Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JAPAN AIRLINES v. JESUS SIMANGAN

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 169407 2015-03-25	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. AMADOR DOMINGO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As a general rule, since novation implies a waiver of the right the creditor had before the novation, such waiver must be express.[22] The Court explained the rationale for the rule in Testate Estate of Lazaro Mota v. Serra[23]:It should be noted that in order to give novation its legal effect, the law requires that the creditor should consent to the substitution of a new debtor. This consent must be given expressly for the reason that, since novation extinguishes the personality of the first debtor who is to be substituted by a new one, it implies on the part of the creditor a waiver of the right that he had before the novation, which waiver must be express under the principle that renuntiatio non praesumitor, recognized by the law in declaring that a waiver of right may not be performed unless the will to waive is indisputably shown by him who holds the right.
	GR No. 185891 2013-06-26	CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v. JUANITA REYES PEREZ, J.
a suit for breach of contract of carriage.[14]
	GR No. 168987 2012-10-17	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. FRANCISCO LAO LIM PERALTA, J.
A close examination of the supposed inconsistencies, however, reveals that the same are too inconsequential to give any serious consideration. Moreover, petitioner presented this matter regarding the alleged inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses before the trial court, and yet said court still found the witness and her testimony - that there was no instruction given to cancel respondents' bookings for the PR300 flight on February 26, 1991 - to be worthy of belief. The Court again emphasizes that "findings of the trial court on the matter of credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal,"[8] because said lower court had the opportunity to observe, firsthand, how the witnesses testified.[9] The trial court ruled that respondents Lao Lim and Henry Go were indeed holding confirmed tickets for PR300 on February 26, 1991, as they did not have their bookings cancelled. Such factual finding was upheld by the appellate court. Petitioner should bear in mind that findings of fact of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court, as it is not a trier of facts.[10] Although there are accepted exceptions to this general rule, this case does not fall under any such exceptions. Thus, the findings of the lower courts that respondents Francisco Lao Lim and Henry Go were holding confirmed plane tickets and yet were not transported by petitioner, are binding on this Court. Having proven the existence of a contract of carriage between respondents Lao Lim and Go, and the fact of non-performance by petitioner of its obligation as a common carrier, it is clear that petitioner breached its contract of carriage with respondents Lao Lim and Go.
	GR No. 161909 2012-04-25	PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES v. FELIX PARAS BERSAMIN, J.
As a general rule, indeed, moral damages are not recoverable in an action predicated on a breach of contract. This is because such action is not included in Article 2219 of the Civil Code[5] as one of the actions in which moral damages may be recovered. By way of exception, moral damages are recoverable in an action predicated on a breach of contract: (a) where the mishap results in the death of a passenger, as provided in Article 1764,[6] in relation to Article 2206, (3),[7] of the Civil Code; and (b) where the common carrier has been guilty of fraud or bad faith,[8] as provided in Article 2220[9] of the Civil Code.
	GR No. 173155 2012-03-21	R.S. TOMAS v. RIZAL CEMENT COMPANY PERALTA, J.
In resolving the issues, the Court inquires into the probative value of the evidence presented before the trial court.[41] Petitioner, indeed, endeavors to convince us to determine once again the weight, credence, and probative value of the evidence presented before the trial court.[42] While in general, the findings of fact of the CA are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to the Court because it is not a trier of facts,[43] there are recognized exceptions[44] as when the findings of fact are conflicting, which is obtaining in this case. The conflicting conclusions of the trial and appellate courts impel us to re-examine the evidence presented.
	GR No. 173038 2011-09-14	ELENA JANE DUARTE v. MIGUEL SAMUEL A.E. DURAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
The award of attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000.00 is also reasonable and not excessive considering that this case, a simple collection of a measly sum of P7,000.00, has dragged for almost a decade and even had to reach this Court only because petitioner refused to pay. The fact that it is 70% of the principal amount claimed is of no moment as the amount of attorney's fees is discretionary upon the court as long as it is reasonable.[69]
	GR No. 157009 2010-03-17	SULPICIO LINES v. DOMINGO E. CURSO BERSAMIN, J.
As a general rule, moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damages predicated on a breach of contract, unless there is fraud or bad faith.[8] As an exception, moral damages may be awarded in case of breach of contract of carriage that results in the death of a passenger,[9] in accordance with Article 1764, in relation to Article 2206 (3), of the Civil Code, which provide: Article 1764. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book, concerning Damages. Article 2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier.
	GR Nos. 158820-21 2009-06-05	STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY v. TOKYU CONSTRUCTION COMPANY NACHURA, J.
Besides, even if we look into the merit of such contention, the CA is correct in holding that there was no evidentiary support of petitioner's claim of misrepresentation.[33] This being a factual issue, we respect the finding made in the assailed decision. We have repeatedly held that we are not a trier of facts. We generally rely upon, and are bound by, the conclusions on factual matters made by the lower courts, which are better equipped and have better opportunity to assess the evidence first-hand, including the testimony of the witnesses.[34]
	GR No. 154450 2008-07-28	JOSEPH L. SY v. NICOLAS CAPISTRANO NACHURA, J.
Findings of facts of the CA are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal, as long as they are based on substantial evidence. While, admittedly, there are exceptions to this rule such as: (a) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (c) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (d) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (f) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same were contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and appellee.[4] Not one of these exceptional circumstances is present in this case.