This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The allegation of petitioner that the allegedly contradicting reports of Dr. Cruz were the result of respondents' malice, bad faith and abuse is not supported by him with substantial evidence. It is consistently held that good faith is always presumed and he who alleges the contrary on his opponent has the burden of proving that the latter acted in bad faith, with malice, or with ill motive.[65] Mere allegation is not equivalent to proof.[66] Although strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claims for compensation and disability benefits, the seafarer must still prove his claim with substantial evidence, otherwise, injustice will be done to his employer.[67] Other than petitioner's bare allegations, nothing on record supports his assertion of malice and bad faith. | |||||
|
2008-02-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, San Juan's subsequent acts of threatening respondents should not remain among those treated with impunity. Under Article 19[31] of the Civil Code, an act constitutes an abuse of right if the following elements are present: (a) the existence of a legal right or duty; (b) which is exercised in bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.[32] Here, while petitioners had the right to withhold delivery, the high-handed and oppressive acts of petitioners, as aptly found by the two courts below, had no legal leg to stand on. We need not weigh the corresponding pieces of evidence all over again because factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the appellate court, are binding and conclusive and will not be disturbed on appeal.[33] | |||||
|
2007-04-04 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Petitioner may have suffered damages as a result of the filing of the complaints. However, there is a material distinction between damages and injury. Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt or harm which results from the injury; and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. In such cases, the consequences must be borne by the injured person alone; the law affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act which does not amount to a legal injury or wrong. These situations are often called damnum absque injuria.[121] Whatever damages Diaz may have suffered would have to be borne by him alone since it was his acts which led to the filing of the complaints against him. | |||||