Lawyerly

GR No. 185833

2011-10-12

PERALTA, J.

It is true that the private complainant is entitled to the award of moral damages under Article 2220[25] of the New Civil Code because the injury contemplated by the law which merits the said award was clearly established. Private complainant testified that he felt bad[26] and lost sleep.[27] The said testimony is substantial to prove the moral injury suffered by the private complainant for it is only him who can personally approximate the emotional suffering he experienced. For the court to arrive upon a judicious approximation of emotional or moral injury, competent and substantial proof of the suffering experienced must be laid before it.[28] The same also applies with private complainant's claim that his wife felt dizzy after the incident and had to be taken to the hospital.[29]

GR No. 173146

2009-11-25

AGUSAN DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. ANGELITA BALEN AND SPS. HERCULES AND RHEA LARIOSA

NACHURA, J.

The issue of who, between the parties, was negligent is a factual issue that this Court cannot pass upon, absent any whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment by the lower courts or an ample showing that they lacked any basis for their conclusions.[12] The unanimity of the CA and the trial court in their factual ascertainment that ANECO's negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries sustained by respondents bars us from supplanting their findings and substituting them with our own. The function of this Court is limited to the review of the appellate court's alleged errors of law. We are not required to weigh all over again the factual evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[13] ANECO has not shown that it is entitled to be excepted from this rule. It has not sufficiently demonstrated any special circumstances to justify a factual review.

GR No. 172671

2009-04-16

MARISSA R. UNCHUAN v. ANTONIO J.P. LOZADA

QUISUMBING, J.

Anent the award of moral damages in favor of respondents, we find no factual and legal basis therefor. Moral damages cannot be awarded in the absence of a wrongful act or omission or fraud or bad faith. When the action is filed in good faith there should be no penalty on the right to litigate. One may have erred, but error alone is not a ground for moral damages.[48] The award of moral damages must be solidly anchored on a definite showing that respondents actually experienced emotional and mental sufferings. Mere allegations do not suffice; they must be substantiated by clear and convincing proof.[49] As exemplary damages can be awarded only after the claimant has shown entitlement to moral damages,[50] neither can it be granted in this case.

GR No. 149338

2008-07-28

UNLAD RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RENATO P. DRAGON

NACHURA, J.

To award moral damages, a court must be satisfied with proof of the following requisites: (1) an injury - whether physical, mental, or psychological - clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) a wrongful act or omission of the defendant as the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award of damages predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219.[23]

GR No. 155111

2008-02-14

CORNELIO LAMPESA and DARIO COPSIYAT v. DR. JUAN DE VERA

QUISUMBING, J.

On a final note, petitioners' liability for moral damages and attorney's fees cannot now be questioned for failure of petitioners to raise it before the Court of Appeals. It is a well-entrenched rule that issues not raised below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as to do so would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play and justice.[20] Moreover, the award of moral damages in this case is justifiable under Article 2219 (2)[21] of the Civil Code, which provides for said damages in cases of quasi-delicts causing physical injuries.[22] The award for attorney's fees is also proper under Article 2208 (2)[23] of the Civil Code, considering that De Vera, Jr. was compelled to litigate when petitioners ignored his demand for an amicable settlement of his claim.[24]

GR No. 155604

2007-11-22

COLLEGE ASSURANCE PLAN v. BELFRANLT DEVELOPMENT INC.

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Moreover, the established rule is that the factual findings of the CA affirming those of the RTC are conclusive and binding on us.[27] We are not wont to review them, save under exceptional circumstances as: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the CA is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (7) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (8) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[28]

GR NO. 160530

2007-11-20

CYNTHIA V. NITTSCHER v. DR. WERNER KARL JOHANN NITTSCHER

QUISUMBING, J.

