127 The opinion of the United States is reflected in Article 30, paragraph 5 of the Agreement on Straddling Stocks, which is quoted in Note 145 infra and which, of course, is extended to sub-regional, regional or global fisheries agreements on straddling fish stocks or large migratory fish stocks, as part of the direct application of the mandatory dispute settlement rules of the LOS Agreement. See p. p. note 78. The Tribunal then paraphrases the dispute resolution provisions (quoted in Note 78) that apply Part XV of the LOS Agreement to both the straddling stock agreement and other agreements on straddling and large migratory fish stocks. Price, see 15, par. 71. If the States parties to a dispute over the interpretation or application of this Convention have agreed, by general, regional or bilateral agreement or by any other means, that the dispute would be subject, at the request of a party to the dispute, to a binding decision-making procedure, that procedure applies instead of the procedures provided for in this part. unless the parties to the dispute agree otherwise.
In Velasquez vs. Speech. Court of Appeals (G.R. 124049 June 30, 1999), the Supreme Court cited the doctrine that, when it signed the bond, petitioner Velasquez was personally responsible and not only involved as an officer of the company. The co-application of the doctrine of complementary contracts interpreted together, the main loan agreement, interpreted with the action of security, clearly the indisputable intention of the parties to make the petitioners personally liable. Similarly, the change of sola to the Philippine Bank of Communications against Elena Lim contained a restrictive provision that the liability contract drawn up by the bank limited the location of any legal action in the city of Makati. The issue of jurisdiction was then raised when the surety contract was signed. In applying the principle of non-segregation, the High Court held that, by providing for the limitation of the for in the application, the bank had also limited the place of appeal against the guarantees contained in the ancillary contract of the bonding agreement. It explained that the bank had partially authorized the loan covered by the change of funds under the guarantee agreement that ensured the payment of the main loan.