This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-07-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| And, lastly, the CA rightfully upheld the NLRC's affirmance of the grant of attorney's fees to San Miguel. Thereby, the NLRC did not commit any grave abuse of its discretion, considering that San Miguel had been compelled to litigate and to incur expenses to protect his rights and interest. In Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[19] the Court ruled that attorney's fees could be awarded to a party whom an unjustified act of the other party compelled to litigate or to incur expenses to protect his interest. It was plain that petitioner's refusal to reinstate San Miguel with backwages and other benefits to which he had been legally entitled was unjustified, thereby entitling him to recover attorney's fees. | |||||
|
2010-08-08 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, respondents failed to show that they have a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of the said right. On the face of their clear admission that they were unable to settle their obligations which were secured by the mortgage, petitioner has a clear right to foreclose the mortgage.[25] Foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of non-payment of a mortgage indebtedness.[26] In a real estate mortgage when the principal obligation is not paid when due, the mortgagee has the right to foreclose the mortgage and to have the property seized and sold with the view of applying the proceeds to the payment of the obligation.[27] | |||||
|
2009-12-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Foreclosure is valid where the debtor is in default in the payment of an obligation.[23] The essence of a contract of mortgage indebtedness is that a property has been identified or set apart from the mass of the property of the debtor-mortgagor as security for the payment of money or the fulfillment of an obligation to answer the amount of indebtedness, in case of default in payment.[24] Foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of non-payment of the mortgage indebtedness.[25] In a real estate mortgage when the principal obligation is not paid when due, the mortgagee has the right to foreclose the mortgage and to have the property seized and sold with the view of applying the proceeds to the payment of the obligation.[26] | |||||
|
2006-04-19 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| On the assumption that the competitive employment ban in the Undertaking is valid, petitioner is not automatically entitled to return the P963,619.28 he received from respondent. To reiterate, the terms of the Undertaking clearly state that any breach by petitioner of his promise would entitle respondent to a cause of action for protection in the courts of law; as such, restitution of the P963,619.28 will not follow as a matter of course. Respondent is still burdened to prove its entitlement to the aforesaid amount by producing the best evidence of which its case is susceptible.[70] | |||||
|
2005-02-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is at once apparent that the determination of the correctness of the trial court's interpretation of the provisions of the Compromise Agreement involves a question of law.[19] However, the claim of payments raised by the respondents entails a review of the evidences on record which is not proper in a petition for review under Rule 45. Be that as it may, the Court in the exercise of its discretion, may set aside procedural rules and proceed to determine and resolve factual matters[20] to put all issues to rest and avoid further delay. With this, we deem it necessary to first settle the issue of payment. | |||||
|
2002-02-27 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| In cases of berthing and wharfage fees prior to the issuance of the injunction order from this court, PPA charges 100% the totality or summary of claims from PPA, from 1977 to 1991, was shown and marked Exhibit KKK and submarkings, showing TEFASCO is supposed to collect, if PPA collects only 50% wharfage, the other 50% goes with TEFASCO in case of berthing 70%, the remainder of 30% could have been collected by TEFASCO.[43] Under Arts. 2199 and 2200 of the Civil Code, actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in satisfaction of or in recompense for loss or injury sustained.[44] They proceed from a sense of natural justice and are designed to repair the wrong done. In Producers Bank of the Philippines v. CA[45] we succinctly explain the kinds of actual damages, thus- | |||||