Phil Communications Satellite Corp v. Globe Telecom Inc : 147324 : May
25, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision
[G.R. NO. 147324 : May 25, 2004]
PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. GLOBE TELECOM, INC. (formerly and Globe Mckay Cable and Radio
[G.R. NO. 147334 : May 25, 2004]
GLOBE TELECOM, INC., Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE
COMMUNICATION SATELLITE CORPORATION, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
Before the Court are two Petitions for Review assailing
the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 27 February 2001, in CA-G.R.
CV No. 63619.1 cralawred
The facts of the case are undisputed.
For several years prior to 1991, Globe Mckay Cable and Radio
Corporation, now Globe Telecom, Inc. (Globe),
had been engaged in the
coordination of the provision of various communication facilities for the
military bases of the United States of America (US) in Clark Air Base, Angeles,
Pampanga and Subic Naval Base in Cubi Point, Zambales.
The said communication facilities were
installed and configured for the exclusive use of the US Defense Communications
Agency (USDCA), and for security reasons, were operated only by its personnel
or those of American companies contracted by it to operate said facilities.
The USDCA contracted with said American
companies, and the latter, in turn, contracted with Globe for the use of the
Globe, on the
other hand, contracted with local service providers such as the Philippine
Communications Satellite Corporation (Philcomsat) for the provision of the
On 07 May 1991, Philcomsat and Globe entered into an Agreement
whereby Philcomsat obligated itself to establish, operate and provide an IBS
Standard B earth station (earth station) within Cubi Point for the exclusive
use of the USDCA.2 The term of the contract was for 60 months, or five (5) years.3 In turn, Globe promised to pay Philcomsat monthly rentals for each leased
circuit involved.4 cralawred
At the time of the execution of the Agreement, both parties knew
that the Military Bases Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and
the US (RP-US Military Bases Agreement),
which was the basis for the occupancy
of the Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Base in Cubi Point, was to expire in
Under Section 25, Article XVIII
of the 1987 Constitution, foreign military bases, troops or facilities, which
include those located at the US Naval Facility in Cubi Point, shall not be
allowed in the Philippines unless a new treaty is duly concurred in by the
Senate and ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national
referendum when the Congress so requires, and such new treaty is recognized as
such by the US Government.
Subsequently, Philcomsat installed and established the earth
station at Cubi Point and the USDCA made use of the same.
On 16 September 1991, the Senate passed and adopted Senate Resolution
No. 141, expressing its decision not to concur in the ratification of the
Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Security and its Supplementary Agreements
that was supposed to extend the term of the use by the US of Subic Naval Base,
among others.5 The last two paragraphs of the Resolution state:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
FINDING that the Treaty constitutes a defective framework for the
continuing relationship between the two countries in the spirit of friendship,
cooperation and sovereign equality:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate, as it is hereby resolved, To express its
decision not to concur in the ratification of the Treaty of Friendship,
Cooperation and Security and its Supplementary Agreements, at the same time
reaffirming its desire to continue friendly relations with the government and
people of the United States of America.6 cralawred
On 31 December 1991, the Philippine Government sent a Note
Verbale to the US Government through the US Embassy, notifying it of the
Philippines termination of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement.
The Note Verbale stated that since the
RP-US Military Bases Agreement, as amended, shall terminate on 31 December
1992, the withdrawal of all US military forces from Subic Naval Base should be
completed by said date.
In a letter dated 06 August 1992, Globe notified Philcomsat of
its intention to discontinue the use of the earth station effective 08 November
1992 in view of the withdrawal of US military personnel from Subic Naval Base
after the termination of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement.
Globe invoked as basis for the letter of
termination Section 8 (Default) of the Agreement, which provides:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
Neither party shall be held liable or deemed to be in default for
any failure to perform its obligation under this Agreement if such failure
results directly or indirectly from force majeure or fortuitous event.
Either party is thus precluded from
performing its obligation until such force majeure or fortuitous event shall
For the purpose of this
paragraph, force majeure shall mean circumstances beyond the control of the
party involved including, but not limited to, any law, order, regulation,
direction or request of the Government of the Philippines, strikes or other
labor difficulties, insurrection riots, national emergencies, war, acts of
public enemies, fire, floods, typhoons or other catastrophies or acts of God.
