This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-02-10 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| We have consistently held that the parties to a contract are the real parties-in-interest in an action upon it.[33] The basic principle of relativity of contracts is that contracts can only bind the parties who entered into it, and cannot favor or prejudice a third person, even if he is aware of such contract and has acted with knowledge thereof.[34] Hence, one who is not a party to a contract, and for whose benefit it was not expressly made, cannot maintain an action on it.[35] One cannot do so, even if the contract performed by the contracting parties would incidentally inure to one's benefit.[36] | |||||
|
2015-06-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REFUSING TO APPLY THE EXCEPTION TO THE DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.[10] | |||||