Scribd Logo
Fazer o upload

Bem-vindo(a) ao Scribd!

  • Interpretation of Contracts

    Enviado por

    Zhanika Marie Carbonell
    166 visualizações3 páginas
    G.R. No. 100588 March 7, 1994 UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN, INC., SISTER CONCEPCION CAJILIG, NENALYN ABIODA, MARY ESPINO, RHODORA AZUCENA, MA. DULCE SOCORRO POSA and COSETTE MONTEBLANCO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ANTONIO H. LARA, EDUARDO MAGANTE, JOSE SANCHO, REYNALDA F. SO and WINNEFRIDA C. VALENZUELA, as parents/guardians of Antonio Marco Ho, Ma. Elanie Magante, Roy D. Sancho, Michael Kim So and Bernardina Cainoy, respondents. Tirol & Tirol for petitioner.s Nilo S. Sampiano for private respondents. NOCON, J.: The present case involves third year Nursing students who failed to meet the retention policy of the school, that is, minimum grade of 80% in any major Nursing subject and in two minor subjects. As a consequence, the school refused to re-admit them. In view of the rights granted to students by the provisions of Section IV, paragraph 107 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, Section 9(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 and Article XIV, Section 5(3) of the 1987 Constitution, may they compel the school to allow them to complete their course? The antecedent facts are undisputed: Private respondents Antonio Marco Ho, Ma. Elaine Magante, Roy D. Sancho, Michael Kim So and Bernardita Cainoy were third year Nursing students of petitioner University of San Agustin (USA) who were refused re-admission in the summer classes of 1989 and last two semesters of school year 1989-1990 on the alleged ground that they failed to obtain grades of not lower than 80% in Nursing 104 (Nursing Practice II with Related Learning Experience). Its persistent refusal to re-admit them prejudiced their right to freely choose their field of study and finish a college degree and worse, no other school within the city and nearby areas is willing to accept them due to the difference in the curriculum and school residency requirement. Thus, they filed a petition for mandamus before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, to command petitioner USA to re-admit them. Aside from the prayer for re-admission, they also prayed for actual and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each of them. Submitting a joint answer to the petition, petitioner USA and the other petitioners, Dean Concepcion Cajilig and Clinical Instructors Nenalyn Abioda, Mary Espino, Rhodora Azucena, Ma. Dulce Socorro Posa and Cosette Monteblanco admitted having barred private respondents from finishing their Nursing course but justified the decision not to re-admit them as being in pursuance of the school's policy that only students with grades of at least 80% in any major Nursing subject, including Nursing 104, and two minor subjects, are allowed enrollment in the following year. Private respondents were duly informed and forewarned of their below 80% performance rating. To buttress petitioner's stance, they placed reliance on Section 9(2) of the Education Act of 1982 (B.P. Blg. 232) which recognizes the right of students to freely choose their field of study subject to existing curricula, and to continue their course up to graduation, except in cases of academic deficiency or violation of disciplinary regulations; and Section 13(2) thereof vesting in institutions of higher learning the right to determine on academic grounds who shall be admitted to study, who may teach, and what shall be the subjects of study and research. Additionally, petitioners contended that private respondents have no cause of action for mandamus under the premises because there is no clear and well-defined right of the latter which has been violated neither do the former have a corresponding ministerial duty to re-admit them, since petitioner USA is a private educational institution not performing public functions and duties. Under the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, petitioner USA enjoys the right to academic freedom. The trial court was not persuaded that private respondents are entitled to the relief sought. The dispositive portion of its order dat

    Título original

    1. Interpretation of Contracts

    Direitos autorais

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formatos disponíveis

    PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd

    Você considera este documento útil?

    Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

    Denunciar este documento
    G.R. No. 100588 March 7, 1994 UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN, INC., SISTER CONCEPCION CAJILIG, NENALYN ABIODA, MARY ESPINO, RHODORA AZUCENA, MA. DULCE SOCORRO POSA and COSETTE MONTEBLANCO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ANTONIO H. LARA, EDUARDO MAGANTE, JOSE SANCHO, REYNALDA F. SO and WINNEFRIDA C. VALENZUELA, as parents/guardians of Antonio Marco Ho, Ma. Elanie Magante, Roy D. Sancho, Michael Kim So and Bernardina Cainoy, respondents. Tirol & Tirol for petitioner.s Nilo S. Sampiano for private respondents. NOCON, J.: The present case involves third year Nursing students who failed to meet the retention policy of the school, that is, minimum grade of 80% in any major Nursing subject and in two minor subjects. As a consequence, the school refused to re-admit them. In view of the rights granted to students by the provisions of Section IV, paragraph 107 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, Section 9(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 and Article XIV, Section 5(3) of the 1987 Constitution, may they compel the school to allow them to complete their course? The antecedent facts are undisputed: Private respondents Antonio Marco Ho, Ma. Elaine Magante, Roy D. Sancho, Michael Kim So and Bernardita Cainoy were third year Nursing students of petitioner University of San Agustin (USA) who were refused re-admission in the summer classes of 1989 and last two semesters of school year 1989-1990 on the alleged ground that they failed to obtain grades of not lower than 80% in Nursing 104 (Nursing Practice II with Related Learning Experience). Its persistent refusal to re-admit them prejudiced their right to freely choose their field of study and finish a college degree and worse, no other school within the city and nearby areas is willing to accept them due to the difference in the curriculum and school residency requirement. Thus, they filed a petition for mandamus before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, to command petitioner USA to re-admit them. Aside from the prayer for re-admission, they also prayed for actual and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each of them. Submitting a joint answer to the petition, petitioner USA and the other petitioners, Dean Concepcion Cajilig and Clinical Instructors Nenalyn Abioda, Mary Espino, Rhodora Azucena, Ma. Dulce Socorro Posa and Cosette Monteblanco admitted having barred private respondents from finishing their Nursing course but justified the decision not to re-admit them as being in pursuance of the school's policy that only students with grades of at least 80% in any major Nursing subject, including Nursing 104, and two minor subjects, are allowed enrollment in the following year. Private respondents were duly informed and forewarned of their below 80% performance rating. To buttress petitioner's stance, they placed reliance on Section 9(2) of the Education Act of 1982 (B.P. Blg. 232) which recognizes the right of students to freely choose their field of study subject to existing curricula, and to continue their course up to graduation, except in cases of academic deficiency or violation of disciplinary regulations; and Section 13(2) thereof vesting in institutions of higher learning the right to determine on academic grounds who shall be admitted to study, who may teach, and what shall be the subjects of study and research. Additionally, petitioners contended that private respondents have no cause of action for mandamus under the premises because there is no clear and well-defined right of the latter which has been violated neither do the former have a corresponding ministerial duty to re-admit them, since petitioner USA is a private educational institution not performing public functions and duties. Under the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, petitioner USA enjoys the right to academic freedom. The trial court was not persuaded that private respondents are entitled to the relief sought. The dispositive portion of its order dat

    Direitos autorais:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Baixe no formato PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    166 visualizações3 páginas

