Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

U-BIX CORPORATION. v. RICHEL BANDIOLA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 201595 2016-01-25	ALLAN M. MENDOZA v. OFFICERS OF MANILA WATER EMPLOYEES UNION DEL CASTILLO, J.
Under the circumstances, an award of exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00, as prayed for, is likewise proper. "Exemplary damages are designed to permit the courts to mould behavior that has socially deleterious consequences, and their imposition is required by public policy to suppress the wanton acts of the offender."[56] This should prevent respondents from repeating their mistakes, which proved costly for petitioner.
	GR No. 198587 2015-01-14	SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES v. MA. JOPETTE M. REBESENCIO LEONEN, J.
In a long line of cases, this court awarded exemplary damages to illegally dismissed employees whose "dismissal[s were] effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner."[122] This court has awarded exemplary damages to employees who were terminated on such frivolous, arbitrary, and unjust grounds as membership in or involvement with labor unions,[123] injuries sustained in the course of employment,[124] development of a medical condition due to the employer's own violation of the employment contract,[125] and lodging of a Complaint against the employer.[126] Exemplary damages were also awarded to employees who were deemed illegally dismissed by an employer in an attempt to evade compliance with statutorily established employee benefits.[127] Likewise, employees dismissed for supposedly just causes, but in violation of due process requirements, were awarded exemplary damages.[128]
	GR No. 171982 2010-08-18	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. TRADERS ROYAL BANK and PRIVATIZATION CARPIO, J.
[15] U-Bix Corporation v. Bandiola, G.R. No. 157168, 26 June 2007, 525 SCRA 566.
	GR No. 177710 2009-10-12	SPS. RAMON LEQUIN AND VIRGINIA LEQUIN v. SPS. RAYMUNDO VIZCONDE AND SALOME LEQUIN VIZCONDE VELASCO JR., J.
Moreover, the evidence of petitioners was uncontroverted as respondents failed to adduce any proof that they indeed paid PhP 15,000 to petitioners. Indeed, having asserted their purchase of the 512-square meter portion of petitioners based on the Kasulatan, it behooves upon respondents to prove such affirmative defense of purchase. Unless the party asserting the affirmative defense of an issue sustains the burden of proof, his or her cause will not succeed. If he or she fails to establish the facts of which the matter asserted is predicated, the complainant is entitled to a verdict or decision in his or her favor.[16]