Torts Finals Reviewer

Hotsauce Study Group Torts Post Midterms Reviewer BLOCKB 2013 Compiled, Edited and Arranged by GMTHabacon
PRIMARY LIABILITY (Articles 2183-2193) 1. Possessors/Users of animals (Article 2183) Art. 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage. 2. Owners of Motor Vehicles (Article 2184) Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months. Mallari vs CA The negligence and recklessness of the driver of the passenger jeepney is binding against petitioner Mallari Sr., who admittedly was the owner of the passenger jeepney engaged as a common carrier, considering the fact that in an action based on contract of carriage, the court need not make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in order to hold it responsible for the payment of damages sought by the passenger. Under Art. 1755 of the Civil Code, a common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all the circumstances. Moreover, under Art. 1756 of the Civil Code, in case of death or injuries to passengers, a common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless it proves that it observed extraordinary diligence. Further, pursuant to Art. 1759 of the same Code, it is liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the formers employees. This liability of the common carrier does not cease upon proof that it exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of its employees. 3. Manufacturers & Processors (Article 2187) Art. 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substances used, although no contractual relation exists between them and the consumers. 4. Municipal Corporations (Article 2189) Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision. City of Manila vs Teodico What Article 2189 requires is that the province, city or municipality has either control or supervision over the street or road. Even if P. Burgos was a national highway, the City of Manilas control over it made the City of Manila liable for the injury. Section 18 of the City of Manilas charter gave it supervision and control over P. Burgos. Guilatco vs City of Dagupan It is not even necessary that such defective road or street belongs to the City. In the case at bar, the control and supervision of the national road exists and is provided for in the charter of Dagupan. It provided that the laying out, construction and improvement of streets, avenues and alleys and sidewalks, and regulation of the use thereof, may be legislated by the Municipal Board. Such control and supervision is exercised through the City Engineer Tangco, who aside from his official capacity as City Engineer, was also Ex Officio Highway Engineer, Ex Officio City Engineer of Bureau of Public Works, and Building Official and received compensation for these functions. QC Government vs Dacara The provisions of Article 2189 of the New Civil Code capsulizes the responsibility of the city government relative to the maintenance of roads and bridges since it exercises the control and supervision over the same. Failure of the defendant to comply with the statutory provision found in the subject-article is tantamount to negligence per se which renders the City government liable. Harsh application of the law ensues as a result thereof but the state assumed the responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the roads and bridges and neither exception nor exculpation from liability would deem just and equitable. Local Government Code SEC. 24. Liability for Damages. - Local government units and their officials are not exempt from liability for death or injury to persons or damage to property.
5. Building Proprietors (Article 2190-2191, 2193) and 6. (Article 2192, 1723) Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damages resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs. (1907) Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused: (1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken care of with due diligence, and the inflammation of explosive substances which have not been kept in a safe and adequate place; (2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or property; (3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes, if not caused by force majeure; (4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of infectious matter, constructed without precautions suitable to the place. (1908) Art. 2192. If damage referred to in the two preceding articles should be the result of any defect in the construction mentioned in Article 1723, the third person suffering damages may proceed only against the engineer or architect or contractor in accordance with said article, within the period therein fixed. (1909) Art. 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a part thereof, is responsible for damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same. (1910) Art. 1723. The engineer or architect who drew up the plans and specifications for a building is liable for damages if within fifteen years from the completion of the structure, the same should collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and specifications, or due to the defects in the ground. The contractor is likewise responsible for the damages if the edifice falls, within the same period, on account of defects in the construction or the use of materials of inferior quality furnished by him, or due to any violation of the terms of the contract. If the engineer or architect supervises the construction, he shall be solidarily liable with the contractor. Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not imply waiver of any of the cause of action by reason of any defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The action must be brought within ten years following the collapse of the building. (n) SOLIDARY LIABILITY (ARTICLE 2194) Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary. Lanuzo vs Ping A distinction exists between the civil liability arising from a crime and the responsibility for cuasi-delitos or culpaextracontractual. The same negligent act causing damages may produce civil liability arising from a crime under article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, or create an action for cuasi-delitoor culpa extracontractual under articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. Plaintiffs were free to choose which remedy to enforce. Plaintiff Lanuzos civil action is one based on quasi-delict. The terms of his reservation, and the fact that he sought to hold Sy Bon Ping primarily liable with Mendoza as employer clearly indicate that he was pursuing a civil action ex quasi delicto. As such, he is not barred from proceeding with the independent civil suit, which may progress regardless of the status of the criminal case. However, he must not recover twice for the same act or omission. As to their liabilities, Mendoza is primarily liable for his reckless driving under article 2176. Sy Bon Ping, having failed to rebut the legal presumption of his negligence in the selection and supervision of his employees is likewise directly and primarily liable, under article 2180. Gelisan vs Alday The Court has consistently considered the registered owner/operator of a public service vehicle to be jointly and severally liable with the driver for damages incurred by passengers or third persons as a consequence of injuries sustained in the operation of said vehicles. *Philippine Rabbit vs IAC The driver and the owner of the jeepney cannot be held solidarily liable. The driver cannot be held solidarily liable with the carrier in case of a breach of a contract of carriage. This is because a) the contract of carriage is between the carrier and the passenger and in the event of contractual liability, the carrier is exclusively responsible thereof to the passenger, even if it was due to the negligence of the driver. The carrier can neither shift his liability on the contract to the driver nor share it with him, for his drivers negligence is his. Secondly, if We make the driver solidarily liable with the carrier, that would make the carriers liability personal instead of merely vicarious and consequently, entitled to recover only the share which corresponds to the driver, contradicting Article 2181 of the New Civil Code. PNCC vs CA PASUDECOs negligence in transporting sugarcanes, and that of PNCC in removing the emergency devices, were two successive negligent acts, which were the direct and proximate cause of the injuries. Thus, they are solidarily liable. Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts/omissions of 2 or more persons, although acting independently of each other, are in combination, the direct and proximate couse of a single injury to a 3rd person and it is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury, either is responsible for the whole injury, even though his act alone might not have cause the entire injury, or the same damage might have resulted from the acts of the other tort-feasor.
Chan vs Iglesia ni Cristo As a general rule, joint tortfeasors are all the persons who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit. Indubitably Chan and Yoro cooperated in committing the tort. They even had provisions in their MOA as to how they would divide the treasure if any were found within Chans property. STRICT LIABILITY TORTS Exceptionally, liability is created even where there may have been no fault or negligence.
