This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-02-06 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| That is a rather limited understanding of Javellana. The counterclaim disputed therein was not for moral damages and therefore, there was no need to prove malice. As early as in Lazatin v. Twaño,[55] we laid down the rule that where there is wrongful attachment, the attachment defendant may recover actual damages even without proof that the attachment plaintiff acted in bad faith in obtaining the attachment. However, if it is alleged and established that the attachment was not merely wrongful but also malicious, the attachment defendant may recover moral damages and exemplary damages as well. [56] Either way, the wrongfulness of the attachment does not warrant the automatic award of damages to the attachment defendant; the latter must first discharge the burden of proving the nature and extent of the loss or injury incurred by reason of the wrongful attachment.[57] | |||||