Lawyerly

GR No. 160260

2012-10-24

MENDOZA, J.

It must be remembered that public interest is intimately carved into the banking industry because the primordial concern here is the trust and confidence of the public. This fiduciary nature of every bank's relationship with its clients/depositors impels it to exercise the highest degree of care, definitely more than that of a reasonable man or a good father of a family.[22] It is, therefore, required to treat the accounts and deposits of these individuals with meticulous care.[23] The rationale behind this is well-expressed in Sandejas v. Ignacio,[24]

GR No. 165355

2012-09-26

TOMAS T. TEODORO v. CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORPORATION

BRION, J.

The settled rule is that "a resort to judicial processes is not, per se, evidence of ill will upon which a claim for damages may be based,"[43] for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate. "[F]ree resort to Courts for redress of wrongs is a matter of public policy. The law recognizes the right of everyone to sue for that which he honestly believes to be his right without fear of standing trial for damages."[44]

GR No. 180257

2011-02-23

EUSEBIO GONZALES v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL

VELASCO JR., J.

The banking system has become an indispensable institution in the modern world and plays a vital role in the economic life of every civilized society--banks have attained a ubiquitous presence among the people, who have come to regard them with respect and even gratitude and most of all, confidence, and it is for this reason, banks should guard against injury attributable to negligence or bad faith on its part.[45]

GR No. 161431

2010-10-13

CALIBRE TRADERS v. BAYER PHILIPPINES

DEL CASTILLO, J.

"A compulsory counterclaim is any claim for money or other relief, which a defending party may have against an opposing party, which at the time of suit arises out of, or is necessarily connected with, the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of plaintiff's complaint. It is compulsory in the sense that it is within the jurisdiction of the court, does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction, and will be barred x x x if not set up in the answer to the complaint in the same case. Any other claim is permissive."[40] "[The] Court has already laid down the following tests to determine whether a counterclaim is compulsory or not, to wit: (1) Are the issues of fact or law raised by the claim and the counterclaim largely the same? (2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant's claims, absent the compulsory counterclaim rule? (3) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff's claim as well as the defendant's counterclaim? and (4) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim, such that the conduct of separate trials of the respective claims of the parties would entail a substantial duplication of effort and time by the parties and the court?"[41] The fourth test is the `compelling test of compulsoriness'.[42]

GR No. 170483

2010-04-19

MANUEL C. BUNGCAYAO v. FORT ILOCANDIA PROPERTY HOLDINGS

CARPIO, J.

The rule in permissive counterclaim is that for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction, the counterclaimant is bound to pay the prescribed docket fees.[20] Any decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down at any time, even on appeal before this Court.[21] In this case, respondent did not dispute the non-payment of docket fees. Respondent only insisted that its claims were all compulsory counterclaims. As such, the judgment by the trial court in relation to the second counterclaim is considered null and void[22] without prejudice to a separate action which respondent may file against petitioner.

GR No. 184193

2010-03-29

SEGUNDO G. DIMARANAN v. HEIRS OF SPS. HERMOGENES ARAYATA AND FLAVIANA ARAYATA

PEREZ, J.

As a general rule, factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record.[30] There are recognized exceptions to this rule, among which are: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings of the trial court; (9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties. However, in the instant case, petitioner failed to demonstrate that their petition falls under any one of the above exceptions.[31] We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, which the Court of Appeals had affirmed.

GR No. 163078

2009-11-25

STEPHEN CANG v. HERMINIA CULLEN

NACHURA, J.

The fact that Saycon was driving alone with only a student's permit is, to our minds, proof enough that Cullen was negligent - either she did not know that he only had a student's permit or she allowed him to drive alone knowing this deficiency. Whichever way we look at it, we arrive at the same conclusion: that she failed to exercise the due diligence required of her as an employer in supervising her employee. Thus, the trial court properly denied her claim for damages. One who seeks equity and justice must come to this Court with clean hands.[54]

GR No. 167017

2009-06-22

SERAFIN CHENG v. SPS. VITTORIO AND MA. HELEN DONINI

CORONA, J.

Finally, Article 2208 of the Civil Code allows recovery of attorney's fees when exemplary damages are awarded or when the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest.[52] Petitioner is entitled to it since exemplary damages were awarded in this case and respondents' act in filing Civil Case No. 60769 compelled him to litigate. The amount of P25,000 is in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.[53]

GR No. 158621

2008-12-10

ROYAL CARGO CORPORATION v. DFS SPORTS UNLIMITED

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The settled rule is that issues of fact are not proper subjects of a petition for review before this Court.[17] Nonetheless, there are recognized exceptions to this rule, among which are: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the CA are contrary to the findings of the trial court; (9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[18] The Court finds that petitioner was able to demonstrate that the instant case falls under the fourth exception as will be discussed forthwith.

GR No. 162886

2008-08-11

HEIRS OF DECEASED SPS. VICENTE S. ARCILLA AND JOSEFA ASUNCION ARCILLA v. MA. LOURDES A. TEODORO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Settled is the rule that the trial court's findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court.[36] There are recognized exceptions to this rule, among which are: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the CA are contrary to the findings of the trial court; (9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[37] However, petitioners failed to show that any of the exceptions is present in the instant case to warrant a review of the findings of fact of the lower courts.

GR No. 162028

2008-07-14

DR. LORNA VILLA v. HEIRS OF ENRIQUE ALTAVAS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Settled is the rule that the trial court's findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court.[21] There are recognized exceptions to this rule, among which are: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the CA are contrary to the findings of the trial court; (9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[22] However, petitioner failed to show that any of the exceptions is present in the instant case to warrant a review of the findings of fact of the lower courts.