1. Possessors/Users of animals (Article 2183) Damage caused by: an animal Person primarily liable: the possessor of an animal; or whoever may make use of the same Defenses: a. That the damage was caused by force majeure b. That the damage was caused through the fault of the person who suffered damage Vestil v. IAC Three year-old Theness Tan Uy was bitten by a dog named Andoy while she was playing with a child of the Vestils in the house of the late Vicente Miranda, father of Purita Vestil. Theness was rushed to the hospital where she was treated for multiple lacerated wounds on the forehead and was given an anti-rabies shot. She was discharged after nine days but was re-admitted a week later. She died the following day, due to broncho- pneumonia. Seven months later, the Uys sued the Vestils for damages, alleging that the Vestils were liable to them as the possessors of Andoy. The Vestils denied liability, claiming that the dog belonged to the deceased Vicente Miranda. Purita Vestil insisted that she was not liable since she was not the owner of the house or of the dog, as his estate had not yet been partitioned. ISSUE: Whether the Vestils are liable for damages. HELD: Yes, the Vestils are liable for damages. Ownership of the house or of the dog is immaterial in this case. What must be determined is the possession of the dog, since Article 2183 holds liable the possessor of the animal that causes damage. In this case, Purita Vestil and her husband were the possessors of the house at the time when the incident happened. Meanwhile, the dog stayed in the house and even remained there after the death of Vicente Miranda, up to the time when it bit Theness. Hence, the Vestils are deemed in possession of the dog and are liable for the damages that it caused. The Vestils raised the defense that, assuming that they were in possession of the dog, they were still not liable because there was no causal connection between the broncho-pneumonia that caused the death of Theness and 2. Manufacturers & Processors (Article 2187) 3. Head of Family (Article 2193) Art. 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a part thereof, is responsible for damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same. (1910) SPECIAL TORTS (HUMAN RELATIONS) ABUSE OF RIGHT Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. Velayo v. Shell Co. Shell was one of the creditors of CALI. CALI became insolvent and called all of its creditors, including Shell, to a meeting. CALI told the creditors that it was broke but that it had an airplane in the US, which it was planning to sell to PAL so that it could raise more money to pay its debts. On the same day, acting upon the knowledge of (1) the insolvency of CALI, and (2) the existence of the plane, Shell assigned its credit to Shell USA. Shell USA then sued CALI in a California court and attached the plane as security. Thus, the plane was placed beyond the reach of CALI and the other creditors. The assignee in insolvency of CALI filed an action against Shell for damages for taking advantage of the information that it acquired to the prejudice of CALI and the other creditors. ISSUE: Whether Shell is liable for damages.
HELD: Shell is liable for damages. Shell took advantage of its knowledge that insolvency proceedings were to be instituted by CALI if the creditors did not come to an understanding as to the distribution of the insolvents assets among them. Believing that it was improbable for the creditors to arrive at such an understanding, it schemed and effected the transfer of credit to its sister corporation in the US, thereby disposing of CALIs plane and depriving CALI of the opportunity to recover it. It is liable for damages under Article 19 of the Civil Code, which provides that any person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performances of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith. This is implemented by Article 21 which prescribes that any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
CONTRARY TO LAW AND MORALS Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. Article 20 contrary to law Even if the particular provision of law does not expressly provide for indemnification in case of violation, so long as there is a violation of law and damage resulting therefrom, there is liability for damages under Article 20. Hermosisima v. CA Soledad Cagigas, was going out with Francisco Hermosisima, who was almost ten (10) years younger than she. They were regarded as engaged, although he had made no promise of marriage to her. Soledad got pregnant. When she told Francisco that she was in the family way, he promised to marry her. Their child, Chris Hermosisima, was born later. However, just a month after the birth of Chris, Francisco married another woman. Hence, Soledad commenced an action for recognition of Chris as natural child of Francisco, support, and moral damages for his breach of promise to marry her. ISSUE: Whether moral damages are recoverable for breach of promise to marry. HELD: No. Moral damages are not recoverable for breach of promise to marry. Breach of promise to marry is not actionable. No other action lends itself more readily to abuse by designing women and unscrupulous men. The CA awarded moral damages to Soledad on the ground that Francisco seduced her. The SC held that Francisco was not morally guilty of seduction. He was approximately 10 years younger than Soledad, who was a highly enlightened former high school teacher and a life insurance agent. Moreover, the CFI found that, Soledad "surrendered herself" to Francisco because, "overwhelmed by her love" for him, she "wanted to bind" him "by having a fruit of their engagement even before they had the benefit of clergy. In other words, pinikot siya, therefore, an award of moral damages is not in order. UNJUST ENRICHMENT Art. 22. Every person who through an act or performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him. Art. 23. Even when an act or event causing damage to another's property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited. 1. There must be enrichment on the part of the defendant. 2. There is a concomitant injury to the plaintiff. 3. There is no just cause or legal ground for the enrichment. Pecson v. CA Pecson owned a commercial lot on which he built a four-door two-storey apartment building. For failure to pay realty taxes amounting to 12K, the lot was sold at public auction by the City Treasurer to Nepomuceno. Nepomuceno in turn sold the property to the spouses Nuguid. Pecson filed a case questioning the validity of the auction sale. The trial court dismissed the complaint but held that the sale did not include the apartment building. The Nuguid spouses filed a motion for delivery of possession of the lot and the apartment building, citing Article 546 of the Civil Code (rules on builder in good faith). The spouses offered to pay the cost of construction spent by Pecson in 1965 as indemnity under Art. 448 and 546 of the Civil Code. ISSUE: How much indemnity should be paid by the Nuguid spouses to Pecson? HELD: The Nuguid spouses should pay the current market value of the apartment bulding on the lot. For this purpose, the parties should be allowed to present evidence on the current market value. The objective of Article 546 of the Civil Code is to administer justice between the parties involved. It was formulated in trying to adjust the rights of the owner and possessor in good faith of a piece of land, to administer complete justice to both of them in such a way as neither one nor the other may enrich himself of that which does not belong to him. Guided by this precept, it is therefore the current market value of the improvements which should be made the basis of reimbursement. A contrary ruling would unjustly enrich the Nuguid
spouses who would otherwise be allowed to acquire a highly valued income-yielding four-unit apartment building for a measly amount. Security Bank v. CA Ysmael Ferrer was contracted by SBTC and Rosito Manhit to construct the building of SBTC in Davao for 1.76M. The contract provided that Ferrer would finish construction in 200 working days. Ferrer was able to complete the construction within that period, but he was compelled by a drastic increase in the cost of construction materials to incur expenses of about 300K on top of the original cost. SBTC refused to pay and denied ever authorizing payment of any amount beyond the original contract price. It also invoked Article IX of the building contract, which states that in case of supervening increase in prices of construction materials and/or labor, the owner (SBTC) shall equitably make the appropriate adjustment on mutual agreement of both parties. Since there was no such mutual agreement, there was no obligation on its part to pay above the original contract price. Ferrer then filed a complaint for breach of contract with damages against SBTC. ISSUE: Whether SBTC is liable for the additional amount. HELD: Yes, SBTC is liable. Article 22 of the Civil Code embodies the maxim, Nemo ex alterius incommodo debet lecupletari (no man ought to be made rich out of anothers injury). In this case, Ferrer incurred additional expenses in constructing SBTCs building. SBTC derived benefits when Ferrer completed the construction even at an increased cost. Hence, to allow SBTC to acquire the constructed building at a price far below its actual construction cost would undoubtedly constitute unjust enrichment for the bank, to the prejudice of Ferrer. Such unjust enrichment is not allowed by law. JUDICIAL VIGILANCE Art. 24. In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection. THOUGHTLESS EXTRAVAGANCE Art. 25. Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during a period of acute public want or emergency may be stopped by order of the courts at the instance of any government or private charitable institution. DISRESPECT FOR PERSON Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief: (1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence: (2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another; (3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends; (4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition. DERELICTION OF DUTY Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against he latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken. Javellana v. Tayo Mayor Tayo, the Vice Mayor two councilors, and the secretary of Buenavista, Iloilo were always absent from the sessions of the council. Thus, the remaining council members elected among themselves a temporary presiding officer and a secretary to take notes. They then proceeded with the matters to be taken up by the council. When the minutes of all their proceedings were presented to Mayor Tayo for action, the mayor refused to act upon them, or particularly to approve or disapprove the resolution they had been working on and which they, as a council, had approved. According to the mayor, the sessions were null and void. Mayor Tayo even refused to affix his signature to their payrolls covering the per diems owing to them alleging that the proceedings were illegal due to his absence. Trial Court: Sessions perfectly valid and legal. Moral damages awarded pursuant to art. 27 of the NCC to Exequiel Golez who had testified and proved that he had suffered as a consequence of the refusal of Mayor Tayo to perform his official duty. Of course, the hard-headed mayor still refuses to back down. Hence, this appeal. ISSUE: Whether Exequiel Golez is entitled to moral damages. HELD: Yes. The award of moral damages is proper under Art. 27 of the NCC considering that according to the trial court, Golez was able to prove that he suffered as a consequence of the mayors refusal to perform his official duty,
notwithstanding the action taken by the provincial fiscal and the provincial board upholding the validity of the sessions in question. UNFAIR COMPETITION Art. 28. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage. Spinner vs Hesslein The plaintiff is entitled to an injunction for the purpose of restraining the defendant from using the word "Wigan", whether the wrongful act of the defendant be considered as an act of unfair competition or as an infringement of the trade-mark registered by the plaintiff in April, 1925. Using the word "Wigan" by defendants is likely to lead and deceive purchasers to believe that the goods sold by the defendant are those of the plaintiff CONSTITUTES UNFAIR COMPETITION as against the plaintiff. Though it may not deceive merchants or tailors buying from the defendant, but the person most to be considered in this connection is the ultimate buyer, or consumer, who would naturally be led to suppose that the goods sold under this name is the goods sold by the plaintiff. The fraudulent intention to mislead the consumer on the part of the defendant may be inferred from the similarity of the goods offered for sale by him to the goods of the plaintiff (Act No. 666, sec. 7, end), and the fact that "Wigan" was stamped by the defendant upon the bolts of khaki sold by it. VIOLATION OF CIVIL/POLITICAL RIGHTS Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: (1) Freedom of religion; (2) Freedom of speech; (3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication; (4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention; (5) Freedom of suffrage; (6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law; (7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use; (8) The right to the equal protection of the laws; (9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures; (10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same; (11) The privacy of communication and correspondence; (12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law; (13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances; (14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form; (15) The right of the accused against excessive bail; (16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf; (17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except when the person confessing becomes a State witness; (18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and (19) Freedom of access to the courts. In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and mat be proved by a preponderance of evidence. The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute. Lim vs Ponce Deleon To be liable under Article 32 of the New Civil Code it is enough that there is a violation of the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and it is not required that defendants should have acted with malice or bad faith. Public officials in the past have abused their powers on the pretext of justifiable motives or good faith in the performance of their duties. Precisely, the object of Article 32 of the Civil Code is to put an end to official abuse by the plea of good faith.
MHP Garments vs CA MHP had the exclusive franchise to sell and distribute official Boy Scout uniforms and supplies. Acting upon information that private respondents were selling Boy Scout items without authority, MHP sent one of its employees, together with three members of the Philippine Constabulary, to the store of private respondents. The employee and the members of the PC seized the merchandise in the store without any warrant. The items were then turned over to MHP. When private respondents demanded the return of the goods, not all items were returned, while the others were of inferior quality. Private respondents filed an action for damages against MHP. MHP denies liability on the ground that it was the PC that conducted the raid, and its participation was only to report the alleged illegal activity of private respondents. ISSUE: Whether MHP is liable for damages. HELD: Yes. It is not the actor alone (i.e. the one directly responsible) who must answer for damages under Article 32. The person indirectly responsible must also answer for the damages or injury caused to the aggrieved party. Article 32 of the Civil Code makes the persons who are directly, as well as indirectly, responsible for the transgression as joint tortfeasors. In this case, MHP was indirectly involved in transgressing the right of private respondents against unreasonable search and seizure. It instigated the raid, which was even conducted with the active participation of one of the employees of MHP. It received for safekeeping the goods unreasonably seized and refused to surrender them upon demand. It failed to report the unlawful peddling of the goods to the Boy Scouts of the Philippines so that the latter could have properly applied for a warrant. INTERFERENCE IN CONTRACTUAL RELATION Art. 1314. Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party. Elements of Interference in Contractual Relation: Is malice an element of interference in contractual relation? A: There are variances in opinion. Some cases say that it is not, while other cases say that it is (So Ping Bun v. CA). So if youre the lawyer for the plaintiff, you should try to prove it anyway just to be sure. What are the defenses available to the defendant? (1) Business competition & the purpose is (i) furtherance of the business; & (ii) lawful means are used. Note that there is no intent to cause damage. (So Ping Bun v. CA) (2) Honest advice made (i) in good faith and (ii) in performance of his duty as adviser (3) innocence of breaching party (Sir doesnt agree); element of inducement lacking Cite Daywalt that the third party cannot be more liable than the party on whose behalf he intermeddles. Yu vs CA Injunction is the appropriate remedy to prevent a wrongful interference with contracts by strangers to such contracts where the legal remedy is insufficient and the resulting injury is irreparable. The liability of private respondent, if any, does not emanate from contract for undoubtedly, Unisia Merchandising Co., Inc. is not a party thereto but its accountability is "an independent act generative of civil liability". The right to perform an exclusive distributorship agreement and to reap the profits resulting from such performance is proprietary rights, which a party may protect. The SC also pointed out the allegation that respondent duped the House of Mayfair into believing that the goods ordered through the FNF Trading were to be shipped to Nigeria only, but the goods were actually sent to and sold in the Philippines. The SC said that A ploy of this character is akin to the scenario of a third person who induces a party to renege on or violate his undertaking under a contract, thereby entitling the other contracting party to relief therefrom (Article 1314, New Civil Code). The breach caused by private respondent was even aggravated by the consequent diversion of trade from the business of petitioner to that of private respondent caused by the latter's species of unfair competition as demonstrated no less by the sales effected inspite of the restraining order issued by the Court. The SC decided that the injury in this case is irreparable since the continued sale of the merchandise damages the goodwill and reputation of the petitioner as sole distributor. There is no fair and reasonable redress for such damage. So Ping Bun v. CA Tek Hua Trading entered into agreements with DCCSI for the lease of several properties which Tek Hua used to store its textiles. The successor of Tek Hua Trading, Tek Hua Enterprises, allowed So Ping Bun, the grandson of the managing partner of Tek Hua Trading, to use the premises to store his own textiles. Later, Manual Tiong, one of the members of Tek Hua Enterprising Corp., asked So Ping Bun to vacate the warehouse within 14 days since Tiong needed it for his textile business. So Ping Bun refused to vacate. Instead, So Ping Bun entered into lease contracts with DCCSI over the same premises. Tek Hua Enterprises and Manuel Tiong filed an action to nullify the contracts of lease between So Ping Bun and DCCSI and also claimed damages against So Ping Bun for unlawful interference in the lease contracts between DCCSI and Tek Hua Enterprises.
