Lawyerly

GR No. 171590

2014-02-12

BIGNAY EX-IM PHILIPPINES v. UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The record reveals, however, that Union Bank was grossly negligent in the handling and prosecution of Civil Case No. Q-52702. Its appeal of the December 12, 1991 Decision in said case was dismissed by the CA for failure to file the required appellant's brief. Next, the ensuing Petition for Review on Certiorari filed with this Court was likewise denied due to late filing and payment of legal fees. Finally, the bank sought the annulment of the December 12, 1991 judgment, yet again, the CA dismissed the petition for its failure to comply with Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91. As a result, the December 12, 1991 Decision became final and executory, and Bignay was evicted from the property. Such negligence in the handling of the case is far from coincidental; it is decidedly glaring, and amounts to bad faith. "[N]egligence may be occasionally so gross as to amount to malice [or bad faith]."[38] Indeed, in culpa contractual or breach of contract, gross negligence of a party amounting to bad faith is a ground for the recovery of damages by the injured party.[39]

GR No. 181368

2012-02-22

GEORGE S. TOLENTINO v. PACIFICO S. LAUREL

PERALTA, J.

As a final note, the Court finds no factual and legal basis for the award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses. The settled rule is that the matter of attorney's fees cannot be mentioned only in the dispositive portion of the decision. The same goes for the award of litigation expenses.[26] The reasons or grounds for the award thereof must be set forth in the decision of the court.[27] The discretion of the court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal, and equitable justification, without which the award is a conclusion without a premise, its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture.[28]

GR No. 188412

2010-11-22

CITIBANK v. ATTY. ERNESTO S. DINOPOL

MENDOZA, J.

The award of moral damages should be granted in reasonable amounts depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.[10] Moral damages are meant to compensate the claimant for any physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injuries unjustly caused.[11]

GR No. 167017

2009-06-22

SERAFIN CHENG v. SPS. VITTORIO AND MA. HELEN DONINI

CORONA, J.

Finally, Article 2208 of the Civil Code allows recovery of attorney's fees when exemplary damages are awarded or when the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest.[52] Petitioner is entitled to it since exemplary damages were awarded in this case and respondents' act in filing Civil Case No. 60769 compelled him to litigate. The amount of P25,000 is in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.[53]

GR No. 174205

2008-06-27

GONZALO A. ARANETA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As to the award of damages, the victim is entitled to moral damages, having suffered undue embarrassment when petitioner forcibly hugged her and threatened to kill her if she would not accept petitioner's love. There is no hard-and-fast rule in the determination of what would be a fair amount of moral damages, since each case must be governed by its own peculiar facts. [27] The yardstick should be that it is not palpably and scandalously excessive.[28] The Court finds that the award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is reasonable under the facts obtaining in this case.

GR No. 155033

2007-12-19

ALICE A.I. SANDEJAS v. SPS. ARTURO IGNACIO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As to moral damages, Article 20 of the Civil Code provides that every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. In addition, Article 2219 (10) of the Civil Code provides that moral damages may be recovered in acts or actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 35 of the same Code. More particularly, Article 21 of the said Code provides that any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. In the present case, the act of Alice and Rosita in fraudulently encashing the subject check to the prejudice of respondents is certainly a violation of law as well as of the public policy that no one should put the law into his own hands. As to SBTC and its officers, their negligence is so gross as to amount to a willfull injury to respondents. The banking system has become an indispensable institution in the modern world and plays a vital role in the economic life of every civilized society.[35] Whether as mere passive entities for the safe-keeping and saving of money or as active instruments of business and commerce, banks have attained a ubiquitous presence among the people, who have come to regard them with respect and even gratitude and most of all, confidence.[36] For this reason, banks should guard against injury attributable to negligence or bad faith on its part.[37]

GR No. 156037

2007-05-25

MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION v. SEBASTIAN M. BAKING

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

On the matter of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, it is settled that the reasons or grounds for the award thereof must be set forth in the decision of the court.[9] Since the trial court's decision did not give the basis of the award, the same must be deleted. In Vibram Manufacturing Corporation v. Manila Electric Company,[10] we held:Likewise, the award for attorney's fees and litigation expenses should be deleted. Well-enshrined is that "an award for attorney's fees must be stated in the text of the courtï¿½s decision and not in the dispositive portion only" (Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation (Solidbank) v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 193 [1995] and Keng Hua Paper Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 257 [1998]). This is also true with the litigation expenses where the body of the decision discussed nothing for its basis.

