This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| "One who makes use of his own legal right does no injury. Qui jure suo utitur nullum damnum facit. If damage results from a person's exercising his legal rights, it is damnum absque injuria."[55] In this case, respondents failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that there is fault or negligence on the part of petitioners in order to oblige them to pay for the alleged damage sustained as a result of their suspension as Club members. Certainly, membership in the Club is a privilege.[56] Regular members are entitled to use all the facilities and privileges of the Club, subject to its rules and regulations.[57] As correctly pointed out by petitioners, the mental anguish respondents experienced, assuming to be true, was brought upon them by themselves for deliberately and consciously violating the rules and regulations of the Club. Considering that respondents were validly suspended, there is no reason for the Club to compensate them. Indeed, the penalty of suspension provided for in Section 1, Article XIV of the By-Laws is a means to protect and preserve the interest and purposes of the Club. This being so, the suspension of respondents does not fell under any of the provisions of the Civil Code pertaining to the grant of moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation costs. | |||||
|
2008-12-04 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| We cannot sustain Secretary Bello's opinion that to establish probable cause, "it is enough that the respondent gave to his product the general appearance of the product"[75] of petitioner. It bears stressing that that is only one element of unfair competition. All others must be shown to exist. More importantly, the likelihood of confusion exists not only if there is confusing similarity. It should also be likely to cause confusion or mistake or deceive purchasers.[76] Thus, the CA correctly ruled that the mere fact that some resemblance can be pointed out between the marks used does not in itself prove unfair competition.[77] To reiterate, the resemblance must be such as is likely to deceive the ordinary purchaser exercising ordinary care.[78] | |||||
|
2008-06-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Nala was acting well within her rights when she instructed Atty. Del Prado to send the demand letters. She had to take all the necessary legal steps to enforce her legal/equitable rights over the property occupied by respondent. One who makes use of his own legal right does no injury.[16] Thus, whatever damages are suffered by respondent should be borne solely by him. | |||||
|
2004-05-28 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| We now discuss the propriety of the award of moral damages. A resort to judicial processes is not, per se, evidence of ill will upon which a claim for damages may be based.[20] | |||||