ISSUE: Whether So Ping Bun is liable for damages. HELD: No, So Ping Bun is not liable. The elements of tort interference are: (1) Existence of a valid contract; (2) Knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of the contract; and (3) Interference of the third person is without legal justification or excuse. In this case, Trendsetter Marketing asked DCCSI to execute lease contracts in its favor, and as a result, it was able to deprive Tek Hua Enterprises of its property right. Clearly, the three elements of tort interference are present since So Ping Bun prevailed upon DCCSI to lease the warehouse to his enterprise at the expense of Tek Hua Enterprises. However, So Ping Bun still cannot be held liable for damages. Though he took interest in the property of Tek Hua and benefited from it, nothing on record imputes deliberate wrongful motives or malice on him. The business desire is there to make some gain to the detriment of the contracting parties. Lack of malice, however, precludes damages. Lagon vs CA NOT ALL OF THE ELEMENTS OF TORT INTERFERENCE WERE PRESENT a. There is an existing contract. The notarized copy of the lease contract presented in court appeared to be incontestable proof that private respondent and the late Bai actually renewed their lease contract. A notarized document is prima facie evidence of the facts that gave rise to its execution and delivery. b. THERE WAS NO KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF THE INTERFERER OF THE CONTRACT. Lagon conducted his own personal investigation and inquiry, and unearthed no suspicious circumstance that would have made a cautious man probe deeper and watch out for any conflicting claim over the property. An examination of the entire propertys title bore no indication of the leasehold interest of Lapiz. Even the registry of property had no record of the same. c. There was no malice given that the heirs were not induced to sell the property. The word induce refers to situations where a person causes another to choose one course of conduct by persuasion or intimidation. Here, the decision of the heirs was of their own volition. Lagon also acted for the sole purpose of furthering a personal financial interest without malice or bad faith. d. This is a case of damnum absque injuria. Gilchrist vs Cuddy Cuddy was the owner of the rights to the film Zigomar. He entered into an agreement with C.S. Gilchrist whereby Gilchrist would rent the film from Cuddy and screen it for a week for P125. Gilchrist paid the money in advance. However, a few days before the screening date agreed upon, Cuddy sent the money back, saying that he had made other arrangements with his film. It turns out that Cuddy entered into another agreement with Espejo and Zaldarriaga (the partners) for the rental of the film for the same week agreed upon with Gilchrist, for the price of P350. ISSUE: Whether the partners are liable to Gilchrist for damages for interfering with the contract between Gilchrist and Cuddy. HELD: Yes. The only motive for the interference by the partners in the Gilchrist-Cuddy contract was a desire to make profit by exhibiting the film in their theater; there was no malice involved. However, this fact does not relieve them of the legal liability for interfering with that contract and causing its breach. In the US case Angle v. Railway Co., the US Supreme Court held the third party liable for damages even if his only motive for interference was to make a profit. Neither is it necessary for the tortfeasor to know the identity of the person to whom he causes damages. Article 1902 [of the old Civil Code] provides that a person who, by act or omission, causes damage to another when there is fault or negligence, shall be obliged to repair the damage so done. It is clear that this article does not require prior knowledge of the identity of the person to whom the tortfeasor causes damage in order for him to be liable for damages. Daywalt v. La Corporacion de los Padres Agustinos Recoletos The stranger who interferes in a contract between other parties cannot become more extensively liable in damages for the nonperformance of the contract than the party in whose behalf he intermeddles. Hence, in order to determine the liability of the Recoletos, there is first a need to consider the liability of Endencia to Daywalt. The damages claimed by Daywalt from Endencia cannot be recovered from her, first, because these are special damages, which were not within the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made, and secondly, these damages are too remote to be the subject of recovery. Since Endencia is not liable for damages to Daywalt, neither can the Recoletos be held liable. As already suggested, by advising Endencia not to perform the contract, the Recoletos could in no event render itself more extensively liable than the principal in the contract. Tayag vs Lacson THE FARMERS/TILLERS WERE NOT INDUCED TO SELL THE LEASEHOLD RIGHTS TO THE LACSONS. In fine, one who is not a party to a contract and who interferes thereon is not necessarily an officious or malicious intermeddler. The only evidence adduced by the petitioner to prove his claim is the letter from the defendants-tenants informing him that they had decided to sell their rights and interests over the landholding to the respondents, instead of honoring their obligation under
the deeds of assignment because, according to them, the petitioner harassed the farmers/tillers who did not want to execute deeds of assignment in his favor and because the said farmers/tillers did not want to have any problem with the Lacsons who could cause their eviction for executing with the petitioner the deeds of assignment as the said deeds are in violation of P.D. No. 27 and Rep. Act No. 6657 (PD 27 and RA 6657 prohibited such alienation). The defendants-tenants did not allege therein that the respondents induced them to breach their contracts with the petitioner. The petitioner himself admitted when he testified that his claim that the respondents induced the defendants-assignees to violate contracts with him was based merely on what "he heard".
DAMAGES
CONCEPT/KINDS OF DAMAGES Art. 2197. Damages may be: 1. Actual or compensatory; 2. Moral; 3. Nominal; 4. Temperate or moderate; 5. Liquidated; or 6. Exemplary or corrective. Damages may be: 1. Actual This is compensation for the pecuniary loss actually suffered and proved by the plaintiff. Examples: A robber steals a ring. Actual damages = value of the ring Someone beats you up. Actual damages = expenses for going to the hospital, doctor, medicine Contract with supplier of raw materials. Supplier fails to comply and because of that, the buyer fails to manufacture his products. Actual damages = unrealized profit. 2. Moral Moral damages include: Physical suffering, mental anguish fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, similar injury. Examples: Someone beats you up. Moral damages = pain, physical suffering Someone kills your wife. Moral damages = moral suffering, which is presumed by law once a family member dies. 3. Nominal Adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. Example: Police officers barge into your home without a warrant. 4. Temperate More than nominal but less than actual/compensatory. May be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty. Example: Evidence presented at the trial to show the value of the damage was wrong, but the damage itself was proven. 5. Liquidated - agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof. Example: Contract for construction which states that in case of delay in completion, the contractor must pay 1/10 of 1% of the project cost for every day of delay. 6. Exemplary or corrective - imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. Example: When offender acted with evident bad faith and malice, such as in crimes attended by aggravating circumstances. Spouses Ong vs CA A) As to reduction of actual damages. The reduction was proper (from 10,000 to 3,977) since what can only be given, as actual damages are those actually proven in court. Actual damages are such compensation or damages for an injury that will put the injured party in the position in which he had been before he was injured. They pertain to such injuries or losses that are actually sustained and susceptible of measurement. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, a party is entitled to adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss as he has duly proven. To be recoverable, actual damages must be pleaded and proven in Court. In no instance may the trial judge award more than those so pleaded and proven. Damages cannot be presumed. The award thereof must be based on the evidence presented, not on the personal knowledge of the court; and certainly not on flimsy, remote, speculative and nonsubstantial proof. Article 2199 of the Civil Code expressly mandates that [e]xcept as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. The Court noted that the decision of the trial court itself shows the inadequacy of proof of the claimed actual damages. The trial court erred in relying solely on the testimony of the petitioners uncorroborated by other evidence. Damages are not intended to enrich the complainant at the expense of the defendant. B) Deletion of Moral Damages The SC awarded moral damages to the petitioners since it was sufficiently proven that Francias right arm could not function in a normal manner and that, as a result, she suffered mental anguish and anxiety. A person is entitled to the physical integrity of his or her body, and if that integrity is violated, damages are due and assessable. However, physical injury, like loss or diminution of use of an arm or a limb, is not a pecuniary loss. Indeed, it is not susceptible of exact monetary estimation. Thus, the usual practice is to award moral damages for physical injuries sustained.
