Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CHINA AIRLINES v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 153923 2009-10-02	SPS. TOMAS F. GOMEZ AND ADELAIDA S. GOMEZ v. GREGORIO CORREA CARPIO MORALES, J.
An adverse decision does not ipso facto justify an award of attorney's fees in favor of the winning party. Public policy dictates that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.[14] The records reveal none of the circumstances enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code[15] to warrant the award of attorney's fees. That a plaintiff is compelled to litigate and incur expenses to protect and enforce a claim does not justify the award of attorney's fees.[16]
	GR NO. 152407 2007-09-21	SPS. FLORENDO DAUZ AND HELEN DAUZ AND SPS. IGNACIO REAMBONANZA AND FRANCISCA REAMBONANZA v. SPS. ELIGIO AND LORENZA ECHAVEZ AND CA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Nonetheless, we still perused the records and found that there is no evidence showing that respondents acted in bad faith. In China Airlines, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals,[9] we held that bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence. It imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong. It means breach of a known duty through some motive, interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud. These incidents or circumstances are not present here. Respondents did not immediately register the sale because they waited for spouses Oguis to repurchase the property. In fact, it was Albert Oguis, Sr. himself who requested them not to cause the registration of the sale.
	GR NO. 160832 2006-10-27	HEIRS OF EMILIO SANTIOQUE v. HEIRS OF EMILIO CALMA CALLEJO, SR., J.
In any event, petitioners' cause of action is likewise barred by laches. The essence of laches or "stale demands" is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, thus giving rise to the presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.[66] Petitioners' right of action had long been barred by laches during the lifetime of their father, their predecessor in interest; petitioners must necessarily bear the consequences of their predecessor's inaction. We quote, with approval, the following ruling of the CA: The trial court further held that "There is also no evidence that patent No. 18577 was issued to Emilio Santioque. In fact, there is no available record to prove that patent No. 18577 was in the name of Emilio Santioque. (Exhibit "B-1")." We add that nowhere in the certificates of title presented by appellants is the source of OCT No. 1112 indicated as Homestead Patent No. 18577.
	GR NO. 151339 2006-01-31	EDITHA M. FRANCISCO v. ROQUE CO TINGA, J.
The Court is not wont to uphold awards of moral damages based on haphazard conjectures on the awardee's resultant mental state. We cannot agree with the appellate court that bad faith on the part of petitioner had been preponderantly established in this case. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence, but it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong.[24] It should be established by clear and convincing evidence since the law always presumes good faith.[25] In ascertaining the intention of the person accused of acting in bad faith, the courts must carefully examine the evidence as to the conduct and outward acts from which the inward motive may be determined.[26] Certainly, it does not appear that the Court of Appeals has conducted the mandated careful examination of evidence that would sustain the award of moral damages. Nothing in the record establishes any right to moral damages by respondents.
	GR NO. 143380 2005-04-11	OLIMPIO PANGONOROM v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
Petitioners' assertions have no merit. The issue of whether a person is negligent is a question of fact.[15] Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, when they affirm the findings of fact of the trial court, are binding on this Court, unless the findings of the trial and appellate courts are palpably unsupported by the evidence on record or unless the judgment itself is based on misapprehension of facts.[16] We hold that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in upholding the factual findings of the trial court.
	GR No. 155080 2004-02-05	SOLEDAD CALICDAN v. SILVERIO CENDAÑA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
(8) when findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but are contradicted by the evidence on record.[10]
	GR No. 142305 2003-12-10	SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED v. ANDION FERNANDEZ CALLEJO, SR., J.
The contract of air carriage is a peculiar one. Imbued with public interest, the law requires common carriers to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all the circumstances.[20] In an action for breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not have to prove that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent. All that is necessary to prove is the existence of the contract and the fact of its non-performance by the carrier.[21]