It is a basic and fundamental rule in the interpretation of contract that if the terms thereof are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning shall control. In order to judge the intention of the parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered.

It is settled that in order to sustain a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide, it is imperative that the robbery itself be proven as conclusively as any other essential element of a crime. In the absence of such proof, that killing of the victim would only be simple homicide or murder, depending on the absence or presence of qualifying circumstances.

The cause of action must always consist of two elements: (1) the plaintiff's primary right and the defendant's corresponding primary duty, whatever may be the subject to which they relate    person, character, property or contract; and (2) the delict or wrongful act or omission of the defendant, by which the primary right and duty have been violated. The cause of action is determined not by the prayer of the complaint but by the facts alleged. 

The assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor over labor disputes causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest is in the nature of a police power measure. It cannot be denied that the private respondent is engaged in an undertaking affected with public interest being one of the largest manufacturers of food products. The compelling consideration of the Secretary's assumption of jurisdiction is the fact that a prolonged strike or lockout is inimical to the national economy and thus, the need to implement some measures to suppress any act which will hinder the company's essential productions is indispensable for the promotion of the common good. Under this situation, the Secretary's certification order for compulsory arbitration which was intended for the immediate formulation of an already delayed CBA was proper.

From the pleadings submitted by the parties it is clear that although EBE has indorsed in blank the shares outstanding in his name he has not delivered the certificate of stocks to AGA because the latter has not fully complied with his obligations under the memorandum of agreement. There being no delivery of the indorsed shares of stock AGA cannot therefore effectively transfer to other person or his nominees the undelivered shares of stock. For an effective transfer of shares of stock the mode and manner of transfer as prescribed by law must be followed.