Philcomsat sent a reply letter dated 10 August 1992 to Globe,
stating that we expect [Globe] to know its commitment to pay the stipulated
rentals for the remaining terms of the Agreement even after [Globe] shall have
discontinue[d] the use of the earth station after November 08, 1992.7 Philcomsat referred to Section 7 of the Agreement, stating as follows:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
Should [Globe] decide to discontinue with the use of the earth
station after it has been put into operation, a written notice shall be served
to PHILCOMSAT at least sixty (60) days prior to the expected date of
non-use of the earth station, [Globe] shall continue to pay PHILCOMSAT for the
rental of the actual number of T1 circuits in use, but in no case shall be less
than the first two (2) T1 circuits, for the remaining life of the
However, should PHILCOMSAT
make use or sell the earth station subject to this agreement, the obligation of
[Globe] to pay the rental for the remaining life of the agreement shall be at
such monthly rate as may be agreed upon by the parties.8 cralawred
After the US military forces left Subic Naval Base, Philcomsat
sent Globe a letter dated 24 November 1993 demanding payment of its outstanding
obligations under the Agreement amounting to US$4,910,136.00 plus interest and
However, Globe refused
to heed Philcomsats demand.
On 27 January 1995, Philcomsat filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Makati a Complaint against Globe, praying that the latter be
ordered to pay liquidated damages under the Agreement, with legal interest,
exemplary damages, attorneys fees and costs of suit.
The case was raffled to Branch 59 of said
Globe filed an Answer to the Complaint, insisting
that it was constrained to end the Agreement due to the termination of the
RP-US Military Bases Agreement and the non-ratification by the Senate of the
Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, which events constituted force majeure
under the Agreement.
that the occurrence of said events exempted it from paying rentals for the
remaining period of the Agreement.
On 05 January 1999, the trial court rendered its Decision, the
dispositive portion of which reads:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as
1.Ordering the defendant to pay the
plaintiff the amount of Ninety Two Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Eight US Dollars
(US$92,238.00) or its equivalent in Philippine Currency (computed at the
exchange rate prevailing at the time of compliance or payment) representing
rentals for the month of December 1992 with interest thereon at the legal rate
of twelve percent (12%) per annum starting December 1992 until the amount is fully
2.Ordering the defendant to pay the
plaintiff the amount of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos as and for
3.Ordering the DISMISSAL of defendants
counterclaim for lack of merit; andcralawlibrary
4.With costs against the defendant.
SO ORDERED.9 cralawred
Both parties appealed the trial courts Decision to the
Court of Appeals.
Philcomsat claimed that the trial court erred in ruling that: (1)
the non-ratification by the Senate of the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and
Security and its Supplementary Agreements constitutes force majeure
which exempts Globe from complying with its obligations under the Agreement;
(2) Globe is not liable to pay the rentals for the remainder of the term of the
Agreement; and (3) Globe is not liable to Philcomsat for exemplary damages.
Globe, on the other hand, contended that the RTC erred in holding
it liable for payment of rent of the earth station for December 1992 and of
It explained that it
terminated Philcomsats services on 08 November 1992; hence, it had no reason
to pay for rentals beyond that date.
On 27 February 2001, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision
dismissing Philcomsats appeal for lack of merit and affirming the trial
courts finding that certain events constituting force majeure under
Section 8 the Agreement occurred and justified the non-payment by Globe of
rentals for the remainder of the term of the Agreement.
The appellate court ruled that the non-ratification by the Senate
of the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Security, and its Supplementary
Agreements, and the termination by the Philippine Government of the RP-US
Military Bases Agreement effective 31 December 1991 as stated in the Philippine
Governments Note Verbale to the US Government, are acts, directions, or
requests of the Government of the Philippines which constitute force majeure.
In addition, there were circumstances beyond
the control of the parties, such as the issuance of a formal order by Cdr.
Walter Corliss of the US Navy, the issuance of the letter notification from ATT
and the complete withdrawal of all US military forces and personnel from Cubi
Point, which prevented further use of the earth station under the Agreement.
However, the Court of Appeals ruled that although Globe sought to
terminate Philcomsats services by 08 November 1992, it is still liable to pay
rentals for the December 1992, amounting to US$92,238.00 plus interest,
considering that the US military forces and personnel completely withdrew from
Cubi Point only on 31 December 1992.10 cralawred
Both parties filed their respective Petitions for Review
assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals.
