This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-06-27 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The review of labor cases is confined to questions of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.[20] The alleged absence of employer-employee relationship cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[21] The resolution of this issue requires the admission and calibration of evidence and the LA and the NLRC did not pass upon it in their decisions.[22] We cannot permit petitioner to change its theory on appeal. It would be unfair to the adverse party who would have no more opportunity to present further evidence, material to the new theory, which it could have done had it been aware earlier of the new theory before the LA and the NLRC.[23] More so in this case as the supposed employer of respondent which is DFP was not and is not a party to the present case. | |||||
|
2006-08-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Considering that (1) petitioners were unlawfully deprived of their legal participation in the partition of the subject property; (2) this case has dragged on for more than a decade, and (3) undoubtedly, petitioners sustained injury but the exact amount of which, unfortunately, was not proved, we find it reasonable to grant in petitioners' favor nominal damages. Nominal damages is adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated and invaded by defendant, may be vindicated and recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered.[31] Where these are allowed, they are not treated as an equivalent of a wrong but simply in recognition of the existence of a technical injury. The amount to be awarded as such damages should at least be commensurate to the injury sustained by the petitioners considering the concept and purpose of said damages.[32] Such award is given in view of the peculiar circumstances cited and the special reasons extant in the present case;[33] | |||||
|
2003-07-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The airline business is intended to serve the traveling public primarily and is thus imbued with public interest. [27] The law governing common carriers consequently imposes an exacting standard.[28] Thus, in an action based on a breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not have to prove that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent.[29] All that he has to prove is the existence of the contract and the fact of its non-performance by the carrier.[30] | |||||