This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2011-02-09 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In illegal dismissal cases, moral damages are awarded only where the dismissal was attended by bad faith or fraud, or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.[62] Exemplary damages may avail if the dismissal was effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner to warrant an award for exemplary damages.[63] | |||||
|
2010-11-15 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| It is basic that a corporation is invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from those of the persons composing it as well as from that of any other legal entity to which it may be related. Mere ownership by a single stockholder or by another corporation of all or nearly all of the capital stock of a corporation is not of itself sufficient ground for disregarding the separate corporate personality.[61] In labor cases, in particular, the Court has held corporate directors and officers solidarily liable with the corporation for the termination of employment of corporate employees done with malice or in bad faith.[62] Bad faith is never presumed.[63] Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence -- it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong. It means a breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill-will that partakes of the nature of fraud.[64] | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| We find that based on the facts of the case, there is sufficient basis to award moral damages and attorney's fees to respondent. We have consistently ruled that in illegal dismissal cases, moral damages are recoverable only where the dismissal of the employee was attended by bad faith or fraud, or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.[43] Such an award cannot be justified solely upon the premise that the employer fired his employee without just cause or due process. Additional facts must be pleaded and proven to warrant the grant of moral damages under the Civil Code, i.e., that the act of dismissal was attended by bad faith or fraud, or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy; and, of course, that social humiliation, wounded feelings, grave anxiety, and similar injury resulted therefrom.[44] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| So Cagungun v. Planters Development Bank[5] instructs: In culpa contractual or breach of contract, as in the case before us, moral damages are recoverable only if the defendant has acted fraudulently or in bad faith, or is found guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith, or in wanton disregard of his contractual obligations. (Underscoring supplied) Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence. It involves a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity, a breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud.[6] | |||||
|
2003-11-21 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Bad faith is not presumed and he who alleges the same has the onus of proving it.[16] The record is devoid of any showing that respondent judge was moved by ill-will or bad faith in issuing the challenged Orders. Even assuming that such Orders are erroneous, respondent judge may not be held administratively liable. In Santos vs. Judge Orlino,[17] we held:"The fundamental propositions governing responsibility for judicial error were more recently summarized in "In Re: Joaquin T. Borromeo, 241 SCRA 405-467(1995). There, this Court stressed inter alia that given the nature of judicial function and the power vested in the Constitution in the Supreme Court and the lower courts established by law, administrative or criminal complaints are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial remedies where such are available, and must wait on the result thereof. Existing doctrine is that judges are not liable to respond in a civil action for damages, and are not otherwise administratively responsible for what they may do in the exercise of their judicial functions when acting within their legal powers and jurisdiction (Alzua v. Johnson, 21 Phil. 308, 326; Sec. 9, Act 190). Certain it is that a judge may not be held administratively accountable for every erroneous order or decision he renders (Rodrigo vs. Quijano, etc., 79 SCRA 10 [1977]). To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment (See Lopez v. Corpuz, 78 SCRA 374 [1977]; Pilipinas Bank v. Tirona Liwag, 190 SCRA 834 [1990]). The error must be gross or patent, deliberate and malicious, or incurred with evident bad faith (Quizon v. Balthazar, Jr., 65 SCRA 293 [1975])." | |||||
|
2003-07-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence.[34] It imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong.[35] It means breach of a known duty through some motive, interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud.[36] A finding of bad faith entitles the offended party to moral damages. | |||||
|
2000-08-04 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| will that partakes of the nature of fraud.[48] Guerrero honestly relied on the representations of the Radio Control Office and the Office of the President. True, Guerrero borrowed equipment from the Subic Naval Base authorities at zero cost.[49] This does not automatically translate to bad faith. Guerrero was faced with the danger of the cancellation of his contract with Subic Naval Base. He borrowed | |||||