This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2007-02-06 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| That is a rather limited understanding of Javellana. The counterclaim disputed therein was not for moral damages and therefore, there was no need to prove malice. As early as in Lazatin v. Twaño,[55] we laid down the rule that where there is wrongful attachment, the attachment defendant may recover actual damages even without proof that the attachment plaintiff acted in bad faith in obtaining the attachment. However, if it is alleged and established that the attachment was not merely wrongful but also malicious, the attachment defendant may recover moral damages and exemplary damages as well. [56] Either way, the wrongfulness of the attachment does not warrant the automatic award of damages to the attachment defendant; the latter must first discharge the burden of proving the nature and extent of the loss or injury incurred by reason of the wrongful attachment.[57] | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As to moral and exemplary damages, to merit an award thereof, it must be shown that the wrongful attachment was obtained by the attachment plaintiff with malice or bad faith, such as by appending a false affidavit to his application.[71] | |||||
|
2005-09-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Particularly, the Court has recognized as just and equitable that attorney's fees be awarded when a party is compelled to incur expenses to lift a wrongfully issued writ of attachment.[72] The amount of money garnished, and the length of time respondents have been deprived from use of their money by reason of the wrongful attachment, all militate towards a finding that attorney's fees are just and equitable under the circumstances. However, we deem the amount of P1,000,000.00 as excessive, and modify the award of attorney's fees to P500,000.00 which represents merely approximately three percent of the actual damages suffered by and awarded to respondents. We also delete the imposition of legal interest made by the Court of Appeals on the awarded attorney's fees. | |||||
|
2005-05-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Finally, the petitioner relies heavily on the case of MC Engineering, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al.[22] In said case, we held that:In a subcontract transaction, the benefit of a main contractor is not unjust even if it does less work, and earns more profit, than the subcontractor. The subcontractor should be satisfied with its own profit, even though less than the main contractor's, because that is what it bargained for and contracted with the main contractor. Article 22 of the Civil Code is not intended to insure that every party to a commercial transaction receives a profit corresponding to its effort and contribution. If a subcontractor knowingly agrees to receive a profit less than its proportionate contribution, that is its own lookout. The fact that a subcontractor accepts less does not make it dumb for that may be the only way to beat its competitors. The winning subcontractor cannot be allowed to later on demand a higher price after bagging the contract and beating competitors who asked for higher prices. Even if the subcontractor incurs a loss because of its low price, it cannot invoke Article 22 of the Civil Code to save it from financial loss. Article 22 is not a safety net against bad or overly bold business decisions.[23] | |||||
|
2005-02-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Verily, an obligation may be extinguished by payment.[40] However, two requisites must concur: (1) identity of the prestation, and (2) its integrity. The first means that the very thing due must be delivered or released; and the second, that the prestation be fulfilled completely.[41] In this case the creditor must "receive and acknowledge full payment" from the debtor.[42] No such acknowledgment nor proof of full payment was shown to the satisfaction of the court. For this reason, claim of payment made by the respondents must fail. What was due from the respondents was the payment of a sum of money. Not only that, respondents must also pay the amount due in its entirety for their obligation to be considered extinguished by payment. | |||||
|
2004-11-10 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Following Article 22[21] of the New Civil Code, two conditions must concur to declare that a person has unjustly enriched himself or herself, namely: (a) a person is unjustly benefited, and (b) such benefit is derived at the expense of or to the damage of another.[22] | |||||
|
2003-10-16 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Unpersuasive is the contention of respondent that petitioner would unjustly be enriched at the former's expense. Though the rules thereon apply equally well to the government,[9] for unjust enrichment to be deemed present, two conditions must generally concur: (a) a person is unjustly benefited, and (b) such benefit is derived at another's expense or damage.[10] | |||||