This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-06-29 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Atty. Villalon: Why did you hit him, Mr. Witness? Witness: Because I thought he was with the guy who punched me, sir. x x x x Atty. Villalon: So what did you think when you saw Mr. Orlando de Leon holding his gun and cursing your cousin and telling him not to come near him, what did you think? Witness: Nothing, sir, I just thought of hitting him, sir. Atty. Villalon: Why? Witness: Because I thought that he was the one who ordered that I would be hit, sir.[22] As to the award of damages, the CA correctly awarded P75,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, P30,000 as exemplary damages and P25,000 as temperate damages. The award of 6% interest per annum on the monetary awards from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid is also correct.[23] | |||||
|
2014-04-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, lest the decision of the court would amount to an advisory opinion.[99] The rule is that courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging. The controversy must be justiciable definite and concrete, touching on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. In other words, the pleadings must show an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right, on the one hand, and a denial thereof, on the other; that is, it must concern a real, tangible and not merely a theoretical question or issue. There ought to be an actual and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree conclusive in nature, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.[100] | |||||
|
2014-04-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, lest the decision of the court would amount to an advisory opinion.[99] The rule is that courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging. The controversy must be justiciable definite and concrete, touching on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. In other words, the pleadings must show an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right, on the one hand, and a denial thereof, on the other; that is, it must concern a real, tangible and not merely a theoretical question or issue. There ought to be an actual and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree conclusive in nature, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.[100] | |||||