Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PENTACAPITAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. MAKILITO B. MAHINAY

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 201001 2014-11-10	MCMP CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. MONARK EQUIPMENT CORP. VELASCO JR., J.
In the more recent case of Pentacapital Investment Corporation v. Mahinay,[16] the Court reduced the interest and penalties imposed in a contract as follows: "Aside from the payment of the principal obligation of PI,936,800.00, the parties agreed that respondent pay interest at the rate of 25% from February 17, 1997 until fully paid. Such rate, however, is excessive and thus, void. Since the stipulation on the interest rate is void, it is as if there was no express contract thereon. To be sure, courts may reduce the interest rate as reason and equity demand. In this case, 12% interest is reasonable.
	GR No. 187769 2014-06-04	ALVIN PATRIMONIO v. NAPOLEON GUTIERREZ BRION, J.
Another significant point that the lower courts failed to consider is that a contract of loan, like any other contract, is subject to the rules governing the requisites and validity of contracts in general.[13] Article 1318 of the Civil Code[14] enumerates the essential requisites for a valid contract, namely:1. consent of the contracting parties;
	GR No. 167484 2013-09-09	HERNANDO BORRA v. CA SECOND PERALTA, J.
In Pentacapital Investment Corporation v. Mahinay,[26] this Court's discussion on forum shopping is instructive, to wit:Forum-shopping is the act of a litigant who repetitively availed of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues, either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court, to increase his chances of obtaining a favorable decision if not in one court, then in another.
	GR No. 180705 2012-11-27	EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO v. REPUBLIC VELASCO JR., J.
The assumption that ample consideration is present in a contract is further elucidated in Pentacapital Investment Corporation v. Mahinay:[45]
	GR No. 163433 2011-08-22	SPS. NELSON R. VILLANUEVA AND MYRA P. VILLANUEVA v. CA PERALTA, J.
More particularly, the elements of forum-shopping are: (a) identity of parties or at least such parties that represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; (c) identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.[29]