Snow Mountain Dairy Corporation v. GMA Veterans Force, Inc.

Actual damages are not presumed. The claimant must prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable.

G.R. No. 192446, 19 November 2014

Complainant GMA Veterans Force, Inc. filed a Complaint for Damages against defendant Snow Mountain Dairy Corporation. Previously, complainant and defendant entered into a security service agreement whereby. Just after a month, defendant informed complainant that all of the latter’s security personnel would be replaced and all monies due in the contract will be settled. Continue reading here.

Owen Prosper A. Mackay v. Sps. Dana Caswell

If the work of a contractor has defects which destroy or lessen its value or fitness for its ordinary or stipulated use, he may be required to remove the defect or execute another work. If he fails to do so, he shall be liable for the expenses by the employer for the correction of the work.

G.R. No. 183872, 17 November 2014

Complainant Owen Prosper A. Mackay initiated a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money with Damages against defendants Sps. Dana Caswell and Cerelina Caswell. Previously, defendants engaged the services of complainant and his group who obligated themselves to provide electrical installation service for P250,000.00 in the new home of the spouses. Continue reading here.

S.V. More Pharma Corporation v. Drugmakers Laboratories, Inc.

The amount of loss warranting the grant of actual or compensatory damages must be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty, based on competent proof and the best evidence obtainable by the injured party.

G.R. Nos. 200408 and 200416, 12 November 2014

“Eliezer, Evangeline C. Del Mundo, and Atty. Quirico T. Carag (Atty. Carag) (Del Mundo Group) are the registered owners of fifty percent (50%) (i.e., 250,000 shares of stock) of E.A. Northam Pharma Corporation (E.A. Northam), a domestic corporation which exclusively distributes and markets 28 various pharmaceutical products that are exclusively manufactured by Drugmakers, a domestic corporation under the control of Eliezer. The remaining fifty percent (50%) in E.A. Continue reading here.

Metro Manila Shopping Mecca Corp. v. Ms. Liberty M. Toledo

In an ongoing case, parties may enter into a compromise agreement which when approved by the court becomes a determination of a controversy and has the force and effect of a judgment.

G.R. No. 190818, 10 November 2014

Petitioners Metro Manila Shopping Mecca Corp., Shoemart, Inc., SM Prime Holdings, Inc., Star Appliances Center, Super Value, Inc., Ace Hardware Philippines, Inc., Health and Beauty, Inc., Jollimart Phils. Corp., and Surplus Marketing Corporation, sought “the approval of the terms and conditions of the parties’ Universal Compromise Agreement dated 1 June 2012 (the “UCA”) in lieu of the Court’s Decision dated 05 June 2013 denying the petitioners claim for tax refund/credit of their local business taxes paid to respondent City of Manila.” Continue reading here.

MCMP Construction Corp. v. Monark Equipment Corp.

Excessive and unconscionable interests are void for being contrary to morals, if not against the law.

G.R. No. 201001, 10 November 2014

Plaintiff Monark Equipment Corp. initiated a Complaint for a Sum of Money against Defendant MCMP Construction Corp. after the latter failed to pay rental fees for the use of five (5) pieces of heavy equipment as stated in their Rental Equipment Contract. In the agreement, interest and penalties were stated as follows:

Continue reading here.

10 Rules of Contract Interpretation

These are the 10 rules of contract interpretation:

1. A clearly written contract does not need interpretation. Hence, if the terms are clear and does not leave any doubt as to the intention of the contract parties, the literal meaning of the stipulations prevails and controls.

2. If there is a conflict with the words and the evident intention of the parties, it is the latter that will prevail. The intention of the parties is principally determined and considered based on their contemporaneous and subsequent acts. That is to say, the actions of the parties at the time of preparing the contract and their subsequent acts will determine their true intentions.

Continue reading here.