Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION v. LIANGA BAY

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 184315 2011-11-28	ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO v. MANILA CHRONICLE PUBLISHING CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
As for exemplary damages, Article 2229 provides that exemplary damages may be imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. Nonetheless, exemplary damages are imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish another, but to serve as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions.[29] On this basis, the award of exemplary damages in the first and second cause of action in the amount of P500,000.00 and P10,000,000.00, respectively, is reduced to P200,000.00 and P1,000,000.00, respectively.
	GR No. 150887 2009-08-14	FRANCISCO MADRID· v. SPS. BONIFACIO MAPOY AND FELICIDAD MARTINEZ BRION, J.
Article 2208 of the Civil Code enumerates the instances justifying the grant of attorney's fees; in all cases, the award must be reasonable, just and equitable. Attorney's fees as part of damages are not meant to enrich the winning party at the expense of the losing litigant. They are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.[30] The award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the general rule. Thus, findings reflecting the conditions imposed by Article 2208 are necessary to justify an award; attorney's fees mentioned only in the dispositive portion of the decision without any prior justification in the body of the decision is a baseless award that must be struck down.[31]
	GR No. 160273 2008-01-18	CEBU COUNTRY CLUB v. RICARDO F. ELIZAGAQUE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Anent the award of exemplary damages, Article 2229 allows it by way of example or correction for the public good. Nonetheless, since exemplary damages are imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish another but to serve as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions,[9] we reduce the amount from P1,000,000.00 to P25,000.00 only.
	GR NO. 151458 2006-08-31	JALLALUDIN ABDULRAHMAN GULAM v. SPS. CATALINO AND RICARDA SANTOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is a hornbook doctrine of evidence that a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge, which means those facts which are derived from his perception.[17] A witness may not testify as to what he merely learned from others either because he was told or read or heard the same. Such testimony is considered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has learned. The hearsay rule is based upon serious concerns about the trustworthiness and reliability of hearsay evidence inasmuch as such evidence are not given under oath or solemn affirmation and, more importantly, have not been subjected to cross-examination by opposing counsel to test the perception, memory, veracity, and articulateness of the out-of-court declarant or actor upon whose reliability on which the worth of the out-of-court statement depends.[18]
	GR NO. 146918 2006-05-02	CITIBANK v. SPS. LUIS AND CARMELITA CABAMONGAN AND THEIR SONS LUIS CABAMONGAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Article 2208 of the New Civil Code enumerates the instances where such may be awarded and, in all cases, it must be reasonable, just and equitable if the same were to be granted. Attorney's fees as part of damages are not meant to enrich the winning party at the expense of the losing litigant. They are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.[55] The award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the general rule. As such, it is necessary for the court to make findings of facts and law that would bring the case within the exception and justify the grant of such award. The matter of attorney's fees cannot be mentioned only in the dispositive portion of the decision.[56] They must be clearly explained and justified by the trial court in the body of its decision. Consequently, the award of attorney's fees should be deleted.
	GR No. 161745 2005-09-30	LEA MER INDUSTRIES v. MALAYAN INSURANCE CO. PANGANIBAN, J.
An exception to the foregoing rule is that on "independently relevant statements." A report made by a person is admissible if it is intended to prove the tenor, not the truth, of the statements.[54] Independent of the truth or the falsity of the statement given in the report, the fact that it has been made is relevant. Here, the hearsay rule does not apply.[55]