This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-10-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It can be inferred from the foregoing that in sending the demand letter to respondent's employer, petitioners intended not only to ask for assistance in collecting the disputed amount but to tarnish respondent's reputation in the eyes of her employer. To malign respondent without substantial evidence and despite the latter's possession of enough evidence in her favor, is clearly impermissible. A person should not use his right unjustly or contrary to honesty and good faith, otherwise, he opens himself to liability.[38] The exercise of a right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it was established and must not be excessive or unduly harsh.[39] In this case, petitioners obviously abused their rights. | |||||
|
2013-07-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is true that it is within petitioner's right to ask and even require the Spouses Pastorfide to cause the transfer of the former's account with COWD to the latter's name pursuant to their Memorandum of Agreement. However, the remedy to enforce such right is not to cause the disconnection of the respondent spouses' water supply. The exercise of a right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it was established and must not be excessive or unduly harsh; there must be no intention to harm another.[15] Otherwise, liability for damages to the injured party will attach.[16] In the present case, intention to harm was evident on the part of petitioner when she requested for the disconnection of respondent spouses' water supply without warning or informing the latter of such request. Petitioner claims that her request for disconnection was based on the advise of COWD personnel and that her intention was just to compel the Spouses Pastorfide to comply with their agreement that petitioner's account with COWD be transferred in respondent spouses' name. If such was petitioner's only intention, then she should have advised respondent spouses before or immediately after submitting her request for disconnection, telling them that her request was simply to force them to comply with their obligation under their Memorandum of Agreement. But she did not. What made matters worse is the fact that COWD undertook the disconnection also without prior notice and even failed to reconnect the Spouses Pastorfide's water supply despite payment of their arrears. There was clearly an abuse of right on the part of petitioner, COWD and Gonzalez. They are guilty of bad faith. | |||||
|
2010-05-04 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The existence of malice, ill will or bad faith is a factual matter. As a rule, findings of fact of the trial court, when affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive on this Court.[63] We see no compelling reason to reverse the findings of the RTC and the CA that respondents acted in bad faith and in utter disregard of the rights of Cordero under the exclusive distributorship agreement. | |||||
|
2008-02-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| At bottom, we agree that petitioners' conduct flouts the norms of civil society and justifies the award of moral and exemplary damages. As enshrined in civil law jurisprudence: Honeste vivere, non alterum laedere et jus suum cuique tribuere. To live virtuously, not to injure others and to give everyone his due.[35] Since exemplary damages are awarded, attorney's fees are also proper. Article 2208 of the Civil Code provides that:In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except: | |||||