Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MINDEX RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT v. EPHRAIM MORILLO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 179337 2008-04-30	JOSEPH SALUDAGA v. FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY and EDILBERTO C. DE JESUS in his capacity as President of FEU YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Consequently, respondents' defense of force majeure must fail. In order for force majeure to be considered, respondents must show that no negligence or misconduct was committed that may have occasioned the loss. An act of God cannot be invoked to protect a person who has failed to take steps to forestall the possible adverse consequences of such a loss. One's negligence may have concurred with an act of God in producing damage and injury to another; nonetheless, showing that the immediate or proximate cause of the damage or injury was a fortuitous event would not exempt one from liability. When the effect is found to be partly the result of a person's participation - whether by active intervention, neglect or failure to act - the whole occurrence is humanized and removed from the rules applicable to acts of God.[17]
	GR No. 155604 2007-11-22	COLLEGE ASSURANCE PLAN v. BELFRANLT DEVELOPMENT INC. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The lessee is responsible for the deterioration or loss of the thing leased, unless he proves that it took place without his fault. This burden of proof on the lessee does not apply when the destruction is due to earthquake, flood, storm or other natural calamity. creates the presumption that the lessee is liable for the deterioration or loss of a thing leased. To overcome such legal presumption, the lessee must prove that the deterioration or loss was due to a fortuitous event which took place without his fault or negligence.[15]
	GR NO. 164459 2007-04-24	LIMITLESS POTENTIALS v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Furthermore, this Court will not delve into the sufficiency of evidence as to the existence and amount of damages suffered by petitioner for it is already a question of fact. It is settled that the factual findings of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on the Supreme Court.[40] Although this rule is subject to exceptions,[41] the present case does not fall into any of those exceptions which would have allowed this Court to make its own determination of facts. This Court upholds the factual findings of both the RTC and the Court of Appeals that there is insufficient evidence to establish that petitioner actually suffered damages because of the preliminary injunction issued by the RTC.
	GR NO. 162366 2006-11-10	FEDERICA M. SERRANO v. SPS. ANSELMO GUTIERREZ AND CARMELITA GUTIERREZ TINGA, J.
Furthermore, the Court finds the award of attorney's fees improper. The trial court must state the factual, legal or equitable justification for awarding the same,[20] bearing in mind that the award of attorney's fees is the exception, not the general rule, and it is not sound public policy to place a penalty on the right to litigate; nor should attorney's fees be awarded every time a party wins a lawsuit.[21] The award of attorney's fees was merely cited in the dispositive portion of the decision without the RTC stating any legal or factual basis for said award. As held in Legaspi v. Sps. Ong:The matter of attorney's fees cannot be dealt with only in the dispositive portion of the decision. The text of the decision must state the reason behind the award of attorney's fees. Otherwise, its award is totally unjustified. [22]
	GR NO. 164349 2006-01-31	RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF PHILIPPINES v. ALFONSO VERCHEZ CARPIO MORALES, J.
Article 1174 of the Civil Code states that no person shall be responsible for a fortuitous event that could not be foreseen or, though foreseen, was inevitable. In other words, there must be an exclusion of human intervention from the cause of injury or loss.[24] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Assuming arguendo that fortuitous circumstances prevented RCPI from delivering the telegram at the soonest possible time, it should have at least informed Grace of the non-transmission and the non-delivery so that she could have taken steps to remedy the situation. But it did not. There lies the fault or negligence.
	GR No. 161745 2005-09-30	LEA MER INDUSTRIES v. MALAYAN INSURANCE CO. PANGANIBAN, J.
Jurisprudence defines the elements of a "fortuitous event" as follows: (a) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or the failure of the debtors to comply with their obligations, must have been independent of human will; (b) the event that constituted the caso fortuito must have been impossible to foresee or, if foreseeable, impossible to avoid; (c) the occurrence must have been such as to render it impossible for the debtors to fulfill their obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the obligor must have been free from any participation in the aggravation of the resulting injury to the creditor.[29]