Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF PHILIPPINES v. REBECCA G. ESTRELLA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 188961 2009-10-13	AIR FRANCE PHILIPPINES v. JOHN ANTHONY DE CAMILIS CORONA, J.
The above liabilities of AF shall earn legal interest pursuant to the Court's ruling in Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines v. Estrella,[5] citing Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. CA.[6]
	GR No. 149338 2008-07-28	UNLAD RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RENATO P. DRAGON NACHURA, J.
Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right.[24] While these need not be proved, respondents must show that they are entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of awarding exemplary damages.[25] We find that respondents are indeed entitled to moral damages; thus, the award for exemplary damages is in order.
	GR No. 170141 2008-04-22	JAPAN AIRLINES v. JESUS SIMANGAN REYES, R.T., J.
With respect to attorney's fees, they may be awarded when defendant's act or omission has compelled plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest.[71] The Court, in Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines v. Estrella,[72] citing Traders Royal Bank Employees Union-Independent v. National Labor Relations Commission,[73] elucidated thus:There are two commonly accepted concepts of attorney's fees, the so-called ordinary and extraordinary. In its ordinary concept, an attorney's fee is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter. The basis of this compensation is the fact of his employment by and his agreement with the client.
	GR NO. 163186 2007-02-28	EMERLITO F. AGUILA v. CARMEN R. BALDOVIZO QUISUMBING, J.
Besides, it is not necessary to amend the original decision holding the petitioners, Marlun Lisbos, and the insurance company solidarily liable. In an action based on quasi-delict, the liability of the employer is direct and primary, subject to the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee.[14] Thus, even if the driver was included albeit not served with summons, petitioners are directly and primarily liable. Thus, petitioners Aguila and Reyes as employer and registered owner or possessor-operator of the van, respectively, are solidarily liable in accordance with Article 2180[15] in relation to Articles 2184[16] and 2194[17] of the Civil Code.