Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GUILLANG v. RODOLFO BEDANIA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 199886 2014-12-03	CAGAYAN II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. ALLAN RAPANAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interest of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.[12] Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides that "[w]hoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is a quasi-delict." Under this provision, the elements necessary to establish a quasi-delict case are: (1) damages to the plaintiff; (2) negligence, by act or omission, of the defendant or by some person for whose acts the defendant must respond, was guilty; and (3) the connection of cause and effect between such negligence and the damages.[13]
	GR No. 170757 2011-11-28	VALIAO v. REPUBLIC PERALTA, J.
Anent the propriety of filing a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the principle is well-established that this Court is not a trier of facts and that only questions of law may be raised. The resolution of factual issues is the function of the lower courts whose findings on these matters are received with respect and are, as a rule, binding on this Court. This rule, however, is subject to certain exceptions. One of these is when the findings of the appellate court are contrary to those of the trial court.[10] Due to the divergence of the findings of the CA and the RTC, the Court will now re-examine the facts and evidence adduced before the lower courts.
	GR No. 173180 2011-08-24	ALBERT TISON v. SPS. GREGORIO POMASIN AND CONSORCIA PONCE POMASIN PEREZ, J.
This interplay of rules and exceptions is more pronounced in this case of quasi-delict in which, according to Article 2176 of the Civil Code, whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. To sustain a claim based on quasi-delict, the following requisites must concur: (a) damage suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of defendant; and (c) connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of defendant and the damage incurred by the plaintiff.[15] These requisites must be proved by a preponderance of evidence.[16] The claimants, respondents in this case, must, therefore, establish their claim or cause of action by preponderance of evidence, evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it.[17]
	GR No. 119857 2010-07-28	GOLDEN APPLE REALTY v. SIERRA GRANDE REALTY CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
The said ruling of the CA is contrary to the factual findings of the trial court. In Guillang v. Bedania,[29] this Court reiterated that it is not a trier of facts, but certain exceptions apply, thus: The principle is well-established that this Court is not a trier of facts. Therefore, in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised. The resolution of factual issues is the function of the lower courts whose findings on these matters are received with respect and are, as a rule, binding on this Court.[30]
	GR No. 166869 2010-02-16	PHILIPPINE HAWK CORPORATION v. VIVIAN TAN LEE PERALTA, J.
The Court of Appeals also correctly awarded respondent moral damages for the physical injuries she sustained due to the vehicular accident. Under Art. 2219 of the Civil Code,[45] moral damages may be recovered in quasi-delicts causing physical injuries. However, the award of P50,000.00 should be reduced to P30,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[46]