Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 184081 2009-06-19	GLOBAL HOLIDAY OWNERSHIP CORPORATION v. METROPOLITAN BANK YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Thus, we restate: the general rule is that personal notice to the mortgagor in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings is not necessary, and posting and publication will suffice. Sec. 3 of Act 3135 governing extra-judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages, as amended by Act 4118, requires only posting of the notice of sale in three public places and the publication of that notice in a newspaper of general circulation. The exception is when the parties stipulate that personal notice is additionally required to be given the mortgagor. Failure to abide by the general rule, or its exception, renders the foreclosure proceedings null and void.[18]
	GR No. 172428 2008-11-28	HERMAN C. CRYSTAL v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS TINGA, J.
Nevertheless, in the more recent cases of ABS-CBN Corp. v. Court of Appeals, et al.,[37] and Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Ago Medical and Educational Center-Bicol Christian College of Medicine (AMEC-BCCM),[38] the Court held that the statements in Manero and Mambulao were mere obiter dicta, implying that the award of moral damages to corporations is not a hard and fast rule. Indeed, while the Court may allow the grant of moral damages to corporations, it is not automatically granted; there must still be proof of the existence of the factual basis of the damage and its causal relation to the defendant's acts. This is so because moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer.[39]
	GR NO. 131723 2007-12-13	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. T.E.A.M. ELECTRONICS CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
We, however, deem it proper to delete the award of moral damages. TEC's claim was premised allegedly on the damage to its goodwill and reputation.[50] As a rule, a corporation is not entitled to moral damages because, not being a natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or sentiments like wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish and moral shock. The only exception to this rule is when the corporation has a reputation that is debased, resulting in its humiliation in the business realm.[51] But in such a case, it is imperative for the claimant to present proof to justify the award. It is essential to prove the existence of the factual basis of the damage and its causal relation to petitioner's acts.[52] In the present case, the records are bereft of any evidence that the name or reputation of TEC/TPC has been debased as a result of petitioner's acts. Besides, the trial court simply awarded moral damages in the dispositive portion of its decision without stating the basis thereof.
	AM NO. P-06-2135 2007-05-25	ADORACION PAGUYO v. CHARLIE S. GATBUNTON GARCIA, J.
In Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[14] the Court emphasized the need for the republication of the Notice of Sheriff's Sale of a postponed extrajudicial sale for the latter's validity. In that case, we held, citing Ouano v. CA:[15]
	GR No. 144435 2007-02-06	GUILLERMINA BALUYUT v. EULOGIO POBLETE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the alleged lack of posting of the notices of sale in at least three public places, herein petitioner failed to discharge her burden of proving by convincing evidence her allegation that there was actually no compliance with the posting requirement. Hence, in the absence of contrary evidence, the presumption prevails that the sheriff performed his official duty of posting the notices of sale.[27]