GR NO. 152769

2007-02-14

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. MA. VICTORIA JOSE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Coming now to the issue on damages, Meralco's gross negligence in the performance of the maintenance of its devices and equipment and its arbitrary issuance of a differential billing to Victoria brought upon the latter much anxiety and aggravation.[29] It should therefore be liable to her for moral damages. It should also be liable for exemplary damages to curb similar arbitrary practices.[30]

GR NO. 152948

2006-09-27

ALMEDA DEVELOPMENT v. METRO MOTORS SALES INC.

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]

GR NO. 156207

2006-09-15

EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. ROWENA ONG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission.[33] The requisites for an award of moral damages are well-defined, thus, firstly, evidence of besmirched reputation or physical, mental or psychological suffering sustained by the claimant; secondly, a culpable act or omission factually established; thirdly, proof that the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the damages sustained by the claimant; and fourthly, that the case is predicated on any of the instances expressed or envisioned by Article 2219[34] and Article 2220[35] of the Civil Code. All these elements are present in the instant case.[36]

GR NO. 159467

2005-12-09

SPS. NORA SAGUID AND ROLANDO P. SAGUID v. SECURITY FINANCE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Petitioners are entitled to moral damages having suffered undue embarrassment when the subject vehicle was seized from their home. There is no hard-and-fast rule in the determination of what would be a fair amount of moral damages since each case must be governed by its own peculiar facts. The yardstick should be that it is not palpably and scandalously excessive.[50] We find the amount of P500,000.00 awarded by the lower court to be excessive. In our view, the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is reasonable under the facts obtaining in this case.

