This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Time and time again, this Court has reiterated it is not a trier of facts and parties may raise only questions of law. The jurisdiction of the Court is limited to reviewing errors of law and findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive because it is not the Court's function to review, examine, and evaluate or weigh the evidence all over again.[28] The rule, however, is not without exceptions, viz.: (1) [W]hen the [conclusion is a finding] grounded entirely on speculations, surmises [and] conjectures; | |||||
|
2014-11-19 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Adriano v. Lasala,[24] we found that respondents suffered pecuniary loss because of petitioners' untimely termination of the former's security services for no cause at all. We then affirmed the CA's award of temperate damages in the amount of P200,000.00 in lieu of actual damages awarded by the RTC since there was no proof capable of ascertaining the actual loss. | |||||
|
2014-06-25 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Moral damages, however, are not recoverable on the mere breach of the contract. Article 2220 requires that the breach be done fraudulently or in bad faith. In Adriano v. Lasala:[46] | |||||
|
2014-06-25 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Petitioner Arco Pulp and Paper's actions clearly show "a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty through some motive or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud."[48] Moral damages may, therefore, be awarded. | |||||