Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALBERTA YOBIDO v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 178008 2013-10-09	SAN FERNANDO REGALA TRADING v. CARGILL PHILIPPINES ABAD, J.
Three. The Court concurs with the CA's deletion of the RTC's award of moral damages to San Fernando. As a rule, moral damages are not awarded to a corporation unless it enjoyed good reputation that the offender debased and besmirched by his actuations.[13] San Fernando failed to prove by sufficient evidence that it fell within this exception. Besides, moral damages are, as a rule, also not recoverable in culpa contractual except when bad faith had been proved.[14] San Fernando failed to show that Cargill was motivated by bad faith or ill will when it failed to deliver the molasses as agreed.
	GR NO. 147746 2005-10-25	PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS v. SPS. GAUDENCIO SARANGAYA III AND PRIMITIVA B. SARANGAYA CORONA, J.
The exempting circumstance of caso fortuito may be availed only when: (a) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence was independent of the human will; (b) it was impossible to foresee the event which constituted the caso fortuito or, if it could be foreseen, it was impossible to avoid; (c) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible to perform an obligation in a normal manner and (d) the person tasked to perform the obligation must not have participated in any course of conduct that aggravated the accident.[20]
	GR NO. 153201 2005-01-26	JOSE MENCHAVEZ v. FLORENTINO TEVES JR. PANGANIBAN, J.
The issue of whether respondent was at fault or whether the parties were in pari delicto is a question of fact not normally taken up in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[29] The present case, however, falls under two recognized exceptions to this rule.[30] This Court is compelled to review the facts, since the CA's factual findings are (1) contrary to those of the trial court;[31] and (2) premised on an absence of evidence, a presumption that is contradicted by the evidence on record.[32]
	GR No. 159636 2004-11-25	VICTORY LINER v. ROSALITO GAMMAD YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Anent the award of moral damages, the same cannot be lumped with exemplary damages because they are based on different jural foundations.[45] These damages are different in nature and require separate determination.[46] In culpa contractual or breach of contract, moral damages may be recovered when the defendant acted in bad faith or was guilty of gross negligence (amounting to bad faith) or in wanton disregard of contractual obligations and, as in this case, when the act of breach of contract itself constitutes the tort that results in physical injuries. By special rule in Article 1764 in relation to Article 2206 of the Civil Code, moral damages may also be awarded in case the death of a passenger results from a breach of carriage.[47] On the other hand, exemplary damages, which are awarded by way of example or correction for the public good may be recovered in contractual obligations if the defendant acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.[48]
	GR No. 147349 2004-02-13	MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. ALA INDUSTRIES CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
"x x x (a) [T]he cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligations, must be independent of human will; (b) it must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid; (c) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor."[27] None of these elements appears in this case.
	GR No. 127957 2001-02-21	COLLIN A. MORRIS v. CA PARDO, J.
"In awarding moral damages for breach of contract of carriage, the breach must be wanton and deliberately injurious or the one responsible acted fraudulently or with malice or bad faith."[17] "Where in breaching the contract of carriage the defendant airline is not shown to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith, liability for damages is limited to the natural and probable consequences of the breach of obligation which the parties had foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen. In that case, such liability does not include moral and exemplary damages."[18] "Moral damages are generally not recoverable in culpa contractual except when bad faith had been proven. However, the same damages may be recovered when breach of contract of carriage results in the death of a passenger."[19]
	GR No. 122950 2000-11-20	ESTATE OF LATE MENA BOLANOS v. CA PARDO, J.
The issue raised is factual. We may not review the appellate court's findings of fact in an appeal via certiorari.[5] The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals supported by substantial evidence are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court,[6] unless the case falls under any of the exceptions to the rule,[7] such as diverse factual findings of the lower courts[8] or the findings are entirely grounded on speculations.[9] Petitioners failed to prove that the case falls within the exceptions.[10]