This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-07-06 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| The Contract of Employment signed by respondent is first and foremost a contract, which has the force of law between the parties as long as its stipulations are not contrary to law, morals, public order, or public policy. We had occasion to rule that stipulations providing that either party may terminate a contract even without cause are legitimate if exercised in good faith.[86] Thus, while either party has the right to terminate the contract at will, it cannot not act purposely to injure the other.[87] | |||||
|
2008-07-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Invoking Article 1370[26] of the Civil Code and citing jurisprudence, petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in interpreting a clear and unambiguous contract. It insists that a clearly worded contract leaves no doubt on the intention of the parties, and requires no interpretation but only literal application. It points out that the appellate court and respondents did not even say that the terms of the contract are unclear and ambiguous.[27] | |||||