	GR No. 160260 2012-10-24	WESTMONT BANK v. MYRNA DELA ROSA-RAMOS MENDOZA, J.
It must be remembered that public interest is intimately carved into the banking industry because the primordial concern here is the trust and confidence of the public. This fiduciary nature of every bank's relationship with its clients/depositors impels it to exercise the highest degree of care, definitely more than that of a reasonable man or a good father of a family.[22] It is, therefore, required to treat the accounts and deposits of these individuals with meticulous care.[23] The rationale behind this is well-expressed in Sandejas v. Ignacio,[24]
	GR No. 165355 2012-09-26	TOMAS T. TEODORO v. CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORPORATION BRION, J.
The settled rule is that "a resort to judicial processes is not, per se, evidence of ill will upon which a claim for damages may be based,"[43] for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate. "[F]ree resort to Courts for redress of wrongs is a matter of public policy. The law recognizes the right of everyone to sue for that which he honestly believes to be his right without fear of standing trial for damages."[44]
	GR No. 180257 2011-02-23	EUSEBIO GONZALES v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL VELASCO JR., J.
The banking system has become an indispensable institution in the modern world and plays a vital role in the economic life of every civilized society--banks have attained a ubiquitous presence among the people, who have come to regard them with respect and even gratitude and most of all, confidence, and it is for this reason, banks should guard against injury attributable to negligence or bad faith on its part.[45]
	GR No. 161431 2010-10-13	CALIBRE TRADERS v. BAYER PHILIPPINES DEL CASTILLO, J.
"A compulsory counterclaim is any claim for money or other relief, which a defending party may have against an opposing party, which at the time of suit arises out of, or is necessarily connected with, the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of plaintiff's complaint. It is compulsory in the sense that it is within the jurisdiction of the court, does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction, and will be barred x x x if not set up in the answer to the complaint in the same case. Any other claim is permissive."[40] "[The] Court has already laid down the following tests to determine whether a counterclaim is compulsory or not, to wit: (1) Are the issues of fact or law raised by the claim and the counterclaim largely the same? (2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant's claims, absent the compulsory counterclaim rule? (3) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff's claim as well as the defendant's counterclaim? and (4) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim, such that the conduct of separate trials of the respective claims of the parties would entail a substantial duplication of effort and time by the parties and the court?"[41] The fourth test is the `compelling test of compulsoriness'.[42]
	GR No. 170483 2010-04-19	MANUEL C. BUNGCAYAO v. FORT ILOCANDIA PROPERTY HOLDINGS CARPIO, J.
The rule in permissive counterclaim is that for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction, the counterclaimant is bound to pay the prescribed docket fees.[20] Any decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down at any time, even on appeal before this Court.[21] In this case, respondent did not dispute the non-payment of docket fees. Respondent only insisted that its claims were all compulsory counterclaims. As such, the judgment by the trial court in relation to the second counterclaim is considered null and void[22] without prejudice to a separate action which respondent may file against petitioner.
	GR No. 184193 2010-03-29	SEGUNDO G. DIMARANAN v. HEIRS OF SPS. HERMOGENES ARAYATA AND FLAVIANA ARAYATA PEREZ, J.
As a general rule, factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record.[30] There are recognized exceptions to this rule, among which are: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings of the trial court; (9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties. However, in the instant case, petitioner failed to demonstrate that their petition falls under any one of the above exceptions.[31] We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, which the Court of Appeals had affirmed.
	GR No. 163078 2009-11-25	STEPHEN CANG v. HERMINIA CULLEN NACHURA, J.
The fact that Saycon was driving alone with only a student's permit is, to our minds, proof enough that Cullen was negligent - either she did not know that he only had a student's permit or she allowed him to drive alone knowing this deficiency. Whichever way we look at it, we arrive at the same conclusion: that she failed to exercise the due diligence required of her as an employer in supervising her employee. Thus, the trial court properly denied her claim for damages. One who seeks equity and justice must come to this Court with clean hands.[54]
	GR No. 167017 2009-06-22	SERAFIN CHENG v. SPS. VITTORIO AND MA. HELEN DONINI CORONA, J.
Finally, Article 2208 of the Civil Code allows recovery of attorney's fees when exemplary damages are awarded or when the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest.[52] Petitioner is entitled to it since exemplary damages were awarded in this case and respondents' act in filing Civil Case No. 60769 compelled him to litigate. The amount of P25,000 is in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.[53]
	GR No. 158621 2008-12-10	ROYAL CARGO CORPORATION v. DFS SPORTS UNLIMITED AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The settled rule is that issues of fact are not proper subjects of a petition for review before this Court.[17] Nonetheless, there are recognized exceptions to this rule, among which are: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the CA are contrary to the findings of the trial court; (9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[18] The Court finds that petitioner was able to demonstrate that the instant case falls under the fourth exception as will be discussed forthwith.
	GR No. 162886 2008-08-11	HEIRS OF DECEASED SPS. VICENTE S. ARCILLA AND JOSEFA ASUNCION ARCILLA v. MA. LOURDES A. TEODORO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Settled is the rule that the trial court's findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court.[36] There are recognized exceptions to this rule, among which are: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the CA are contrary to the findings of the trial court; (9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[37] However, petitioners failed to show that any of the exceptions is present in the instant case to warrant a review of the findings of fact of the lower courts.
	GR No. 162028 2008-07-14	DR. LORNA VILLA v. HEIRS OF ENRIQUE ALTAVAS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Settled is the rule that the trial court's findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court.[21] There are recognized exceptions to this rule, among which are: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the CA are contrary to the findings of the trial court; (9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[22] However, petitioner failed to show that any of the exceptions is present in the instant case to warrant a review of the findings of fact of the lower courts.

ALICE A.I. SANDEJAS v. SPS. ARTURO IGNACIO