    Interpretation of Contracts

    Enviado por

    Zhanika Marie Carbonell
    G.R. No. 100588 March 7, 1994 UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN, INC., SISTER CONCEPCION CAJILIG, NENALYN ABIODA, MARY ESPINO, RHODORA AZUCENA, MA. DULCE SOCORRO POSA and COSETTE MONTEBLANCO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ANTONIO H. LARA, EDUARDO MAGANTE, JOSE SANCHO, REYNALDA F. SO and WINNEFRIDA C. VALENZUELA, as parents/guardians of Antonio Marco Ho, Ma. Elanie Magante, Roy D. Sancho, Michael Kim So and Bernardina Cainoy, respondents. Tirol & Tirol for petitioner.s Nilo S. Sampiano for private respondents. NOCON, J.: The present case involves third year Nursing students who failed to meet the retention policy of the school, that is, minimum grade of 80% in any major Nursing subject and in two minor subjects. As a consequence, the school refused to re-admit them. In view of the rights granted to students by the provisions of Section IV, paragraph 107 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, Section 9(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 and Article XIV, Section 5(3) of the 1987 Constitution, may they compel the school to allow them to complete their course? The antecedent facts are undisputed: Private respondents Antonio Marco Ho, Ma. Elaine Magante, Roy D. Sancho, Michael Kim So and Bernardita Cainoy were third year Nursing students of petitioner University of San Agustin (USA) who were refused re-admission in the summer classes of 1989 and last two semesters of school year 1989-1990 on the alleged ground that they failed to obtain grades of not lower than 80% in Nursing 104 (Nursing Practice II with Related Learning Experience). Its persistent refusal to re-admit them prejudiced their right to freely choose their field of study and finish a college degree and worse, no other school within the city and nearby areas is willing to accept them due to the difference in the curriculum and school residency requirement. Thus, they filed a petition for mandamus before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, to command petitioner USA to re-admit them. Aside from the prayer for re-admission, they also prayed for actual and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each of them. Submitting a joint answer to the petition, petitioner USA and the other petitioners, Dean Concepcion Cajilig and Clinical Instructors Nenalyn Abioda, Mary Espino, Rhodora Azucena, Ma. Dulce Socorro Posa and Cosette Monteblanco admitted having barred private respondents from finishing their Nursing course but justified the decision not to re-admit them as being in pursuance of the school's policy that only students with grades of at least 80% in any major Nursing subject, including Nursing 104, and two minor subjects, are allowed enrollment in the following year. Private respondents were duly informed and forewarned of their below 80% performance rating. To buttress petitioner's stance, they placed reliance on Section 9(2) of the Education Act of 1982 (B.P. Blg. 232) which recognizes the right of students to freely choose their field of study subject to existing curricula, and to continue their course up to graduation, except in cases of academic deficiency or violation of disciplinary regulations; and Section 13(2) thereof vesting in institutions of higher learning the right to determine on academic grounds who shall be admitted to study, who may teach, and what shall be the subjects of study and research. Additionally, petitioners contended that private respondents have no cause of action for mandamus under the premises because there is no clear and well-defined right of the latter which has been violated neither do the former have a corresponding ministerial duty to re-admit them, since petitioner USA is a private educational institution not performing public functions and duties. Under the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, petitioner USA enjoys the right to academic freedom. The trial court was not persuaded that private respondents are entitled to the relief sought. The dispositive portion of its order dat

    Direitos autorais:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Baixe no formato PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    de 3

    CHAPTER 5 Interpretation of Contracts Article 1370.

    If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control. If the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail over the former. (1281) Article 1371. In order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered. (1282) Article 1372. However general the terms of a contract may be, they shall not be understood to comprehend things that are distinct and cases that are different from those upon which the parties intended to agree. (1283) Article 1373. If some stipulation of any contract should admit of several meanings, it shall be understood as bearing that import which is most adequate to render it effectual. (1284) Article 1374. The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly. (1285) Article 1375. Words which may have different significations shall be understood in that which is most in keeping with the nature and object of the contract. (1286) Article 1376. The usage or custom of the place shall be borne in mind in the interpretation of the ambiguities of a contract, and shall fill the omission of stipulations which are ordinarily established. (1287) Article 1377. The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity. (1288) Article 1378. When it is absolutely impossible to settle doubts by the rules established in the preceding articles, and the doubts refer to incidental circumstances of a gratuitous contract, the least transmission of rights and interests shall prevail. If the contract is onerous, the doubt shall be settled in favor of the greatest reciprocity of interests. If the doubts are cast upon the principal object of the contract in such a way that it cannot be known what may have been the intention or will of the parties, the contract shall be null and void. (1289)

    Article 1379. The principles of interpretation stated in Rule 123 of the Rules of Court shall likewise be observed in the construction of contracts. (n) Rules of Court Rule 130 4. Interpretation Of Documents Section 10. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning. The language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its execution, unless the parties intended otherwise. (8) Section 11. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions. In the construction of an instrument, where there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all. (9) Section 12. Interpretation according to intention; general and particular provisions. In the construction of an instrument, the intention of the parties is to be pursued; and when a general and a particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it. (10) Section 13. Interpretation according to circumstances. For the proper construction of an instrument, the circumstances under which it was made, including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it, may be shown, so that the judge may be placed in the position of those who language he is to interpret. (11) Section 14. Peculiar signification of terms. The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation, but evidence is admissible to show that they have a local, technical, or otherwise peculiar signification, and were so used and understood in the particular instance, in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly. (12) Section 15. Written words control printed. When an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form, and the two are inconsistent, the former controls the latter. (13) Section 16. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings. When the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered, or the language is not understood by the court, the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or who understand the language, is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the language. (14) Section 17. Of Two constructions, which preferred. When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different parties to it, that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other

    understood it, and when different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made. (15) Section 18. Construction in favor of natural right. When an instrument is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former is to be adopted. (16) Section 19. Interpretation according to usage. An instrument may be construed according to usage, in order to determine its true character. (17)

    Você também pode gostar