This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-08-25 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Finally, we said in Garciano v. Court of Appeals that "the right to recover [moral damages] under Article 21 is based on equity, and he who comes to court to demand equity, must come with clean hands. Article 21 should be construed as granting the right to recover damages to injured persons who are not themselves at fault."[44] As will be discussed below, Pantaleon is not a blameless party in all this. | |||||
|
2005-02-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria ("to which a person assents is not esteemed in law as injury"[47]) refers to self-inflicted injury[48] or to the consent to injury[49] which precludes the recovery of damages by one who has knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even if he is not negligent in doing so.[50] As formulated by petitioners, however, this doctrine does not find application to the case at bar because even if respondent Reyes assumed the risk of being asked to leave the party, petitioners, under Articles 19 and 21 of the New Civil Code, were still under obligation to treat him fairly in order not to expose him to unnecessary ridicule and shame. | |||||