0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
855 просмотров1 страница
The Supreme Court ruled that a final court decree is not necessary for the University of the Philippines (UP) to rescind its logging contract with ALUMCO due to ALUMCO's failure to pay debts. The contract allowed UP to rescind without court intervention if payment was not made by a deadline. The initial court order enjoining UP from awarding the contract to another party was improper as it did not consider evidence and subsequently refused to lift the injunction. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
The Supreme Court ruled that a final court decree is not necessary for the University of the Philippines (UP) to rescind its logging contract with ALUMCO due to ALUMCO's failure to pay debts. The contract allowed UP to rescind without court intervention if payment was not made by a deadline. The initial court order enjoining UP from awarding the contract to another party was improper as it did not consider evidence and subsequently refused to lift the injunction. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Авторское право:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Доступные форматы
Скачайте в формате DOC, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
The Supreme Court ruled that a final court decree is not necessary for the University of the Philippines (UP) to rescind its logging contract with ALUMCO due to ALUMCO's failure to pay debts. The contract allowed UP to rescind without court intervention if payment was not made by a deadline. The initial court order enjoining UP from awarding the contract to another party was improper as it did not consider evidence and subsequently refused to lift the injunction. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Авторское право:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Доступные форматы
Скачайте в формате DOC, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. WALFRIDO DE LOS 1.
1. WON a final court decree is necessary before UP can rescind the
ANGELES, Quezon City CFI Judge, et al., respondents [1970] contract. – NO. Act 3608: public land was given as a Land Grant to UP as endowment to ALUMCO specifically allowed UP to rescind the contract if it fails to pay not raise additional income for its support later than June 30, 1965 in the “Acknowledgement of Debt & Proposed Nov. 2, 1960: UP & ALUMCO (Associated Lumber Mfg. Co. Inc.) entered Manner of Payments” it executed. into a logging agreement granting ALUMCO exclusive authority to cut, CC Art. 1191 & Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping Co.: the law does not collect & remove timber from the land grant & payment to UP of royalties, prohibit parties from entering into an agreement that violation of the forest fees, etc. until Dec. 31, 1965 & extendible for 5 yrs by mutual terms would cause cancellation of the contract even w/o court agreement. intervention. Injured party need not always resort to the court for rescission of contract. Dec. 8, 1964: ALUMCO incurred unpaid account of P219,362.94 w/c they failed to pay despite several demands. UP sent ALUMCO a notice to Of course, it should be made known to the other party & it is always rescind/terminate the agreement. ALUMCO then executed an instrument, subject to the scrutiny & review by the proper court. Meaning, the party “Acknowledgement of Debt & Proposed Manner of Payments” stipulating who deems the contract violated may consider it rescinded & act w/o that outstanding balance shall be paid in full no later than June 30, previous court action BUT IT PROCEEDS AT ITS OWN RISK. Since only 1965 & if they fail to do so, UP has the power to consider the agreement the final judgment of the corresponding court will conclusively & finally rescinded w/out need of any judicial suit & UP shall be entitled to settle whether the action taken was or was not correct in law. P50,000.00 for liquidated damages. This does not contradict previous SC rulings declaring that judicial action Logging operations continued but ALUMCO incurred more unpaid accounts is necessary for the resolution of a reciprocal obligation. As mentioned, w/c amounted to P61,133.74 (Dec. 9, 1964-July 15, 1965) on top of the only final judgment of the court will finally settle whether rescission was outstanding balance from Dec. 8, 1964. proper or not. But either party can consider the contract as rescinded if July 19, 1965: UP informed ALUMCO that it has considered as rescinded & their agreement provides for such, however it’s subject to judicial of no further legal effect the logging agreement. UP then instituted a invalidation. complaint against ALUMCO to collect aforementioned sums of money. Rule requiring judicial action won’t be rendered nugatory since the other Court granted an order restraining ALUMCO from continuing its logging party can always resort to the courts in case the rescinder abuses its operations. power or commits an error. Prior to the court’s order, UP advertised an invitation to bid to take in a Supreme Court of Spain interpretation of Spanish Civil Code Art. 1124 new concessionaire to replace ALUMCO w/c was subsequently awarded to (similar to CC Art. 1191): resolution of reciprocal/synallagmatic contracts Sta. Clara Lumber Co. Contract was signed on Feb. 16, 1966. may be made extrajudicially unless successfully impugned in court. ALUMCO filed a petition enjoining UP from conducting the bidding w/c led to the issuance of the following Court orders: 2. WON 1st court order enjoining UP from awarding logging rts to 1. UP enjoined from awarding logging rights to any other party. Order another party was proper. – NO, there was grave abuse of was received on Feb. 25, 1966, after contract w/Sta. Clara was discretion since it decided w/out first receiving evidence on the signed. issues & it subsequently refused to dissolve the injunction. 2. UP was held in contempt of court & Sta. Clara Lumber was directed to UP made out a prima facie case of breach of contract & defaults in refrain from exercising logging rights. payment by ALUMCO as proven by a court order stopping ALUMCO’s 3. UP’s motion for reconsideration was denied. logging operations. ALUMCO’s defense/contentions: ALUMCO profited from its operations previous to the agreement. 1. It blamed former gen. manager Cesar Guy in not turning over Excuses/defenses offered are not sufficient excuse for non-payment. management thus rendering it unable to pay. Whatever prejudices ALUMCO may suffer is susceptible of compensation in 2. Failure to pursue the manner of payment was caused by rotten logs damages. w/c could not be sold to Sta. Clara Lumber Co. Inc. w/whom they had a contract to buy & sell. 3. Issue WRT contempt of court was not discussed since such was 3. UP’s unilateral rescission w/o court order was invalid. pending w/ the Court of Appeals. 4. UP’s supervisor did not allow them to cut new logs unless the logs cut during Guy’s management were sold. Holding: 1st court order granting ALUMCO’s petition for injunction set aside. 5. UP’s supervisor stopped all logging operations on July 15, 1965. Remanded for further proceedings. 6. It proposed several offers to resume operations but UP did not reply.
The State Corporation Commission of the State of Kansas, Keith R. Henley, Chairman, Rich Kowalewski, Commissioner, and Margalee Wright, Commissioner, as Constituent Members v. Interstate Commerce Commission and the United States of America, Greyhound Lines, Inc., Intervenor, 933 F.2d 827, 10th Cir. (1991)