In G.R. No. 147324,11 petitioner Philcomsat raises the following assignments of error:
A.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
ADOPTING A DEFINITION OF FORCE MAJEURE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT ITS LEGAL
DEFINITION FOUND IN ARTICLE 1174 OF THE CIVIL CODE, PROVIDES, SO AS TO EXEMPT
GLOBE TELECOM FROM COMPLYING WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE SUBJECT AGREEMENT.
B.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
RULING THAT GLOBE TELECOM IS NOT LIABLE TO PHILCOMSAT FOR RENTALS FOR THE
REMAINING TERM OF THE AGREEMENT, DESPITE THE CLEAR TENOR OF SECTION 7 OF THE
C.THE HONORABLE OCURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
DELETING THE TRIAL COURTS AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES IN FAVOR OF PHILCOMSAT.
D.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
RULING THAT GLOBE TELECOM IS NOT LIABLE TO PHILCOMSAT FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.12 cralawred
Philcomsat argues that the termination of the RP-US Military
Bases Agreement cannot be considered a fortuitous event because the happening
thereof was foreseeable.
Agreement was freely entered into by both parties, Section 8 should be deemed
ineffective because it is contrary to Article 1174 of the Civil Code.
Philcomsat posits the view that the validity
of the parties definition of force majeure in Section 8 of the
Agreement as circumstances beyond the control of the party involved including,
but not limited to, any law, order, regulation, direction or request of the
Government of the Philippines, strikes or other labor difficulties,
insurrection riots, national emergencies, war, acts of public enemies, fire,
floods, typhoons or other catastrophies or acts of God, should be deemed
subject to Article 1174 which defines fortuitous events as events which could
not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.13 cralawred
Philcomsat further claims that the Court of Appeals erred in
holding that Globe is not liable to pay for the rental of the earth station for
the entire term of the Agreement because it runs counter to what was plainly
stipulated by the parties in Section 7 thereof.Moreover, said ruling is inconsistent with the appellate courts
pronouncement that Globe is liable to pay rentals for December 1992 even though
it terminated Philcomsats services effective 08 November 1992, because the US
military and personnel completely withdrew from Cubi Point only in December
Philcomsat points out that it was
Globe which proposed the five-year term of the Agreement, and that the other
provisions of the Agreement, such as Section 4.114 thereof, evince the intent of Globe to be bound to pay rentals for the entire
five-year term.15 cralawred
Philcomsat also maintains that contrary to the appellate courts
findings, it is entitled to attorneys fees and exemplary damages.16 cralawred
In its Comment to Philcomsats Petition, Globe
asserts that Section 8 of the Agreement is not contrary to Article 1174 of the
Civil Code because said provision does not prohibit parties to a contract from
providing for other instances when they would be exempt from fulfilling their
claims that the termination of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement constitutes force
majeure and exempts it from complying with its obligations under the
Agreement.17 On the issue of the propriety of awarding attorneys fees and exemplary damages
to Philcomsat, Globe maintains that Philcomsat is not entitled thereto because
in refusing to pay rentals for the remainder of the term of the Agreement,
Globe only acted in accordance with its rights.18 cralawred
In G.R. No. 147334,19 Globe, the petitioner therein, contends that the Court of Appeals erred in
finding it liable for the amount of US$92,238.00, representing rentals for
December 1992, since Philcomsats services were actually terminated on 08 November
In its Comment, Philcomsat claims that Globes petition
should be dismissed as it raises a factual issue which is not cognizable by the
Court in a Petition for Review on Certiorari .21 cralawred
On 15 August 2001, the Court issued a Resolution giving due
course to Philcomsats Petition in G.R. No. 147324 and required the parties to submit their respective memoranda.22 cralawred
Similarly, on 20 August 2001, the Court issued a Resolution
giving due course to the Petition filed by Globe in G.R. No. 147334and required both parties to submit their memoranda.23 cralawred
Philcomsat and Globe thereafter filed their respective Consolidated
Memoranda in the two cases, reiterating their arguments in their
The Court is tasked to resolve the following issues: (1) whether
the termination of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement, the non-ratification of
the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Security, and the consequent
withdrawal of US military forces and personnel from Cubi Point constitute force
majeure which would exempt Globe from complying with its obligation to pay
rentals under its Agreement with Philcomsat; (2) whether Globe is liable to pay
rentals under the Agreement for the month of December 1992; and (3) whether
Philcomsat is entitled to attorneys fees and exemplary damages.