C) Deletion of Damages for Unrealized Income The SC agreed with the CA in its deletion of damages for unrealized income. Although actual damages include indemnification for profits, which the injured party failed to obtain, the rule requires that said person produce the best evidence of which his case is susceptible. The bare and unsubstantiated assertion of Francia that she usually earned P200 a day from her market stall is not the best evidence to prove her claim of unrealized income for the eight-month period that her arm was in plaster cast. D) Reduction of Attorneys fees Attorneys fees is an indemnity for damages ordered by a court to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing party, based on any of the cases authorized by law. It is payable not to the lawyer but to the client, unless the 2 have agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional compensation or as part thereof. The Court has established a set of standards in fixing the amount of attorneys fees. Counsels performance, however, does not justify the award of 25 percent attorneys fees. The nature of the case was not exceptionally difficult, and his handling of the case was sorely inadequate, as shown by his failure to follow elementary norms of civil procedure & evidence. It is well-settled that such award is addressed to sound judicial discretion and subject to judicial control. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF RECOVERY 1. The amount should be fair and just and commensurate to the damage. 2. Damage and the amount must be proven by competent evidence. Competent means that it is admissible. How to prove: Example: You lost jewelry to robbers. To prove the amount of damages, you must present documentary evidence, such as receipts. But you probably dont keep the receipts of your jewelry around, so you can also present testimonial evidence of an expert witness, such as a jewelry appraiser. 3. Only proximate damages, not remote or speculative, can be recovered. Examples: If you run over a chicken, you only pay the value of the chicken, not the eggs that it would have produced. Air France vs CA Air France employees in Hamburg informed private respondent that his tickets were partly stamped "non-endorsable" and "valid on Air France only." Mere refusal to accede to the passenger's wishes does not necessarily translate into damages in the absence of bad faith. To our mind, respondent has failed to show wanton, malevolent or reckless misconduct imputable to petitioner in its refusal to re-route. Air France Manila acted upon the advise of its Manila ticketing office in denying private respondent's request. There was no evident bad faith when it followed the advise not to authorize rerouting. At worst, the situation can be considered a case of inadvertence on the part of petitioners Manila ticketing office in not explaining the nonendorsable character of the ticket. Of importance, however, is the fact that private respondent is a lawyer, and the restriction box clearly indicated the nonendorsable character of the ticket. With a claim for a large amount of damages, the Court finds it unusual for respondent, a lawyer, to easily forget vital information to substantiate his plea. It is also essential before an award of damages that the claimant must satisfactorily prove during the trial the existence of the factual basis of the damages and its causal connection to defendant's acts. PAL v. Miano Miano took a PAL flight to Germany. When he arrived in Austria, his checked-in luggage was missing. He reported the matter to Lufthansa authorities. It was only 11 days later that his baggage was delivered to him. He claimed that due to the delay, he was forced to borrow money for clothes, pay $200 for the transportation of his baggage from Austria to Czechoslovakia, and he lost a camera. Miano later instituted an action for damages before the RTC of Makati. PAL disclaimed any liability on the ground that there was no report of mishandled baggage on flight PR 722, and no tracer telex from its Viena Station. It also claimed that if it is at all liable, its obligation was limited by the Warsaw Convention rate. ISSUE: Whether Miano is entitled to damages and attorneys fees. HELD: No. But he is entitled to actual damages of $200 for expense incurred for the transportation of his baggage. In breach of contract of carriage by air, moral damages are awarded only if the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. There was no bad faith on the part of PAL. In fact, upon complaint, it immediately coordinated with its central baggage services to trace the bag and found it. Exemplary damages cannot be awarded either. In case of contracts and quasi contracts, the defendant must have acted in a fraudulent, oppressive, reckless, or malevolent manner for exemplary damages to be given. These do not characterize PALs actions. When moral and exemplary damages are eliminated, attorneys fees must be deleted as well. Dichoso vs CA Actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed, but must be duly proved, and proved with reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have suffered and on evidence of the actual amount thereof.
DBP vs CA Article 2199 provides: Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages. Actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed, but must be proved with reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on speculations, conjectures, or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have been suffered by the injured party and on the best obtainable evidence of the actual amount thereof. It must point out specific facts, which could afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory, or actual damages are borne. ACTUAL DAMAGES Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages. Art. 2200. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered, but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain. (1106) Art. 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted. In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. (1107a) Art. 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant. Art. 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question. Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except: (1) When exemplary damages are awarded; (2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest; (3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff; (4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff; (5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable claim; (6) In actions for legal support; (7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers; (8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws; (9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime; (10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded; (11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered. In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable. Art. 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six per cent per annum. (1108)
Actual damages may be: 1. Under Article 2200 (Damnum emergens- Actual loss suffered vs. Lucrum cessans- profits that were failed to be obtained) a. Value of the loss suffered b. Profits which the obligee failed to obtain (unrealized profit) how to prove this: documentary evidence Example: X and Y killed A and threw his body into a river, not knowing that he had P100K in his pocket. X and Y are liable for 100K in actual damages because they are liable for all the damages attributed to their criminal act, even if they did not know of or contemplate the loss of the 100K. 2. Under Article 2205 (Disability) a. Loss or impairment of earning capacity due to temporary or permanent injury. Permanent injury does not mean that youre a vegetable but that you cannot do the same job as before because of the injury. How to prove this: present documentary evidence, such as the ITR, payroll b. injury to the plaintiffs business standing or commercial credit. How to prove this: present documentary evidence, such as contracts for future business or comparison or earnings before and after the injury. 3. Fixed indemnity The law provides a fixed indemnity in certain cases, such as death, rape, seduction, etc. For death: 50K. 4. Loss of earning capacity This presupposes that the person concerned is dead. How to compute:
First step: Determine the life expectancy using the following formula: Life expectancy = 2/3 x (80 - age of the deceased at the time of death) Second step: Compute for earning capacity using the following formula: Earning capacity = net earnings per year x life expectancy 2 How do you prove the net earnings per year: a. Documentary evidence: ITR, payroll b. Oral testimony on minimum wage (but this is not always admitted) The net earnings of the deceased is divided by two since the law presumes that half of it goes to his living expenses. But if other evidence is presented to establish the actual personal expenses of the deceased, then this figure may be used instead. 