SECTION 1. Where estate of deceased persons settled. If the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) in the province in which he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of any province in which he had estate. … (Emphasis supplied.) In this case, the RTC and the Court of Appeals are one in their finding that Dr. Nittscher was a resident of Las Piñas, Metro Manila at the time of his death. Such factual finding, which we find supported by evidence on record, should no longer be disturbed. Time and again we have said that reviews on certiorari are limited to errors of law. Unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are glaringly erroneous, this Court will not analyze or weigh evidence all over again.[10]

GR No. 156037

2007-05-25

MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION v. SEBASTIAN M. BAKING

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Proximate cause is defined as any cause that produces injury in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, such that the result would not have occurred otherwise. Proximate cause is determined from the facts of each case, upon a combined consideration of logic, common sense, policy, and precedent.[5]

GR NO. 157906

2006-11-02

JOAQUINITA P. CAPILI v. SPS. DOMINADOR CARDAÑA

QUISUMBING, J.

Lastly, petitioner questions the award of moral damages. Moral damages are awarded if the following elements exist in the case: (1) an injury clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) a wrongful act or omission by the defendant as the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award of damages predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.[18] However, the person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good faith. It is not enough that one merely suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish, and serious anxiety as the result of the actuations of the other party. Invariably, such action must be shown to have been willfully done in bad faith or with ill motive.[19] Under the circumstances, we have to concede that petitioner was not motivated by bad faith or ill motive vis-á-vis respondents' daughter's death. The award of moral damages is therefore not proper.

GR NO. 147477

2006-06-27

HERMENEGILDO M. TRINIDAD v. ESTRELLA ACAPULCO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Indeed, for a court to arrive upon a judicious approximation of emotional or moral injury, competent and substantial proof of the suffering experienced must be laid before it.[38] There must be definite findings as to what the supposed moral damages suffered consisted of.[39] The award of moral damages must be solidly anchored on a definite showing that the claiming party actually experienced emotional and mental sufferings.[40]

GR NO. 139628

2006-05-05

KAORU TOKUDA v. MILAGROS GONZALES

QUISUMBING, J.

Time and again we have said that reviews on certiorari are limited to errors of law. Unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are glaringly erroneous, this Court will not analyze or weigh evidence all over again.[6] In this particular case, the factual findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals, affirming those of the trial court, are supported by evidence on record and are thus conclusive upon this Court.

