object, the evidence becomes part of the evidence in the case. Thereafter, all the parties are considered bound by any outcome arising from the offer of evidence properly presented.[8] | |||||
|
2005-08-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is a time-honored rule that a contract constitutes the law between the parties and they are, therefore, bound by its stipulations. If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.[11] The agreement or the contract between the parties is the formal expression of the parties' rights, duties and obligations[12] and where there is nothing in it which is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy or public good, its validity must be sustained.[13] | |||||
|
2005-05-06 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The agreement or contract between the parties is the formal expression of the parties' rights, duties and obligations. It is the best evidence of the intention of the parties.[10] Thus, when the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.[11] | |||||