No reversible error was committed by the Court of Appeals in
issuing the assailed Decision; hence the petitions are denied.
There is no merit is Philcomsats argument that Section 8 of the
Agreement cannot be given effect because the enumeration of events constituting
force majeure therein unduly expands the concept of a fortuitous event
under Article 1174 of the Civil Code and is therefore invalid.
In support of its position, Philcomsat contends that under
Article 1174 of the Civil Code, an event must be unforeseen in order to exempt
a party to a contract from complying with its obligations therein.
It insists that since the expiration of the
RP-US Military Bases Agreement, the non-ratification of the Treaty of
Friendship, Cooperation and Security and the withdrawal of US military forces
and personnel from Cubi Point were not unforeseeable, but were possibilities
known to it and Globe at the time they entered into the Agreement, such events
cannot exempt Globe from performing its obligation of paying rentals for the
entire five-year term thereof.
However, Article 1174, which exempts an obligor from liability on
account of fortuitous events or force majeure, refers not only to events
that are unforeseeable, but also to those which are foreseeable, but
Art. 1174. Except in cases specified by the law, or when it is
otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation
requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those
events which, could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen were inevitable.
A fortuitous event under Article 1174 may either be an act of
God, or natural occurrences such as floods or typhoons,24 or an act of man, such as riots, strikes or wars.25 cralawred
Philcomsat and Globe agreed in Section 8 of the Agreement that
the following events shall be deemed events constituting force majeure:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
1.Any law, order, regulation, direction or
request of the Philippine Government;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
2.Strikes or other labor difficulties;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
7.Acts of public enemies;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
8.Fire, floods, typhoons or other
catastrophies or acts of God;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
9.Other circumstances beyond the control of
Clearly, the foregoing are either unforeseeable, or foreseeable
but beyond the control of the parties.
There is nothing in the enumeration that runs contrary to, or expands,
the concept of a fortuitous event under Article 1174.
Furthermore, under Article 130626 of the Civil Code, parties to a contract may establish such stipulations,
clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem fit, as long as the same do not
run counter to the law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.27 cralawred
Article 1159 of the Civil Code also provides that [o]bligations
arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties
and should be complied with in good faith.28 Courts cannot stipulate for the parties nor amend their agreement where the
same does not contravene law, morals, good customs, public order or public
policy, for to do so would be to alter the real intent of the parties, and
would run contrary to the function of the courts to give force and effect
Not being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or
public policy, Section 8 of the Agreement which Philcomsat and Globe freely
agreed upon has the force of law between them.30 cralawred
In order that Globe may be exempt from non-compliance with its
obligation to pay rentals under Section 8, the concurrence of the following
elements must be established:
event must be independent of the human will; (2) the occurrence must render it
impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a normal manner; and (3)
the obligor must be free of participation in, or aggravation of, the injury to the
The Court agrees with the Court of Appeals and the trial court
that the abovementioned requisites are present in the instant case.
Philcomsat and Globe had no control over the
non-renewal of the term of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement when the same
expired in 1991, because the prerogative to ratify the treaty extending the
life thereof belonged to the Senate. Neither did the parties have control over
the subsequent withdrawal of the US military forces and personnel from Cubi
Point in December 1992:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
Obviously the non-ratification by the Senate of the RP-US Military
Bases Agreement (and its Supplemental Agreements) under its Resolution No. 141.
(Exhibit 2) on September 16, 1991 is beyond the control of the
This resolution was followed
by the sending on December 31, 1991 o[f] a Note Verbale (Exhibit
3) by the Philippine Government to the US Government notifying the latter
of the formers termination of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement (as amended)
on 31 December 1992 and that accordingly, the withdrawal of all U.S. military
forces from Subic Naval Base should be completed by said date.