5. Interest Rules: a. If there is a stipulation as to the rate of interest, apply the rate unless it is contrary to law, morals, and good customs, in which case apply the legal rate. b. If interest is imposed, but no rate is stipulated, or there is delay, apply the legal rate (either 6% or 12%) (1) When the obligation involves the payment of indemnities in the concept of damage, the legal rate or interest is 6% computed as follows: (a) From date of demand if the amount of indemnities can be established with reasonable certainty; (b) If not, from the date of the judgment of the trial court. (2) When the obligation consists of a loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits as well as judgment involving such loan or forbearance, the legal rate of interest shall be 12% per annum computed from default, that is, from judicial or extrajudicial demand. (3) In both cases, the legal rate of interest shall be 12% from the finality of judgment until the judgment is paid. 6. Attorneys Fees: (1) as FEES: lawyer-client relationship; belongs to lawyer (2) as DAMAGES: belongs to client General Rule: Attorneys fees cannot be recovered. Exception: Granted in instances under 2208. There must be a legal basis for the award of attorneys fees. Court must state basis fro award. Otherwise, its null & void. Case of A v. B who are fighting over ownership of land: As counsel agrees to represent A for 25% of the value of the land. If A wins, can As counsel file for an attorneys lien on the property? No. Attys lien on real property subject of litigation is not allowed. But if the action was principally for damages and A wins, the attys fees can constitute a lien on the money awarded. The lien is allowed only if the subject matter is money, not real property. What if your agreement with your client is that youll be paid 100K but client is awarded only 50K. Are you entitled to just 50K? No. The contract between you and the client is a separate agreement. PNOC Shipping v. CA The plaintiff tried to prove actual damages by presenting his general manager who testified as to the value of the property damaged and also by presenting documentary evidence in the form of brochures quoting the prices of similar equipment. ISSUE: Whether the actual damages were adequately established by the evidence presented. HELD: No. To enable an injured party to recover actual or compensatory damages, he is required to prove the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof on the best evidence available. In this case, actual damages were proven through the sole testimony of Maria Efigenias general manager and certain pieces of documentary evidence. The testimony of the general manager as to the valuation of the ship is not reliable because he is an interested party and because it was not within his competence to determine the value of the property. On the other hand, the documentary evidence in the form of brochures are not admissible for being hearsay evidence. They do not constitute an exception to the hearsay rule since they are not commercial lists. Since the persons who prepared them were not presented in court, they cannot be admitted in evidence. Nominal damages were awarded instead. [Though, in reality, they should have been called temperate damages the damage was proved, but the amount was not.] Eastern Shipping vs CA Citing volumes of jurisprudence on the matter, the Supreme Court boiled down the rules to be applied in determining legal interest as follows: I. When an obligation, regardless of its source, i.e., law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts or quasi-delicts is breached, the contravenor can be held liable for damages. The provisions under Title XVIII on "Damages" of the Civil Code govern in determining the measure of recoverable damages. II. With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed, as follows:
1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which might have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code. 2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged. 3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit. Francisco vs Roque The mere fact that petitioners were constrained to litigate in order to protect and assert their rights does not ipso facto entitle them to attorneys fees. What Article 2208 (2) of the Civil Code provides, in order that attorneys fees may be awarded, is that "the defendants act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest". It is settled that the fact that the party was compelled to litigate and incur expenses to protect and enforce their claim does not justify the award of attorney's fees. The general rule is that attorney's fees cannot be recovered as part of damages because of the public policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. The award of attorney's fees must be deleted where the award of moral and exemplary damages are eliminated." Magbanua vs Junsay DEFINITION: The term "malicious prosecution" has been defined as "an action for damages brought by one against whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit, or other legal proceeding has been instituted maliciously and without probable cause, after the termination of such prosecution, suit, or other proceeding in favor of the defendant therein." a. While generally associated with unfounded criminal actions, the term has been expanded to include unfounded civil suits instituted just to vex and humiliate the defendant despite the absence of a cause of action or probable cause. b. One begun in malice without probable cause to believe the charges can be sustained. Instituted with intention of injuring defendant and without probable cause, and which terminates in favor of the person prosecuted. c. To constitute malicious prosecution, however, there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person, and that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless. Concededly, the mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for malicious prosecution. 4 elements that must be shown to concur for the complainant to recover damages for malicious prosecution: (1) the prosecution did occur, and the defendant was himself the prosecutor or that he instigated its commencement; (2) the criminal action finally ended with an acquittal; (3) in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause; and (4) the prosecution was impelled by legal malice -- an improper or a sinister motive. The gravamen of malicious prosecution is not the filing of a complaint based on the wrong provision of law, but the deliberate initiation of an action with the knowledge that the charges were false and groundless. Ramos vs CA (comatose) Given these considerations, the amount of actual damages recoverable in suits arising from negligence should at least reflect the correct minimum cost of proper care, not the cost of the care the family is usually compelled to undertake at home to avoid bankruptcy. However, the provisions of the Civil Code on actual or compensatory damages present us with some difficulties. Well-settled is the rule that actual damages which may be claimed by the plaintiff are those suffered by him as he has duly proved. The Civil Code provides: Art. 2199. - Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages. Our rules on actual or compensatory damages generally assume that at the time of litigation, the injury suffered as a consequence of an act of negligence has been completed and that the cost can be liquidated. However, these provisions neglect to take into account those situations, as in this case, where the resulting injury might be continuing and possible future complications directly arising from the injury, while certain to occur, are difficult to predict. In these cases, the amount of damages which should be awarded, if they are to adequately and correctly respond to the injury caused, should be one which compensates for pecuniary loss incurred and proved, up to the time of trial; and one which would meet pecuniary loss certain to be suffered but which could not, from the nature of the case, be made with
certainty. In other words, temperate damages can and should be awarded on top of actual or compensatory damages in instances where the injury is chronic and continuing. As it would not be equitable - and certainly not in the best interests of the administration of justice - for the victim in such cases to constantly come before the courts and invoke their aid in seeking adjustments to the compensatory damages previously awarded - temperate damages are appropriate. The amount given as temperate damages, though to a certain extent speculative, should take into account the cost of proper care. In the instant case, petitioners were able to provide only home-based nursing care for a comatose patient who has remained in that condition for over a decade. It would be now much more in step with the interests of justice if the value awarded for temperate damages would allow petitioners to provide optimal care for their loved one in a facility which generally specializes in such care. They should not be compelled by dire circumstances to provide substandard care at home without the aid of professionals, for anything less would be grossly inadequate. OTHER KINDS OF DAMAGES Art. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages, may be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of each case.
MORAL DAMAGES Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act for omission. Art. 2218. In the adjudication of moral damages, the sentimental value of property, real or personal, may be considered. Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries; (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; (3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts; (4) Adultery or concubinage; (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest; (6) Illegal search; (7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation; (8) Malicious prosecution; (9) Acts mentioned in Article 309; (10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35. The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral damages. The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named. Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. Art. 309. Any person who shows disrespect to the dead, or wrongfully interferes with a funeral shall be liable to the family of the deceased for damages, material and moral.
Although incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendants wrongful act or omission. The requisites for the award of moral damages are: (1) There must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) There must be a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) The wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) The award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.
Villanueva vs Salvador While proof of pecuniary loss is unnecessary to justify an award of moral damages, the amount of indemnity being left to the sound discretion of the court, it is, nevertheless, essential that the claimant satisfactorily proves the existence of the factual basis of the damage. and its causal connection to defendants wrongful act or omission. This is so because moral damages, albeit incapable of pecuniary estimation, are designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. There is thus merit on petitioners assertion that proof of moral suffering must precede a moral damage award.
