Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDUARDO P. LUCAS v. SPS. MAXIMO C. ROYO AND CORAZON B. ROYO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 192591 2012-07-30	EFREN L. ALVAREZ v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Speculative damages are too remote to be included in an accurate estimate of damages.55 In determining actual damages, the Court cannot rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork as to the amount. Without the actual proof of loss, the award of actual damages becomes erroneous.[56] To be recoverable, actual damages must not only be capable of proof, but must actually be proved with reasonable degree of certainty. The Court cannot simply rely on speculation, conjecture, or guesswork in determining the amount of damages. Without any factual basis, it cannot be granted.[57]
	GR No. 164785 2009-04-29	ELISEO F. SORIANO v. MA. CONSOLIZA P. LAGUARDIA VELASCO JR., J.
It is settled that expressions by means of newspapers, radio, television, and motion pictures come within the broad protection of the free speech and expression clause.[25] Each method though, because of its dissimilar presence in the lives of people and accessibility to children, tends to present its own problems in the area of free speech protection, with broadcast media, of all forms of communication, enjoying a lesser degree of protection.[26] Just as settled is the rule that restrictions, be it in the form of prior restraint, e.g., judicial injunction against publication or threat of cancellation of license/franchise, or subsequent liability, whether in libel and damage suits, prosecution for sedition, or contempt proceedings, are anathema to the freedom of expression. Prior restraint means official government restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination.[27] The freedom of expression, as with the other freedoms encased in the Bill of Rights, is, however, not absolute. It may be regulated to some extent to serve important public interests, some forms of speech not being protected. As has been held, the limits of the freedom of expression are reached when the expression touches upon matters of essentially private concern.[28] In the oft-quoted expression of Justice Holmes, the constitutional guarantee "obviously was not intended to give immunity for every possible use of language."[29] From Lucas v. Royo comes this line: "[T]he freedom to express one's sentiments and belief does not grant one the license to vilify in public the honor and integrity of another. Any sentiments must be expressed within the proper forum and with proper regard for the rights of others."[30]
	GR NO. 160959 2007-04-04	ANTONIO DIAZ v. DAVAO LIGHT CALLEJO, SR., J.
Thus, the element of malice and the absence of probable cause must be proved.[131] There must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person, and that it was initiated deliberately knowing that the charge was false and baseless to entitle the victims to damages.[132] The two elements must simultaneously exist; otherwise, the presence of probable cause signifies, as a legal consequence, the absence of malice.[133] In the instant case, it is evident that respondent DLPC was not motivated by malicious intent or by a sinister design to unduly harass petitioner, but only by a well-founded anxiety to protect its rights. Respondent DLPC cannot therefore be faulted in availing of the remedies provided for by law.
	GR NO. 154685 2006-11-27	METROPOLITAN BANK v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Sec. 11, Art. III of the Constitution guarantees right of access to the courts. This right is coupled with the responsibility to show that a suit is impelled by a legitimate cause of action.[22] The exercise of such legal right with responsibility does no injury. However, when the institution and pursuit of a legal proceeding is without probable cause, the only purpose thereof being to harass, annoy, vex or injure an innocent person who is then compelled to defend himself in court, it amounts to malicious prosecution.[23] Denuncia falsa or malicious prosecution is misuse or abuse of judicial processes. The party who is injured by such abuse may, at the termination of the frivolous suit, file a civil action for damages based on the provisions of the Civil Code on human relations.[24] But to merit an award of damages, he must prove that: (a) the defendant was himself the prosecutor or at least instigated the prosecution; (b) the prosecution finally terminated in the acquittal of plaintiff; (c) in bringing the action the prosecutor acted without probable cause, and (d) the prosecutor was actuated by malice, i.e., by improper and sinister motives.[25] He must also prove the damages he has suffered.[26]
	GR NO. 150192 2005-02-17	LEHNER V. MARTIRES v. RICARDO COKIENG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To merit the award of damages in a case of malicious prosecution, the aggrieved party must prove: (1) that he has been denounced or charged falsely of an offense by the defendant, (2) that the latter knows that the charge was false or lacks probable case, (3) that the said defendant acted with malice, and, of course, (4) the damages he has suffered.[26] The elements of want of probable cause and malice must simultaneously exist; otherwise, the presence of probable cause signifies, as a legal consequence, the absence of malice.[27] On these, there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person, and that it was initiated deliberately knowing that the charge was false and baseless to entitle the victim to damages.
	GR No. 136914 2002-01-25	COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION v. LIANGA BAY DE LEON, J.
We find no justification for the award of actual damages of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). Well-entrenched is the doctrine that actual, compensatory and consequential damages must be proved, and cannot be presumed.[16] That part of the dispositive portion of the Decision of the trial court ordering the petitioner to pay actual damages of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) has no basis at all. The justification, if any, for such an award of actual damages does not appear in the body of the decision of the trial court. Neither is there any testimonial and documentary evidence on the alleged actual damages of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) to warrant such an award. Thus, the same must be deleted.
	GR No. 119707 2001-11-29	VERONICA PADILLO v. CA DE LEON, JR., J.
Concerning the alleged forgone income of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00) per year since 1982 as testified on by petitioner as the income she could have realized had possession of the property not been withheld from her by respondent Averia,[53] we consider such amount of expected profit highly conjectural and speculative. With an allegation that respondent made millions for the improper use and exploitation of the property, petitioner's testimony regarding the matter of unrealized income is sadly lacking of the requisite details on how such huge amount of income could be made possible. Petitioner did not detail out how such huge amount of income could have been derived from the use of the disputed lot and building. Well-entrenched is the doctrine that actual, compensatory and consequential damages must be proved, and cannot be presumed. If the proof adduced thereon is flimsy and insufficient, as in this case, no damages will be allowed.[54] Verily, the testimonial evidence on alleged unrealized income earlier referred to is not enough to warrant the award of damages. It is too vague and unspecified to induce faith and reliance.