This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-11-28 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Neither is BPI entitled to moral damages. A juridical person is generally not entitled to moral damages because, unlike a natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or such sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish or moral shock.[32] The Court of Appeals found BPI as "being famous and having gained its familiarity and respect not only in the Philippines but also in the whole world because of its good will and good reputation must protect and defend the same against any unwarranted suit such as the case at bench."[33] In holding that BPI is entitled to moral damages, the Court of Appeals relied on the case of People v. Manero,[34] wherein the Court ruled that "[i]t is only when a juridical person has a good reputation that is debased, resulting in social humiliation, that moral damages may be awarded."[35] | |||||
|
2005-01-17 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| A juridical person is generally not entitled to moral damages because, unlike a natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or such sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish or moral shock.[40] The Court of Appeals cites Mambulao Lumber Co. v. PNB, et al.[41] to justify the award of moral damages. However, the Court's statement in Mambulao 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.[42] | |||||