Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. JOSEPH ANT M. ALEJANDRO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 181721 2015-09-09	WATERCRAFT VENTURE CORPORATION v. ALFRED RAYMOND WOLFE PERALTA, J.
A writ of preliminary attachment is defined as a provisional remedy issued upon order of the court where an action is pending to be levied upon the property or properties of the defendant therein, the same to be held thereafter by the sheriff as security for the satisfaction of whatever judgment that might be secured in the said action by the attaching creditor against the defendant.[10] However, it should be resorted to only when necessary and as a last remedy because it exposes the debtor to humiliation and annoyance.[11] It must be granted only on concrete and specific grounds and not merely on general averments quoting the words of the rules.[12] Since attachment is harsh, extraordinary, and summary in nature,[13] the rules on the application of a writ of attachment must be strictly construed in favor of the defendant.
	GR No. 184315 2011-11-28	ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO v. MANILA CHRONICLE PUBLISHING CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
Moral damages are not a bonanza. They are given to ease the defendant's grief and suffering. Moral damages should be reasonably approximate to the extent of the hurt caused and the gravity of the wrong done.[28] The Court, therefore, finds the award of moral damages in the first and second cause of action in the amount of P2,000,000.00 and P25,000,000.00, respectively, to be too excessive and holds that an award of P1,000,000.00 and P10,000,000.00, respectively, as moral damages are more reasonable.
	GR No. 174420 2010-03-22	MIGUELA SANTUYO v. REMERCO GARMENTS MANUFACTURING CORONA, J.
Furthermore, since the union was the bargaining agent of petitioners, the complaint was barred under the principle of conclusiveness of judgments. The parties to a case are bound by the findings in a previous judgment with respect to matters actually raised and adjudged therein.[26] Hence, the labor arbiter should have dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata.
	GR No. 180764 2010-01-19	TITUS B. VILLANUEVA v. EMMA M. ROSQUETA ABAD, J.
The Court, however, finds the award of P500,000.00 excessive. As it held in Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Alejandro,[18] moral damages are not a bonanza. They are given to ease the defendant's grief and suffering. Moral damages should reasonably approximate the extent of hurt caused and the gravity of the wrong done. Here, that would be P200,000.00.