This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-01-21 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Finally, the Court finds no bad faith in any of respondents' actuations as they were within their right, absent any proof of its abuse, to ignore Padillo's misplaced claim for retirement benefits. Respondents' obstinate refusal to accede to Padillo's request is precisely justified by the fact that there lies no basis under any applicable agreement or law which accords the latter the right to demand any retirement benefits from the Bank. While the Court mindfully notes that damages may be recoverable due to an abuse of right under Article 21[35] in conjunction with Article 19 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,[36] the following elements must, however, obtain: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) exercised in bad faith; and (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.[37] Records reveal that none of these elements exists in the case at bar and thus, no damages on account of abuse of right may be recovered. | |||||
|
2010-10-18 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| On the issue of the propriety of attorney's fees which the trial court awarded in favor of respondents, we are inclined to agree with petitioners that the same should be deleted for lack of basis. An award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the rule.[41] "The right to litigate is so precious that a penalty should not be charged on those who may exercise it erroneously."[42] It is not given merely because the defendant prevails and the action is later declared to be unfounded unless there was a deliberate intent to cause prejudice to the other party.[43] We find the evidence of bad faith on the part of petitioners in instituting the subject action to be wanting. Thus, we delete the award of attorney's fees. | |||||
|
2009-09-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is the position of Sansio and Datuin that the complaint for damages filed by Gregorio before the RTC was for malicious prosecution, but it failed to allege the elements thereof, such that it was aptly dismissed on appeal by the CA on the ground of lack of cause of action. In their comment, citing Albenson Enterprise Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[20] they posit that Article 26 of the Civil Code, cited by Gregorio as one of the bases for her complaint, and Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the same Code, mentioned by the RTC as bases for sustaining the complaint, are the very same provisions upon which malicious prosecution is grounded. And in order to further buttress their position that Gregorio's complaint was indeed one for malicious prosecution, they even pointed out the fact that Gregorio prayed for moral damages, which may be awarded only in case of malicious prosecution or, if the case is for quasi-delict, only if physical injury results therefrom. | |||||
|
2005-02-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Elsewhere, we explained that when "a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be responsible."[60] The object of this article, therefore, is to set certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties.[61] These standards are the following: act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith.[62] Its antithesis, necessarily, is any act evincing bad faith or intent to injure. Its elements are the following: (1) There is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.[63] When Article 19 is violated, an action for damages is proper under Articles 20 or 21 of the Civil Code. Article 20 pertains to damages arising from a violation of law[64] which does not obtain herein as Ms. Lim was perfectly within her right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave. Article 21, on the other hand, states:Art. 21. Any person who willfully 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. | |||||
|
2000-10-30 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| prosecutor acted without probable cause; and, (c) the prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice, i.e., by improper or sinister motive.[8] The element of malice and the absence of probable cause must be proved.[9] 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 knowing that the charge was false and baseless to entitle the victims to damages.[10] The two (2) elements must simultaneously exist, otherwise, the presence of probable cause signifies, as a legal consequence, the absence of malice. In the instant case, Corazon Royo admitted that the sales and collection notebook was checked by their checker everyday after its surrender but, during the period of November 1990 to 21 September 1991, she was not notified of any anomaly.[11] She | |||||