While there need not be a showing that the defendant acted in a wanton or malevolent manner, as this is a requirement for an award of exemplary damages, there must still be proof of fraudulent action or bad faith for a claim for moral damages to succeed. Then, too, moral damages are generally not recoverable in culpa contractual except when bad faith supervenes and is proven. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty through some motive or interest or ill-will that partakes of the nature of the fraud. And to the person claiming moral damages rests the onus of proving by convincing evidence the existence of bad faith, for good faith is presumed. It may be that gross negligence may sometimes amount to bad faith. But what is before us is a matter of simple negligence only, it being the trial courts categorical finding that the case came about owing to petitioners mistake in renewing the loan when the sale of the article to secure the loan had already been effected. Before moral damages may be assessed thereunder, the defendants act must be vitiated by bad faith or that there is willful intent to injure. Simply put, moral damages cannot arise from simple negligence. Morris vs CA The rule is that moral damages are recoverable in a damage suit predicated upon a breach of contract of carriage only where (a) the mishap results in the death of a passenger and (b) it is proved that the carrier was guilty of fraud and bad faith even if death does not result. Francisco vs Ferrer To recover moral damages in an action for breach of contract, the breach must be palpably wanton, reckless, malicious, in bad faith, oppressive or abusive. In culpa contractual or breach of contract, moral damages may be recovered when the defendant acted in bad faith or was guilty of gross negligence (amounting to bad faith) or in wanton disregard of his contractual obligation and, exceptionally, when the act of breach of contract itself is constitutive of tort resulting in physical injuries. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence, it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty through some motive or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud. In this case, there was no such fraud or bad faith. Moral damages are designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good faith. Filipinas Broadcasting vs Ago Medical Generally, a juridical person is not entitled to moral damages because, unlike a natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering, wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish or moral shock. The statement in Mambulao Lumber Co. v. PNB, et al. that a corporation may have a good reputation which, if besmirched, may also be a ground for the award of moral damages is an obiter dictum. Nevertheless, AMECs claim for moral damages falls under item 7 of Article 2219 of the Civil Code which expressly authorizes the recovery of moral damages in cases of libel, slander or any other form of defamation. Article 2219(7) does not qualify whether the plaintiff is a natural or juridical person. Therefore, a juridical person such as a corporation can validly complain for libel or any other form of defamation and claim for moral damages. Cocoland vs NLRC An award of moral damages cannot be justified solely upon the premise that the employer fired his employee without just cause or due process. Jurisprudence says that It must be proven that the act of dismissal was attended by bad faith or fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy; and of course, that social humiliation, wounded feelings, grave anxiety, etc., resulted therefrom. The court also said in another case that exemplary damages may be awarded only if the dismissal was shown to have been effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner. Because no evidence was adduced to show that petitioner company acted in bad faith or in a wanton or fraudulent manner, the labor arbiter did not award any moral and exemplary damages in his decision. Respondent NLRC therefore had no factual or legal basis to award such damages. AMOUNT OF AWARD Moral damages must be proven, but the amount is determined by the judge. Plaintiff must prove the legal basis for the award; actual amount is up to the judge. Factors in determining the amount of moral damages:
1. Political, social, financial standing of offended party and offender 2. Mental anguish Example: Compare the mental anguish of two mothers whose sons died in two different incidents. One son was shot to death, and he died instantly. The other son was partying at Ozone when it burned down. He suffered for several weeks with painful burns before he finally died. The mental suffering of the Ozone victims mother is greater than that of the mother of the son who was shot to death, since the former had to watch as her son had to withstand the agony of the burns. 3. Sentimental value Example: Two rings one with a huge stone that you won at a raffle and another with a tiny stone that was given to you by your one true love. Of course, the sentimental value of the second ring is greater. NOMINAL DAMAGES Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. Art. 2222. The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source enumerated in 1157, or in every case where any property right has been invaded. Art. 2223. The adjudication of nominal damages shall preclude further contest upon the right involved and all accessory questions, as between the parties to the suit, or their respective heirs and assigns. Mercury Drug vs Serrano The Supreme Court however found that there was a denial of due process. In dismissing an employee, the employer must serve the employee two notices: (1) the first to inform the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which the employer seeks his dismissal, and (2) the second to inform the employee of his employers decision to terminate him. The first notice must state that the employer seeks dismissal for the act or omission charged against the employee, otherwise, the notice does not comply with the rules. In this case, Mercury failed to satisfy the two-notice requirement. While Mercury issued a notice requesting Serrano to appear at the investigation, that notice did not inform Serrano of the specific offense charged against her and that the penalty for the offense is dismissal. That Mercury conducted an investigation and gave Serrano a notice of termination prior to Serranos dismissal did not cure the absence of the first notice required by law. The Court held that if the dismissal was for cause, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal or ineffectual. However, Mercurys violation of Serranos right to statutory due process warrants the payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages. The amount of such damages is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court, taking into account the relevant circumstances. Cojuangco vs CA Under the Article 32, it is not necessary that the public officer acted with malice or bad faith. To be liable, it is enough that there was a violation of the constitutional rights of petitioner, even on the pretext of justifiable motives or good faith in the performance of one's duties. Art. 2221 of the Civil Code authorizes the award of nominal damages to a plaintiff whose right has been violated or invaded by the defendant, for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right, not for indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered. Industrial Timber vs Ababon NOMINAL DAMAGES ARE DUE. Although there was no illegal dismissal, ITC was still mandated by law to notify the DOLE and the employees of the closure of operations at lease one month prior closure. Here, there was no such notice. In light of the factual circumstances of the cases at bar, the Court deemed it wise and reasonable to award P50,000.00 to each employee as nominal damages. TEMPERATE DAMAGES Art. 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty. Art. 2225. Temperate damages must be reasonable under the circumstances. Victory Liner vs Gammad The fact of loss having been established, temperate damages in the amount of P500,000.00 should be awarded to respondents. Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty. * Basically, if the fact of loss has been established but compensatory damages cannot be proven with sufficient evidence, then temperate damages is the way to go.
Premiere Devt Bank vs CA Even if not recoverable as compensatory damages, Panacor may still be awarded damages in the concept of temperate or moderate damages. When the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty, temperate damages may be recovered. Temperate damages may be allowed in cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss. The Code Commission, in explaining the concept of temperate damages under Article 2224, makes the following comment: In some States of the American Union, temperate damages are allowed. There are cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered, although the court is convinced that there has been such loss. For instance, injury to ones commercial credit or to the goodwill of a business firm is often hard to show with certainty in terms of money. Should damages be denied for that reason? The judge should be empowered to calculate moderate damages in such cases, rather than that the plaintiff should suffer, without redress from the defendant's wrongful act. It is obvious that the wrongful acts of Premiere Bank adversely affected, in one way or another, the commercial credit of Panacor, greatly contributed to, if not, decisively caused the premature stoppage of its business operations and the consequent loss of business opportunity. Since these losses are not susceptible to pecuniary estimation, temperate damages may be awarded. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES Art. 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof. Art. 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable. Art. 2228. When the breach of the contract committed by the defendant is not the one contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon the liquidated damages, the law shall determine the measure of damages, and not the stipulation. Azcuna vs CA The freedom of the contracting parties to make stipulations in their contract provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy is so settled, and the Court finds nothing immoral or illegal with the indemnity/penalty clause of the lease contract which does not appear to have been forced upon or fraudulently foisted on petitioner. Petitioner cannot now evade further liability for liquidated damages, for "after entering into such an agreement, petitioner cannot thereafter turn his back on his word with a plea that on him was inflicted a penalty shocking to the conscience and impressed with iniquity as to call for the relief sought on the part of a judicial tribunal." Radiowealth Finance vs Del Rosario The Note provided that the debtors would be liable for attorneys fees equivalent to 25 percent of the amount due in case a legal action was instituted and 10 percent of the same amount as liquidated damages. Liquidated damages, however, should no longer be imposed for being unconscionable. Such damages should also be deemed included in the 2.5 percent monthly penalty. Furthermore, we hold that petitioner is entitled to attorneys fees, but only in a sum equal to 10 percent of the amount due which we deem reasonable under the proven facts. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party. Art. 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence. Art. 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. Art. 2233. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right; the court will decide whether or not they should be adjudicated. Art. 2234. While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved, the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded. In case liquidated damages have been agreed upon, although no proof of loss is necessary in order that such liquidated damages may be recovered, nevertheless, before the court may consider the question of granting exemplary in addition to the liquidated damages, the plaintiff must show that he would be entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages were it not for the stipulation for liquidated damages. Art. 2235. A stipulation whereby exemplary damages are renounced in advance shall be null and void.
The plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether exemplary damages should be awarded. If the court has no proof or evidence upon which the claim for moral damages could be based, such indemnity could not be outrightly awarded. This species of damages is allowed only in addition to moral damages such that no exemplary damages can be awarded unless the claimant first establishes his clear right to moral damages.
