This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-12-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In Prisma Construction & Development Corporation v. Menchavez, [40] we discussed the settled principles that: Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. When 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 governs. In such cases, courts have no authority to alter the contract by construction or to make a new contract for the parties; a court's duty is confined to the interpretation of the contract the parties made for themselves without regard to its wisdom or folly, as the court cannot supply material stipulations or read into the contract words the contract does not contain. It is only when the contract is vague and ambiguous that courts are permitted to resort to the interpretation of its terms to determine the parties' intent. [41] | |||||
|
2008-10-15 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| On March 20, 2000, the SEC issued an Omnibus Order[13] denying both the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and the creation of a management committee. It further directed the Hotel to call and hold a stockholder's meeting. In its order, the SEC concluded that the disputed shares should not be allowed to vote and be voted for pending the resolution on the merits as to who actually owns the shares.[14] Aggrieved, Yolanda elevated the matter to the SEC en banc which dismissed the same for non-payment of appeal fee. On petition[15] before the CA, the latter directed the SEC en banc to take cognizance of the appeal.[16] The CA decision became final and executory. | |||||