	GR No. 185833 2011-10-12	ROBERT TAGUINOD v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
It is true that the private complainant is entitled to the award of moral damages under Article 2220[25] of the New Civil Code because the injury contemplated by the law which merits the said award was clearly established. Private complainant testified that he felt bad[26] and lost sleep.[27] The said testimony is substantial to prove the moral injury suffered by the private complainant for it is only him who can personally approximate the emotional suffering he experienced. For the court to arrive upon a judicious approximation of emotional or moral injury, competent and substantial proof of the suffering experienced must be laid before it.[28] The same also applies with private complainant's claim that his wife felt dizzy after the incident and had to be taken to the hospital.[29]
	GR No. 173146 2009-11-25	AGUSAN DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. ANGELITA BALEN AND SPS. HERCULES AND RHEA LARIOSA NACHURA, J.
The issue of who, between the parties, was negligent is a factual issue that this Court cannot pass upon, absent any whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment by the lower courts or an ample showing that they lacked any basis for their conclusions.[12] The unanimity of the CA and the trial court in their factual ascertainment that ANECO's negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries sustained by respondents bars us from supplanting their findings and substituting them with our own. The function of this Court is limited to the review of the appellate court's alleged errors of law. We are not required to weigh all over again the factual evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[13] ANECO has not shown that it is entitled to be excepted from this rule. It has not sufficiently demonstrated any special circumstances to justify a factual review.
	GR No. 172671 2009-04-16	MARISSA R. UNCHUAN v. ANTONIO J.P. LOZADA QUISUMBING, J.
Anent the award of moral damages in favor of respondents, we find no factual and legal basis therefor. Moral damages cannot be awarded in the absence of a wrongful act or omission or fraud or bad faith. When the action is filed in good faith there should be no penalty on the right to litigate. One may have erred, but error alone is not a ground for moral damages.[48] The award of moral damages must be solidly anchored on a definite showing that respondents actually experienced emotional and mental sufferings. Mere allegations do not suffice; they must be substantiated by clear and convincing proof.[49] As exemplary damages can be awarded only after the claimant has shown entitlement to moral damages,[50] neither can it be granted in this case.
	GR No. 149338 2008-07-28	UNLAD RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RENATO P. DRAGON NACHURA, J.
To award moral damages, a court must be satisfied with proof of the following requisites: (1) an injury - whether physical, mental, or psychological - clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) a wrongful act or omission of the defendant as the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award of damages predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219.[23]
	GR No. 155111 2008-02-14	CORNELIO LAMPESA and DARIO COPSIYAT v. DR. JUAN DE VERA QUISUMBING, J.
On a final note, petitioners' liability for moral damages and attorney's fees cannot now be questioned for failure of petitioners to raise it before the Court of Appeals. It is a well-entrenched rule that issues not raised below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as to do so would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play and justice.[20] Moreover, the award of moral damages in this case is justifiable under Article 2219 (2)[21] of the Civil Code, which provides for said damages in cases of quasi-delicts causing physical injuries.[22] The award for attorney's fees is also proper under Article 2208 (2)[23] of the Civil Code, considering that De Vera, Jr. was compelled to litigate when petitioners ignored his demand for an amicable settlement of his claim.[24]
	GR No. 155604 2007-11-22	COLLEGE ASSURANCE PLAN v. BELFRANLT DEVELOPMENT INC. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Moreover, the established rule is that the factual findings of the CA affirming those of the RTC are conclusive and binding on us.[27] We are not wont to review them, save under exceptional circumstances as: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the CA is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (7) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (8) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[28]
	GR NO. 160530 2007-11-20	CYNTHIA V. NITTSCHER v. DR. WERNER KARL JOHANN NITTSCHER QUISUMBING, J.
SECTION 1. Where estate of deceased persons settled. If the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) in the province in which he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of any province in which he had estate. … (Emphasis supplied.) In this case, the RTC and the Court of Appeals are one in their finding that Dr. Nittscher was a resident of Las Piñas, Metro Manila at the time of his death. Such factual finding, which we find supported by evidence on record, should no longer be disturbed. Time and again we have said that reviews on certiorari are limited to errors of law. Unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are glaringly erroneous, this Court will not analyze or weigh evidence all over again.[10]
	GR No. 156037 2007-05-25	MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION v. SEBASTIAN M. BAKING SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Proximate cause is defined as any cause that produces injury in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, such that the result would not have occurred otherwise. Proximate cause is determined from the facts of each case, upon a combined consideration of logic, common sense, policy, and precedent.[5]
	GR NO. 157906 2006-11-02	JOAQUINITA P. CAPILI v. SPS. DOMINADOR CARDAÑA QUISUMBING, J.
Lastly, petitioner questions the award of moral damages. Moral damages are awarded if the following elements exist in the case: (1) an injury clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) a wrongful act or omission by the defendant as the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award of damages predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.[18] However, the person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good faith. It is not enough that one merely suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish, and serious anxiety as the result of the actuations of the other party. Invariably, such action must be shown to have been willfully done in bad faith or with ill motive.[19] Under the circumstances, we have to concede that petitioner was not motivated by bad faith or ill motive vis-á-vis respondents' daughter's death. The award of moral damages is therefore not proper.
	GR NO. 147477 2006-06-27	HERMENEGILDO M. TRINIDAD v. ESTRELLA ACAPULCO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Indeed, for a court to arrive upon a judicious approximation of emotional or moral injury, competent and substantial proof of the suffering experienced must be laid before it.[38] There must be definite findings as to what the supposed moral damages suffered consisted of.[39] The award of moral damages must be solidly anchored on a definite showing that the claiming party actually experienced emotional and mental sufferings.[40]
	GR NO. 139628 2006-05-05	KAORU TOKUDA v. MILAGROS GONZALES QUISUMBING, J.
Time and again we have said that reviews on certiorari are limited to errors of law. Unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are glaringly erroneous, this Court will not analyze or weigh evidence all over again.[6] In this particular case, the factual findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals, affirming those of the trial court, are supported by evidence on record and are thus conclusive upon this Court.

QUEZON CITY GOVERNMENT v. FULGENCIO DACARA