This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-08-25 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| More importantly, AMEX did not violate any legal duty to Pantaleon under the circumstances under the principle of damnum absque injuria, or damages without legal wrong, loss without injury.[47] As we held in BPI Express Card v. CA:[48] | |||||
|
2009-08-24 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Under Article 19 of the Civil Code, every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. To find the existence of abuse of right under the said article, the following elements must be present: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.[31] Accordingly, the exercise of a right shall always be in accordance with the purpose for which it has been established, and must not be excessive or unduly harsh--there must be no intention to injure another.[32] A person will be protected only when he acts in the legitimate exercise of his right, that is, when he acts with prudence and in good faith, not when he acts with negligence or abuse.[33] | |||||
|
2007-03-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is settled that in order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries of which he complains, he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff � a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal responsibility by the person causing it. The underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the premise that an individual was injured in contemplation of law; thus there must first be a breach before damages may be awarded and the breach of such duty should be the proximate cause of the injury.[57] | |||||
|
2005-07-29 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In other words, in order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries of which he complains, he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal responsibility by the person causing it. The underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the premise that the individual was injured in contemplation of law. Thus, there must first be a breach of some duty and the imposition of liability for that breach before damages may be awarded; and the breach of such duty should be the proximate cause of the injury.[17] | |||||
|
2004-09-09 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In the sphere of our law on human relations, the victim of a wrongful act or omission, whether done willfully or negligently, is not left without any remedy or recourse to obtain relief for the damage or injury he sustained. Incorporated into our civil law are not only principles of equity but also universal moral precepts which are designed to indicate certain norms that spring from the fountain of good conscience and which are meant to serve as guides for human conduct.[13] First of these fundamental precepts is the principle commonly known as "abuse of rights" under Article 19 of the Civil Code. It provides that "Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith." To find the existence of an abuse of right, the following elements must be present: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent or prejudicing or injuring another.[14] When a right is exercised in a manner which discards these norms resulting in damage to another, a legal wrong is committed for which the actor can be held accountable.[15] One is not allowed to exercise his right in a manner which would cause unnecessary prejudice to another or if he would thereby offend morals or good customs. Thus, a person should be protected only when he acts in the legitimate exercise of his right, that is when he acts with prudence and good faith; but not when he acts with negligence or abuse.[16] | |||||