Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. SPS. TEODULFO AND CARMEN ARRIETA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 167017 2009-06-22	SERAFIN CHENG v. SPS. VITTORIO AND MA. HELEN DONINI CORONA, J.
Petitioner is entitled to moral damages but not in the amount of P500,000 awarded by the RTC, which the Court finds to be excessive. While trial courts are given discretion to determine the amount of moral damages, it "should not be palpably and scandalously excessive."[48] Moral damages are not meant to enrich a person at the expense of the other but are awarded only to allow the former to obtain means, diversion or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone due to the other person's culpable action.[49] It must always reasonably approximate the extent of injury and be proportional to the wrong committed.[50] The award of P100,000 as moral damages is sufficient and reasonable under the circumstances.
	GR No. 178537 2008-02-11	SPS. RAFAEL P. ESTANISLAO AND ZENAIDA ESTANISLAO v. EAST WEST BANKING CORPORATION YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
With its years of banking experience, resources and manpower, respondent bank is presumed to be familiar with the implications of entering into the deed of assignment, whose terms are categorical and left nothing for interpretation. The alleged non-inclusion in the deed of certain units of heavy equipment due to inadvertence, plain oversight or mistake, is tantamount to inexcusable manifest negligence, which should not invalidate the juridical tie that was created.[10] Respondent is presumed to have maintained a high level of meticulousness in its dealings with petitioners. The business of a bank is affected with public interest; thus, it makes a sworn profession of diligence and meticulousness in giving irreproachable service.[11]
	GR NO. 152769 2007-02-14	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. MA. VICTORIA JOSE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to exemplary damages, the purpose in holding a defendant liable for it is deterrence.[33] Meralco must curb its callousness toward its customers and its inattention to its duty of keeping its facilities and equipment well maintained. We hold it liable for exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00.
	GR No. 136371 2005-11-11	PRUDENTIAL BANK v. CHONNEY LIM TINGA, J.
Furthermore, we sustain the award of exemplary damages. Such damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.[23] The business of a bank is affected with public interest; thus, it makes a sworn profession of diligence and meticulousness in giving irreproachable service. For this reason, the bank should guard against injury attributable to negligence or bad faith on its part. The banking sector must at all times maintain a high level of meticulousness.[24] In view of the bank's negligence to record the deposit, the grant of exemplary damages is thus justified.
	GR NO. 153784 2005-10-25	ROMEO C. CADIZ v. CA TINGA, J.
Moreover, it would simply be temerarious for the Court to sanction the reinstatement of bank employees who have clearly engaged in anomalous banking practices. The particular fiduciary responsibilities reposed on banks and its employees cannot be emphasized enough. The fiduciary nature of banking[22] is enshrined in Republic Act No. 8791 or the General Banking Law of 2000. Section 2 of the law specifically says that the State recognizes the "fiduciary nature of banking that requires high standards of integrity and performance."[23] The bank must not only exercise "high standards of integrity and performance," it must also ensure that its employees do likewise because this is the only way to ensure that the bank will comply with its fiduciary duty.[24]
	GR NO. 158674 2005-10-17	LAPRECIOSISIMA CAGUNGUN v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The law allows the grant of exemplary damages to set an example for the public good.[23] 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. 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.[24] For this reason, banks should guard against injury attributable to negligence or bad faith on its part.[25] The award of exemplary damages is warranted by the failure of respondent bank to prevent the unauthorized withdrawals from petitioners' deposits and its failure to properly apply the latter's deposits to their loan. We, however, find the P300,000.00 awarded by the lower court to be excessive and should accordingly be reduced to P50,000.00.
	GR NO. 145441 2005-04-26	PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK v. SPS. RODOLFO C. MAÑALAC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Nevertheless, we find the award of P200,000.00 excessive and unconscionable. As we said, moral damages are not intended to enrich the complainant at the expense of the defendant. Rather, these are awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain "means, diversions or amusements" that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering that resulted by reason of the defendant's culpable action. The purpose of such damages is essentially indemnity or reparation, not punishment or correction. In other words, the award thereof is aimed at a restoration within the limits of the possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; therefore, it must always reasonably approximate the extent of injury and be proportional to the wrong committed.[34] The award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is reasonable under the circumstances.[35]