Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MOVERS-BASECO INTEGRATED PORT SERVICES v. CYBORG LEASING CORPORATION

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 173915 2010-02-22	IRENE SANTE v. EDILBERTO T. CLARAVALL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On June 24, 2004, [6] the trial court denied the motion to dismiss citing our ruling in Movers-Baseco Integrated Port Services, Inc. v. Cyborg Leasing Corporation. [7] The trial court held that the total claim of respondent amounted to P420,000.00 which was above the jurisdictional amount for MTCCs outside Metro Manila. The trial court also later issued Orders on July 7, 2004 [8] and July 19, 2004, [9] respectively reiterating its denial of the motion to dismiss and denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
	GR NO. 143951 2005-10-25	NORMA MANGALIAG v. EDELWINA CATUBIG-PASTORAL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioners insist that private respondent's claim for actual damages in the amount of P71,392.00 is the principal and primary demand, the same being the direct result of the alleged negligence of petitioners, while the moral damages for P500,000.00 and attorney's fee, being the consequent effects thereof, may prosper only upon a prior finding by the court of the existence of petitioners' negligence that caused the actual damages. Considering that the amount of actual damages claimed by private respondent in Civil Case No. SCC-2240 does not exceed P200,000.00, which was then the jurisdictional amount of the MTC, the jurisdiction over the case clearly pertains to the MTC, and not to the RTC. Therefore, the RTC should have dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners cite as relevant the case of Movers-Baseco Integrated Port Services, Inc. vs. Cyborg Leasing Corporation[12] wherein the Court, in disposing of the jurisdictional issue, limited its consideration only to the actual or compensatory damages.
	GR NO. 143951 2005-10-25	NORMA MANGALIAG v. EDELWINA CATUBIG-PASTORAL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The petitioners' reliance in the case of Movers-Baseco Integrated Port Services, Inc. vs. Cyborg Leasing Corporation[34] is misplaced. The claim for damages therein was based on a breach of a contract of lease, not a quasi-delict causing physical injuries, as in this case. Besides, there was no claim therein for moral damages. Furthermore, moral damages are generally not recoverable in damage actions predicated on a breach of contract in view of the provisions of Article 2220[35] of the Civil Code.