Subsequently, defendant [Globe] received a
formal order from Cdr. Walter F. Corliss II Commander USN dated July 31, 1992
and a notification from ATT dated July 29, 1992 to terminate the provision of
T1s services (via an IBS Standard B Earth Station) effective November 08,
Plaintiff [Philcomsat] was
furnished with copies of the said order and letter by the defendant on August
Resolution No. 141 of the Philippine Senate and the Note Verbale of
the Philippine Government to the US Government are acts, direction or request
of the Government of the Philippines and circumstances beyond the control of
The formal order from
Cdr. Walter Corliss of the USN, the letter notification from ATT and the
complete withdrawal of all the military forces and personnel from Cubi Point in
the year-end 1992 are also acts and circumstances beyond the control of the
Considering the foregoing, the Court finds and so holds that the
afore-narrated circumstances constitute force majeure or fortuitous event(s)
as defined under paragraph 8 of the Agreement.
From the foregoing, the Court finds that the defendant is exempted
from paying the rentals for the facility for the remaining term of the
As a consequence of the
termination of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement (as amended) the
continued stay of all US Military forces and personnel from Subic Naval Base
would no longer be allowed, hence, plaintiff would no longer be in any position
to render the service it was obligated under the Agreement.
To put it blantly (sic),
since the US
military forces and personnel left or withdrew from Cubi Point in the year end
December 1992, there was no longer any necessity for the plaintiff to continue
maintaining the IBS facility.32 (Emphasis in the original.)
The aforementioned events made impossible the continuation of the
Agreement until the end of its five-year term without fault on the part of
The Court of Appeals was
thus correct in ruling that the happening of such fortuitous events rendered
Globe exempt from payment of rentals for the remainder of the term of the
Moreover, it would be unjust to require Globe to continue paying
rentals even though Philcomsat cannot be compelled to perform its corresponding
obligation under the Agreement. As noted by the appellate court:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
We also point out the sheer inequity of PHILCOMSATs position.
PHILCOMSAT would like to charge GLOBE
rentals for the balance of the lease term without there being any corresponding
telecommunications service subject of the lease.It will be grossly unfair and iniquitous to hold GLOBE liable for
lease charges for a service that was not and could not have been rendered due
to an act of the government which was clearly beyond GLOBEs control.
The binding effect of a contract on both
parties is based on the principle that the obligations arising from contracts
have the force of law between the contracting parties, and there must be
mutuality between them based essentially on their equality under which it is
repugnant to have one party bound by the contract while leaving the other party
free therefrom (Allied Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 284
). 33 cralawred
With respect to the issue of whether Globe is liable for payment
of rentals for the month of December 1992, the Court likewise affirms the
appellate courts ruling that Globe should pay the same.
Although Globe alleged that it terminated the Agreement with
Philcomsat effective 08 November 1992 pursuant to the formal order issued by
Cdr. Corliss of the US Navy, the date when they actually ceased using the earth
station subject of the Agreement was not established during the trial.34 However, the trial court found that the US military forces and personnel
completely withdrew from Cubi Point only on 31 December 1992.35 Thus, until that date, the USDCA had control
over the earth station and had the option of using the same.
Furthermore, Philcomsat could not have
removed or rendered ineffective said communication facility until after 31
December 1992 because Cubi Point was accessible only to US naval personnel up
to that time.
Hence, the Court of
Appeals did not err when it affirmed the trial courts ruling that Globe is
liable for payment of rentals until December 1992.
Neither did the appellate court commit any error in holding that
Philcomsat is not entitled to attorneys fees and exemplary damages.
The award of attorneys fees is the exception rather than the
rule, and must be supported by factual, legal and equitable justifications.36 In previously decided cases, the Court awarded attorneys fees where a party
acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the other partys
claims and compelled the former to litigate to protect his rights;37 when the action filed is clearly unfounded,38 or where moral or exemplary damages are
awarded.39 However, in cases where both parties have
legitimate claims against each other and no party actually prevailed, such as
in the present case where the claims of both parties were sustained in part, an
award of attorneys fees would not be warranted.40 cralawred
Exemplary damages may be awarded in cases involving contracts or
quasi-contracts, if the erring party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oppressive or malevolent manner.41 In the present case, it was not shown that Globe acted wantonly or oppressively
in not heeding Philcomsats demands for payment of rentals.
It was established during the trial of the
case before the trial court that Globe had valid grounds for refusing to comply
with its contractual obligations after 1992.
