Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VIRGILIO M. DEL ROSARIO v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 172547 2009-06-30	PRECY BUNYI v. FE S. FACTOR QUISUMBING, J.
On the matter of attorney's fees awarded to the respondent, we are in agreement to delete it. It is a well-settled rule that where attorney's fees are granted, the court must explicitly state in the body of the decision, and not only in the dispositive portion thereof, the legal reason for the award.[36] Again, nothing in the body of both decisions of RTC and MeTC explicitly stated the reasons for the award of attorney's fees.
	GR NO. 147791 2006-09-08	CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF PHILIPPINES v. REBECCA G. ESTRELLA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Court of Appeals correctly awarded respondents exemplary damages in the amount of P20,000.00 each. Exemplary damages may be awarded in addition to moral and compensatory damages.[24] Article 2231 of the Civil Code also states that in quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence. [25] In this case, petitioner's driver was driving recklessly at the time its truck rammed the BLTB bus. Petitioner, who has direct and primary liability for the negligent conduct of its subordinates, was also found negligent in the selection and supervision of its employees. In Del Rosario v. Court of Appeals,[26] we held, thus:ART. 2229 of the Civil Code also 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. Exemplary Damages are imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish another but to serve as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions. Regarding attorney's fees, we held in Traders Royal Bank Employees Union-Independent v. National Labor Relations Commission,[27] that:
	GR NO. 141761 2006-07-28	BANKARD v. DR. ANTONIO NOVAK FELICIANO PUNO, J.
With respect to the amount of moral damages to be awarded, the well-entrenched principle is that the grant thereof depends upon the discretion of the court considering the circumstances of each case.[15] In the case at bar, it is undisputed that respondent's PCIBank Mastercard No. 5407-2610-0000-5864 was dishonored in a foreign country where the respondent was not expected to have family members or close friends nearby to lend him a helping hand. It was twice dishonored in public places. Worse, the card was first dishonored during a breakfast-cum-business meeting with respected medical colleagues based in that country. Respondent had absolutely no inkling then that there was a problem with his card. Moreover, he had no reason to think that something was amiss since he is a member in good standing for more than ten (10) years and had no previous bad experience with the card. However, since moral damages are patently not meant to enrich the complainant at the expense of the defendant and should only be commensurate with the actual loss or injury suffered,[16] we reduce the amount awarded by the Court of Appeals from P800,000.00 to P500,000.00.
	GR No. 135706 2004-10-01	SPS. CESAR A. LARROBIS v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to petitioners' claim for damages, however, we find no sufficient basis to award the same. For moral damages to be awarded, the claimant must satisfactorily prove the existence of the factual basis of the damage and its causal relation to defendant's acts.[43] Exemplary damages meanwhile, which are imposed as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions, may be awarded only after the claimant has proven that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages.[44] Finally, as to attorney's fees, it is demanded that there be factual, legal and equitable justification for its award.[45] Since the bases for these claims were not adequately proven by the petitioners, we find no reason to grant the same.
	GR No. 127473 2003-12-08	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
While there is no hard and fast rule for determining what would be a fair amount of moral damages, generally, the amount awarded should be commensurate with the actual loss or injury suffered.[47]
	GR No. 127473 2003-12-08	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The award of exemplary damages in favor of private respondent Judy Amor is warranted in this case.[56] Waitlisted and non-revenue passengers were accommodated while private respondent Judy Amor who had fully paid her fare and was a confirmed passenger was unduly deprived of enplaning. Petitioner was guilty of overbooking its flight to the prejudice of its confirmed passengers. This practice cannot be countenanced especially considering that the business of air carriage is imbued with public character. We have ruled that where in breaching the contract of carriage, the airline is shown to have acted in bad faith, as in this case,[57] the award of exemplary damages in addition to moral and actual damages is proper.[58] However, as in the matter of the moral damages awarded by the trial court, we consider the amount of P200,000.00 as exemplary damages to be far too excessive. The amount of P25,000.00 is just and proper.