Makabili vs CA As to exemplary damages, Article 2229 of the Civil Code provides that such damages may be imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. While exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right, they need not be proved, although plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded. As reflected in the records of the case, the Court of Appeals was in agreement with the findings of the trial court that petitioners suffered anguish, embarrassment and mental sufferings due to failure of private respondent to perform its obligation to the petitioners, and in acting with wanton disregard of the rights of petitioners. These pronouncements lay the basis and justification for this Court to award petitioners moral and exemplary damages. People vs Catubig The attendance of aggravating circumstances in the perpetration of the crime serves to increase the penalty (the criminal liability aspect) as well as to justify an award of exemplary or corrective damages (the civil liability aspect, moored on the greater perversity of the offender manifested in the commission of the felony. Relationship is an alternative circumstance under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code. Exemplary or corrective damages are intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings, and as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct. The term aggravating circumstances used by the Civil Code, the law not having specified otherwise, is to be understood in its broad or generic sense. The commission of an offense has a two-pronged effect, one on the public as it breaches the social order and the other upon the private victim as it causes personal sufferings, each of which is addressed by, respectively, the prescription of heavier punishment for the accused and by an award of additional damages to the victim. The increase of the penalty or a shift to a graver felony underscores the exacerbation of the offense by the attendance of aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, in its commission. Unlike the criminal liability, which is basically a State concern, the award of damages, however, is likewise, if not primarily, intended for the offended party who suffers thereby. It would make little sense for an award of exemplary damages to be due the private offended party when the aggravating circumstance is ordinary, but to be withheld when it is qualifying. Withal, the ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil, liability of the offender. In fine, relative to the civil aspect of the case, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code. Trans-Asia vs CA Exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. In contracts and quasi-contracts, exemplary damages may be awarded if the defendant acted in a wanton fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. It cannot, however, be considered as a matter of right; the court having to decide whether or not they should be adjudicated. Before the court may consider an award for exemplary damages, the plaintiff must first show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages; but it is not necessary that he prove the monetary value thereof. MITIGATION OF DAMAGES Art. 1192. In case both parties have committed a breach of the obligation, the liability of the first infractor shall be equitably tempered by the courts. If it cannot be determined which of the parties first violated the contract, the same shall be deemed extinguished, and each shall bear his own damages. Art. 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question. Art. 2204. In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover. Art. 2215. In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts, the court may equitably mitigate the damages under circumstances other than the case referred to in the preceding article, as in the following instances: (1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract; (2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract; (3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded, that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel;
(4) That the loss would have resulted in any event; (5) That since the filing of the action, the defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury. EXTINGUISHES LIABILITY and EACH BEARS OWN LOSS: cant determine who was the first infractor MITIGATES LIABILITY (1) Diligence of a good father of a family (2) Mitigating circumstances (3) Contributory negligence on the part of the adverse party (Ex: case in crim1 where the victim in a hacking incident went and submerged his hands in canal water. Of course, he died of infection or tetanus later on. He was guilty of contributory negligence) (4) plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract (5) Plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract (6) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded, that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel; (7) Loss would have resulted in any event; (8) Since the filing of the action, the defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury. (Example: if you run over someone, you should bring him to the hospital. Your liability will be mitigated.) Malaysian Airlines v. CA Malaysina Airline System Bernad recruited Renato Arellano from PAL for his training & experience and contracted his services as pilot for two years. When the plane he was driving landed at Bintulo airport, all the tires burst, causing alarm among the passengers but causing no injuries. Arellano was found negligent by the investigating board in Malaysia & was dismissed by Malaysian Airlines. RTC- Pnas held that Arellanos dismissal from service was improper as he was not negligent & ordered payment of P3M moral damages, P1M exemplary damages, among others. Was the amount of damages awarded excessive? HELD: YES. The inordinate amount granted to Arellano calls for the moderating of the Court, that justice may be tempered with reason instead of being tainted with what appears here to be a ruthless vindictiveness. The complaint prayed for payment of unpaid salaries from July 1981 to July 1982 which corresponds to the periods of the renewed contract. On the basis of his monthly salary of Malaysian $4,025, or P33,568.50, his total unearned salaries will be P402,822. To this should be added the amount of P123,098.40 as allowance for the same period of one year at the rate of $1,230/mnth plus P80T, representing his expenses in transferring his family to the Philippines, amounting to an aggregate sum of P605,920.40 in actual damages. Moral damages is reduced to P500T and attys fees to P25T. All other awards are disauthorized. Bricktown v. Amor-Tierra Bricktown Development Corporation executed two Contracts to Sell in favor of Amor-Tierra Development Corp covering 96 residential lots at Multinational Village. Of the total purchase price of P21M, Amor-Tierra only paid P1.3M. Bricktown sent a notice of cancellation to Amor-Tierra. Amor- Tierra demanded a refund OR assign to it an equivalent number of lots. Bricktown refused. Amor filed for rescission of the contract. Was the rescission and forfeiture of payment valid? HELD: YES and NO. While Bricktown still acted within its legal right to declare the contracts to sell rescinded or cancelled, considering the negotiations which made Amor-Tierra believe that they would be entering into a new contract, it would be unconscionable to likewise sanction the forfeiture of payments. The relationship between parties in any contract must always be characterized and punctuated by good faith and fair dealing. Bricktown did fall well behind that standard. We do not find it equitable, however, to adjudge any interest payment by Bricktown on the amount to be thus refunded, computed from judicial demand, for, indeed, Amor-Tierra should not be allowed to totally free itself from its own breach. 12% interest/annum to commence only from the finality of this decision until such refund is effected. International School v. CA Spouses Torralba filed a complaint for damages against IS for the death of their only son Eric, while in the custody of IS & its officers. RTC awarded damages. IS appealed. The Torralbas moved for execution of judgment pending appeal on grounds that the appeal is merely dilatory & filing of a bond is another good reason for execution. RTC granted same. CA affirmed. Was the execution of judgment pending appeal improper? HELD: YES. Reason that an appeal is dilatory does NOT justify execution pending appeal, neither does the filing of a bond, without anything more, justify the same. IS could not be faulted for its withdrawal of its supersedeas bond inasmuch as the LC granted the execution pending appeal & rejected its offer of supersedeas bond. The awards for moral & exemplary damages CANNOT be the subject of execution pending appeal. The execution of any award for moral & exemplary damages is dependent on the outcome of the main case. Unlike actual damages for which petitioners may clearly be held liable if they breach a specific contract & the amts of which are fixed & certain, liabilities with respect to moral & exemplary damages as well as the exact amounts remain uncertain & indefinite pending resolution by the IAC & SC. The existence of the factual bases of these types of damages and their causal relation to the petitioners act will have to be determined in the light of errors on appeal. It is possible that the petitioners, after all, while liable for actual damages may not be liable for moral & exemplary damages. Or in some cases elevated to the SC, the awards may be reduced.
Lim vs CA It would be unconscionable to sanction the forfeiture by Petitioner Corporation of payments made to it by private respondent. IT WOULD NOT BE EQUITABLE to adjudge any interest payment by petitioners on the amount to be thus refunded, COMPUTED FROM JUDICIAL DEMAND, for, indeed, private respondent should not be allowed to totally free itself from its own breach. a. The facts show that that there were negotiations to enter into another agreement between the parties. VP Petilla and Pres. Dragon of the plaintiff corporation, went to the office of the defendant corporation and made some proposals to the latter for the division of the lots to be purchased into smaller lots and the building of town houses or smaller houses as these kinds of houses can be sold easily than big ones. The negotiations between the parties went on for sometime but nothing definite was accomplished. b. Because of the negotiations between the parties, coupled with the fact that the plaintiff never took actual possession of the properties and the defendants did not also dispose of the same during the pendency of said negotiations, the plaintiff was led to believe that the parties may ultimately enter into another agreement in place of the "contracts to sell." c. There was no malice or bad faith on the part of the plaintiff in suspending payments. On the contrary, the defendants not only contributed, but also had consented to the delay or suspension of payments. They did not give the plaintiff a categorical answer that their counter-proposals will not materialize.

Torts Finals Reviewer

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Torts Finals Reviewer

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Hotsauce Study Group Torts Post Midterms Reviewer BLOCKB 2013 Compiled, Edited and Arranged by GMTHabacon

S-ar putea să vă placă și