Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jison V CA
Jison V CA
Jison V CA
Ruling: In obligations with a penal clause, the judge shall equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with by the debtor [Art. 1229; Hodges v. Javellana, G.R. No. L-17247, April 28, 1962, 4 SCRA 1228]. In this connection, the Court said: It follows that, in any case wherein there has been a partial or irregular compliance with the provisions in a contract for special indemnification in the event of failure to comply with its terms, courts will rigidly apply the doctrine of strict construction and against the enforcement in its entirety of the industry.' where it is clear from the terms of the contract that the amount or character of the indemnity is fixed without regard to the probable damages which might be anticipated as a result of a breach of the terms of the contract; or, in other words, where the indemnity provided for is essentially a mere penalty having for its principal object the enforcement of compliance with the corporations; (Laureano v. Kilayco, 32 Phil. 194 (1943). This principle was reiterated in Makati Development Corp. v. Empire Insurance Co. [G.R. No. L-21780, June 30, 1967, 20 SCRA 557] where the Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance reducing the subdivision lot buyer's liability from the stipulated P12,000.00 to Plaintiffs after finding that he had partially performed his obligation to complete at least fifty percent (50%) of his house within two (2) years from March 31, 1961, fifty percent (50%) of the house having been completed by the end of April 1961.
Issue: Whether the CA erred in not holding the respondents act of forfeiting all previous payments made by petitioners is CONTRARY TO LAW, highly iniquitous and unconscionable.
1
***In short, spouses failed to pay the respondent on their due dates.
October 1, 1966; November 1, 1966; December 1, 1966; January 1, 1967 2 February 1, 1967; March 1, 1967; April 1, 1967
The appellants were charged and were convicted in conspiring to transport heroin violative of RA 6425. Hence this petition, alleging that the search is illegal being conducted not in the direct premises of the arrest.
Issue: Whether the items confiscated without a search warrant is illegal? Held/Ruling: YES In the case at bar, appellants were arrested in Room 504 of the Las Palmas Hotel. The piece of paper bearing Leangsiris name was obtained through a warrantless search of Room 413 of the same hotel, and found tucked within the pages of appellant Amidus telephone and address book. Clearly, the warrantless search is illegal and the piece of paper bearing Leangsiris name cannot be admitted as evidence against appellants. The inadmissibility of this evidence will not, however, exculpate appellants. Its exclusion does not destroy the prosecutions case against appellants. The remaining evidence still established their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. xxx Objects in the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. The plain view doctrine may not, however, be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures nor to extend a general exploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendants guilt. The plain view doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. x x x Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court stated the following limitations on the application of the doctrine.