	GR No. 171590 2014-02-12	BIGNAY EX-IM PHILIPPINES v. UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES DEL CASTILLO, J.
The record reveals, however, that Union Bank was grossly negligent in the handling and prosecution of Civil Case No. Q-52702. Its appeal of the December 12, 1991 Decision in said case was dismissed by the CA for failure to file the required appellant's brief. Next, the ensuing Petition for Review on Certiorari filed with this Court was likewise denied due to late filing and payment of legal fees. Finally, the bank sought the annulment of the December 12, 1991 judgment, yet again, the CA dismissed the petition for its failure to comply with Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91. As a result, the December 12, 1991 Decision became final and executory, and Bignay was evicted from the property. Such negligence in the handling of the case is far from coincidental; it is decidedly glaring, and amounts to bad faith. "[N]egligence may be occasionally so gross as to amount to malice [or bad faith]."[38] Indeed, in culpa contractual or breach of contract, gross negligence of a party amounting to bad faith is a ground for the recovery of damages by the injured party.[39]
	GR No. 181368 2012-02-22	GEORGE S. TOLENTINO v. PACIFICO S. LAUREL PERALTA, J.
As a final note, the Court finds no factual and legal basis for the award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses. The settled rule is that the matter of attorney's fees cannot be mentioned only in the dispositive portion of the decision. The same goes for the award of litigation expenses.[26] The reasons or grounds for the award thereof must be set forth in the decision of the court.[27] The discretion of the court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal, and equitable justification, without which the award is a conclusion without a premise, its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture.[28]
	GR No. 188412 2010-11-22	CITIBANK v. ATTY. ERNESTO S. DINOPOL MENDOZA, J.
The award of moral damages should be granted in reasonable amounts depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.[10] Moral damages are meant to compensate the claimant for any physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injuries unjustly caused.[11]
	GR No. 167017 2009-06-22	SERAFIN CHENG v. SPS. VITTORIO AND MA. HELEN DONINI CORONA, J.
Finally, Article 2208 of the Civil Code allows recovery of attorney's fees when exemplary damages are awarded or when the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest.[52] Petitioner is entitled to it since exemplary damages were awarded in this case and respondents' act in filing Civil Case No. 60769 compelled him to litigate. The amount of P25,000 is in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.[53]
	GR No. 174205 2008-06-27	GONZALO A. ARANETA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As to the award of damages, the victim is entitled to moral damages, having suffered undue embarrassment when petitioner forcibly hugged her and threatened to kill her if she would not accept petitioner's love. There is no hard-and-fast rule in the determination of what would be a fair amount of moral damages, since each case must be governed by its own peculiar facts. [27] The yardstick should be that it is not palpably and scandalously excessive.[28] The Court finds that the award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is reasonable under the facts obtaining in this case.
	GR No. 155033 2007-12-19	ALICE A.I. SANDEJAS v. SPS. ARTURO IGNACIO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to moral damages, Article 20 of the Civil Code provides that every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. In addition, Article 2219 (10) of the Civil Code provides that moral damages may be recovered in acts or actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 35 of the same Code. More particularly, Article 21 of the said Code provides that any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. In the present case, the act of Alice and Rosita in fraudulently encashing the subject check to the prejudice of respondents is certainly a violation of law as well as of the public policy that no one should put the law into his own hands. As to SBTC and its officers, their negligence is so gross as to amount to a willfull injury to respondents. The banking system has become an indispensable institution in the modern world and plays a vital role in the economic life of every civilized society.[35] Whether as mere passive entities for the safe-keeping and saving of money or as active instruments of business and commerce, banks have attained a ubiquitous presence among the people, who have come to regard them with respect and even gratitude and most of all, confidence.[36] For this reason, banks should guard against injury attributable to negligence or bad faith on its part.[37]
	GR No. 156037 2007-05-25	MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION v. SEBASTIAN M. BAKING SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
On the matter of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, it is settled that the reasons or grounds for the award thereof must be set forth in the decision of the court.[9] Since the trial court's decision did not give the basis of the award, the same must be deleted. In Vibram Manufacturing Corporation v. Manila Electric Company,[10] we held:Likewise, the award for attorney's fees and litigation expenses should be deleted. Well-enshrined is that "an award for attorney's fees must be stated in the text of the courtï¿½s decision and not in the dispositive portion only" (Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation (Solidbank) v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 193 [1995] and Keng Hua Paper Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 257 [1998]). This is also true with the litigation expenses where the body of the decision discussed nothing for its basis.
	GR NO. 152769 2007-02-14	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. MA. VICTORIA JOSE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Coming now to the issue on damages, Meralco's gross negligence in the performance of the maintenance of its devices and equipment and its arbitrary issuance of a differential billing to Victoria brought upon the latter much anxiety and aggravation.[29] It should therefore be liable to her for moral damages. It should also be liable for exemplary damages to curb similar arbitrary practices.[30]
	GR NO. 152948 2006-09-27	ALMEDA DEVELOPMENT v. METRO MOTORS SALES INC. 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]
	GR NO. 156207 2006-09-15	EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. ROWENA ONG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission.[33] The requisites for an award of moral damages are well-defined, thus, firstly, evidence of besmirched reputation or physical, mental or psychological suffering sustained by the claimant; secondly, a culpable act or omission factually established; thirdly, proof that the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the damages sustained by the claimant; and fourthly, that the case is predicated on any of the instances expressed or envisioned by Article 2219[34] and Article 2220[35] of the Civil Code. All these elements are present in the instant case.[36]
	GR NO. 159467 2005-12-09	SPS. NORA SAGUID AND ROLANDO P. SAGUID v. SECURITY FINANCE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioners are entitled to moral damages having suffered undue embarrassment when the subject vehicle was seized from their home. There is no hard-and-fast rule in the determination of what would be a fair amount of moral damages since each case must be governed by its own peculiar facts. The yardstick should be that it is not palpably and scandalously excessive.[50] We find the amount of P500,000.00 awarded by the lower court to be excessive. In our view, the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is reasonable under the facts obtaining in this case.

LAPRECIOSISIMA CAGUNGUN v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK