This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-09-25 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| As correctly pointed out by the Inocencios, tortious interference has the following elements: (1) existence of a valid contract; (2) knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of the contract; and (3) interference of the third person without legal justification or excuse.[41] | |||||
|
2010-05-04 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Malice connotes ill will or spite, and speaks not in response to duty. It implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad motive.[55] In the case of Lagon v. Court of Appeals,[56] we held that to sustain a case for tortuous interference, the defendant must have acted with malice or must have been driven by purely impure reasons to injure the plaintiff; in other words, his act of interference cannot be justified. We further explained that the word "induce" refers to situations where a person causes another to choose one course of conduct by persuasion or intimidation. As to the allegation of private respondent in said case that petitioner induced the heirs of the late Bai Tonina Sepi to sell the property to petitioner despite an alleged renewal of the original lease contract with the deceased landowner, we ruled as follows: Assuming ex gratia argumenti that petitioner knew of the contract, such knowledge alone was not sufficient to make him liable for tortuous interference. x x x | |||||