This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-01-29 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Labor Arbiter's grant of actual/compensatory, moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00 is, however, incorrect. In order to recover actual or compensatory damages, it must be capable of proof and must be necessarily proved with a reasonable degree of certainty.[74] While moral damages is given to a dismissed employee when the dismissal is attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or is done in a manner contrary to good morals, good customs or public policy. Exemplary damages, on the other hand, is given if the dismissal is effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner.[75] Here, the Labor Arbiter erred in awarding the damages by lumping actual, moral and exemplary damages. Said damages rest on different jural foundations and, hence, must be independently identified and justified.[76] Also, there are no competent evidence of actual expenses incurred that would justify the award of actual damages. Lastly, respondents were terminated after being accused of the charge of pilferage of the vessel's fuel oil after examination of the report made by the vessel's chief engineer which showed a considerable amount of fuel lost. Although the dismissal of Arguelles, Batayola, Fresnillo, Noble, Dominico, Nilmao and Austral is illegal, based on the circumstances surrounding their dismissal, petitioners could not have been motivated by bad faith in deciding to terminate their services. | |||||
|
2005-09-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Specifically, in culpa contractual or breach of contract, as here, moral damages are recoverable only if the defendant has acted fraudulently or in bad faith,[37] or is found guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith,[38] or in wanton disregard of his contractual obligations.[39] Verily, the breach must be wanton, reckless, malicious, or in bad faith, oppressive or abusive.[40] | |||||
|
2005-08-25 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Case law has it that moral damages may be awarded for breach of contract where the breach thereof by the obligor is wanton, reckless, malicious or in bad faith, oppressive or abusive,[35] or where the obligor is guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith.[36] In the case of Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[37] the Court had laid the requisites for awarding moral damages, thus: first, evidence of besmirched reputation or physical, mental or psychological suffering sustained by the claimant; second, a culpable act or omission factually established; third, proof that the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the damages sustained by the claimant; and fourth, that the case is predicated on any of the instances expressed or envisioned by Article 2219 and Article 2220 of the Civil Code. | |||||