This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-09-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Considering petitioner's wrongful retention of respondents' titles, we affirm the lower courts' award of moral damages in favor of respondents. "The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good faith."[56] "Bad faith is defined in jurisprudence as a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self interest or ill will or for ulterior purpose."[57] Respondents were able to prove that petitioner acted in bad faith in keeping the titles despite its knowledge that there was no bond or real estate mortgage to justify its retention thereof. Petitioner knew that it needed a real estate mortgage to keep the titles, as shown by the fact that its officer even went to respondents' home to try to obtain their signatures to a deed of real estate mortgage (without success).[58] Despite its failure to obtain such bond, petitioner bull-headedly kept the titles. | |||||
|
2006-11-02 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Lastly, petitioner questions the award of moral damages. Moral damages are awarded if the following elements exist in the case: (1) an injury clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) a wrongful act or omission by the defendant as the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award of damages predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.[18] However, the person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good faith. It is not enough that one merely suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish, and serious anxiety as the result of the actuations of the other party. Invariably, such action must be shown to have been willfully done in bad faith or with ill motive.[19] Under the circumstances, we have to concede that petitioner was not motivated by bad faith or ill motive vis-á-vis respondents' daughter's death. The award of moral damages is therefore not proper. | |||||
|
2001-02-28 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| "The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good faith. It is not enough that one merely suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish, serious anxiety as the result of the actuations of the other party. Invariably such action must be shown to have been willfully done in bad faith or with ill motive."[18] "Mere allegations of besmirched reputation, embarrassment and sleepless nights are insufficient to warrant an award for moral damages. It must be shown that the proximate cause thereof was the unlawful act or omission of the [private respondent] petitioners."[19] | |||||