Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VICTORINO SAVELLANO v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 204369 2014-09-17	ENRIQUETA M. LOCSIN v. BERNARDO HIZON VELASCO JR., J.
As to the amount to be awarded, it bears stressing that the same is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, taking into account the relevant circumstances.[34] Considering the length of time petitioner was deprived of her property and the bad faith attending respondents' actuations in the extant case, we find the amount of seventy-five thousand pesos (PhP75,000)as sufficient nominal damages. Moreover, respondents should be held jointly and severally liable for the said amount, attorney's fees in the amount of an additional seventy-five thousand pesos (PhP 75,000), and the costs of the suit.
	GR No. 154670 2012-01-30	FONTANA RESORT v. SPS. ROY S. TAN AND SUSAN C. TAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is also settled that "the amount of such damages is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, taking into account the relevant circumstances."[38]
	GR No. 184036 2010-10-13	PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION v. EIB SECURITIES VELASCO JR., J.
Subsequently, on July 26, 2006, the RTC, Branch 66, through its new Presiding Judge, Joselito C. Villarosa, denied EIB's motion for partial reconsideration.[10] After oral arguments on June 23, 2006, the RTC affirmed the propriety of the judgment on the pleadings rendered by Pairing Judge Baybay. Citing Savellano v. Northwest Airlines,[11] on the strict construal of any ambiguity on a written document on the party issuing it, the trial court reiterated its ruling that petitioners are not estopped from assailing the sale by EIB of their DMCI shares, for the sale confirmation receipts do not disclose the purpose of the sales made.
	GR NO. 109389 2006-06-26	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. SPS. HUA KIM PENG AND ANGELITA RAMORAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In sum, we find no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals in its assailed Decision. The established rule is that its factual findings, when supported by substantial evidence on record, as in this case, are final and conclusive.[21]
	GR No. 153535 2005-07-28	SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. MINDANAO FERROALLOY CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
For damages to be properly awarded under the above provisions, it is necessary to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence[36] that the action instituted by petitioner was clearly so unfounded and untenable as to amount to gross and evident bad faith.[37] To justify an award of damages for malicious prosecution, one must prove two elements: malice or sinister design to vex or humiliate and want of probable cause.[38]
	GR No. 158693 2004-11-17	JENNY M. AGABON v. NLRC YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The violation of the petitioners' right to statutory due process by the private respondent warrants the payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages. The amount of such damages is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, taking into account the relevant circumstances.[40] Considering the prevailing circumstances in the case at bar, we deem it proper to fix it at P30,000.00. We believe this form of damages would serve to deter employers from future violations of the statutory due process rights of employees. At the very least, it provides a vindication or recognition of this fundamental right granted to the latter under the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules.