This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2008-12-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It may be recalled that in tort law, for a plaintiff to maintain an action for damages for the injuries of which he complains, he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed the plaintiff, meaning a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal responsibility by the person causing it. Indeed, central to an award of tort damages is the premise that an individual was injured in contemplation of law.[21] Thus, in Lim v. Ponce de Leon,[22] we granted the petitioner's claim for damages because he, in fact, suffered the loss of his motor launch due to the illegal seizure thereof. In Cojuangco, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[23] we upheld the right of petitioner to the recovery of damages as there was an injury sustained by him on account of the illegal withholding of his horserace prize winnings. | |||||
|
2008-12-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The June 19, 2007 Decision and the dissent herein reiterates that under Article 32 of the Civil Code, the liability of the public officer may accrue even if he/she acted in good faith, as long as there is a violation of constitutional rights, citing Cojuangco, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[31] where we said:Under the aforecited article, it is not necessary that the public officer acted with malice or bad faith. To be liable, it is enough that there was a violation of the constitutional rights of petitioners, even on the pretext of justifiable motives or good faith in the performance of duties.[32] | |||||
|
2008-03-14 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| We cannot agree. It is settled that no question, issue or argument will be entertained on appeal, unless it has been raised in the court a quo.[53] PPI did not raise the applicability of the doctrine of operative fact with the RTC and the CA. It cannot belatedly raise the issue with Us in order to extricate itself from the dire effects of an unconstitutional law. | |||||
|
2007-06-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Section 39. Liability of Subordinate Officers. No subordinate officer or employee shall be civilly liable for acts done by him in good faith in the performance of his duties. However, he shall be liable for willful or negligent acts done by him which are contrary to law, morals, public policy and good customs even if he acts under orders or instructions of his superior. In addition, the Court held in Cojuangco, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[18] that a public officer who directly or indirectly violates the constitutional rights of another, may be validly sued for damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code even if his acts were not so tainted with malice or bad faith. | |||||
|
2005-07-28 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence; mere preponderance of evidence is not adequate.[28] Bad faith, on the other hand, imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, not simply bad judgment or negligence.[29] It is synonymous with fraud, in that it involves a design to mislead or deceive another.[30] | |||||
|
2003-10-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, an award of nominal damages of P30,000 is warranted since Bukal Enterprises violated the property rights of the Spouses Firme.[64] The Civil Code provides:Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. | |||||
|
2003-07-08 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "Art. 2222. The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source enumerated in article 1157, or in every case where any property right has been invaded." Nominal damages are recoverable if no actual, substantial or specific damages were shown to have resulted from the breach[26] The amount of such damages is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, taking into account the relevant circumstances.[27] | |||||
|
2001-02-28 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, the facts show that when confronted with their failure to deliver on the wedding day the wedding cake ordered and paid for, petitioners gave the lame excuse that delivery was probably delayed because of the traffic, when in truth, no cake could be delivered because the order slip got lost. For such prevarication, petitioners must be held liable for nominal damages for insensitivity, inadvertence or inattention to their customer's anxiety and need of the hour. "Nominal damages are `recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind or where there has been a breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages whatsoever have been or can be shown.'" [27] Nominal damages may be awarded "to a plaintiff whose right has been violated or invaded by the defendant, for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right, not for indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered." [28] | |||||