Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SMITH BELL DODWELL SHIPPING AGENCY CORPORATION v. CATALINO BORJA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 186312 2010-06-29	SPS. DANTE CRUZ v. SUN HOLIDAYS CARPIO MORALES, J.
In computing the third factor - necessary living expense, Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping Agency Corp. v. Borja[34] teaches that when, as in this case, there is no showing that the living expenses constituted the smaller percentage of the gross income, the living expenses are fixed at half of the gross income.
	GR No. 166869 2010-02-16	PHILIPPINE HAWK CORPORATION v. VIVIAN TAN LEE PERALTA, J.
In the computation of loss of earning capacity, only net earnings, not gross earnings, are to be considered; that is, the total of the earnings less expenses necessary for the creation of such earnings or income, less living and other incidental expenses.[39] In the absence of documentary evidence, it is reasonable to peg necessary expenses for the lease and operation of the gasoline station at 80 percent of the gross income, and peg living expenses at 50 percent of the net income (gross income less necessary expenses).
	GR NO. 146426 2006-06-27	CARGOLIFT SHIPPING v. L. ACUARIO MARKETING CORP. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Consequently, we find no cogent reason to disturb the lower courts' finding that the barge sustained a hole in its hull when petitioner's tugboat failed to tow it to a safer distance as the weather changed in the port of Limay. This Court is bound by the factual determinations of the appellate court especially when these are supported by substantial evidence and merely affirm those of the trial court,[19] as in this case. There is no showing here that the inferences made by the Court of Appeals were manifestly mistaken, or that the appealed judgment was based on a misapprehension of facts, or that the appellate court overlooked certain relevant, undisputed facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[20] Thus, a reversal of the factual findings in this case is unwarranted.
	GR NO. 159270 2005-08-22	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
There are three elements of a quasi-delict: (a) damages suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond; and (c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff.[31] Article 2176 of the New Civil Code provides:Art. 2176. Whoever 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 called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.