This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-12-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As earlier discussed, petitioner has the legal right and basis to collect for the work it accomplished under the Construction Contract. However, respondent persistently and clearly violated the terms of its contract with petitioner when it unreasonably refused to pay petitioner's progress billings, forcing the petitioner to incur litigation expenses for 12 long years, from April 4, 2003 when the complaint was filed up to the present, in order to protect its interest. In view of the unjustified refusal of respondent to honor its commitment under the contract, the Court finds it just and equitable to award attorney's fees to petitioner in the reduced amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000), in line with the policy enunciated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code that attorney's fees must always be reasonable, and in accordance with jurisprudence.[42] | |||||
|
2015-01-14 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Petitioner Wellex's reliance on Padilla v. Spouses Paredes and Spouses Agustin v. Court of Appeals is also misplaced. In these cases, this court held that there can be no rescission for an obligation that is non-existent, considering that the suspensive condition that will give rise to the obligation has not yet happened. This is based on an allegation that the contract involved is a contract to sell. In a contract to sell, the failure of the buyer to pay renders the contract without effect. A suspensive condition is one whose non-fulfillment prevents the existence of the obligation.[192] Payment of the purchase price, therefore, constitutes a suspensive condition in a contract to sell. Thus, this court held that non-remittance of the full price allowed the seller to withhold the transfer of the thing to be sold. | |||||