WHEREFORE, the Petitions
are DENIED for lack of merit.
assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 63619 is AFFIRMED.
Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and
Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
Puno, J., (Chairman), on
1 Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation v. Globe Telecom, Inc.
[formerly Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation]. Penned by J. Candido V.
Rivera and concurred in by J. Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and J. Rebecca de
2 Agreement, G.R. No. 147324, Rollo, p. 65; G.R. No. 147334, Rollo,
3 Section 11, Agreement, Id. at 73; Id. at 87.
4 Section 4, Agreement, Id. at 67-69; Id. at 82-83.
5 Resolution No. 141, G.R. No. 147324, Rollo, pp. 75-78; G.R. No. 147334, Rollo,
7 CA Decision, Id. at 28-29; Id. at 48-49.
Id. at 71-72; Id. at 94-95.
Id. at 100; Id. at 123.
10 Id. at 25-38; Id. at 45-58.
11 Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation, Petitioner, v.
Globe Telecom (formerly Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation),
12 G.R. No. 147324, Rollo, p. 8.
14 Said Section provides:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
In consideration of the use of facilities and after taking
into account the tax and duty free provisions under the U.S. and R.P. Military
Base Agreement, GMCR [now Globe] shall pay PHILCOMSAT the following rates
exclusive of space segment charges:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
two (2) t-1 circuits at US$ 46,119 per circuit per month;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
and fourth T-1 circuits at US$ 30,333.00 per circuit per month;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
of the first two (2) T-1 circuits in (a) above, starting
on the 61st month, at US$
40,406.00 per circuit per month;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
of the third and fourth circuits in (b) above, starting on the 61st
month, at US$ 22, 200.00 per circuit per month;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The above-mentioned monthly lease of
circuits become due and payable within fifteen (15) days from service
establishment date or availment of the service whichever comes earlier and
within the fifteenth day of each month thereafter.
19 Globe Telecom, Inc., Petitioner v. Philippine Communications
Satellite Corporation, Respondent.
20 G.R. No. 147334, Rollo, pp.36-37.
22 Rollo, G.R. No. 147324, pp. 116-117.
23 Rollo, G.R. No. 147334, pp. 183-184.
24 Blacks Law Dictionary, Seventh
Edition, p. 657.
26 The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions
as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals,
good customs, public order, or public policy.
SeeDevelopment Bank of the
Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137557,
30 October 2000,
344 SCRA 492; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. NOS. 77425 and 77450, 19 June 1991, 198 SCRA 300; De Luna v.
Abrigo, G.R. No. 57455, 18 January 1990, 181 SCRA 150; Rocamora, et al. v.
RTC- Cebu (Branch VIII),
et al., G.R. No. L-65037, 23 November 1988, 167
SCRA 615; Community Savings & Loan Association, G.R. No. 75786, 31 August
1987, 153 SCRA 564.
31 Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Gatuslao,
G.R. NOS. 81100-01, 07 February 1990, 182 SCRA 24; Juan F. Nakpil & Sons v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. NOS. L-47851, 47863 and 47896, 03 October 1986, 144 SCRA
596; Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-42926, 13 September 1985,
138 SCRA 553; Servando, et al. v. Philippine Steam Navigation, Co., G.R. NOS. L-36481-2, 23 October 1982, 117 SCRA 832; Austria v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. L-29640, 10 June 1971, 39 SCRA 527; Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil.
32 CA Decision citing RTC Decision, G.R. No. 147324, Rollo, pp.
32-33; G.R. No. 147334, Rollo, pp. 16-17.
35 RTC Decision, Id. at 99.
36 GSIS v. Labung-Deang, G.R. No.
17 September 2001, 365 SCRA 341; SCC Chemicals Corporation v. Court
of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 128538,
28 February 2001, 353 SCRA 70; Philippine National Bank v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 107508,
25 April 1996, 256 SCRA 491; Scott Consultants
& Resource Development Corporation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 112916, 16 March 1995, 242 SCRA 393.
37 Industrial Insurance Company, Inc. v.
Bondad, G.R. No. 136722,
12 April 2000, 330 SCRA 706; Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 93291,
29 March 1999, 305 SCRA 478; Brahm Industries, Inc. v. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 118853,
16 October 1997, 280 SCRA 828.
41 Article 2232, Civil Code.
Back to Home | Back to Main