Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 193914 2014-11-26	SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. DMC-CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES SERENO, C.J.
Consequently, in computing the amount of temperate or moderate damages, it is usually left to the discretion of the courts, but the amount must be reasonable, bearing in mind that temperate damages should be more than nominal but less than compensatory.[43]
	GR No. 211356 2014-09-29	CRISOSTOMO B. AQUINO v. MUNICIPALITY OF MALAY VELASCO JR., J.
Challenging the validity of the public respondents' actuations, petitioner posits that the hotel cannot summarily be abated because it is not a nuisance per se, given the hundred million peso-worth of capital infused in the venture. Citing Asilo, Jr. v. People,[13] petitioner also argues that respondents should have first secured a court order before proceeding with the demolition.
	GR No. 187899 2013-10-23	ROBERT DA JOSE v. CELERINA R. ANGELES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It bears stressing that the cash vouchers from Glennis Laundry Haus were not identified by Celerina contrary to the findings of the CA but by Celine in her testimony before the RTC on November 13, 2002[49] and Celine, under cross-examination, admitted by way of stipulation that she had no participation in the preparation thereof.[50] We thus agree with the RTC's ruling that said cash vouchers though admitted in evidence, whether objected to or not,have no probative value for being hearsay.[51]