This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Respondents contend that the assailed notice and letter are not subject to review by this court, whose power to review is "limited only to final decisions, rulings and orders of the COMELEC En Banc rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial power."[23] Instead, respondents claim that the assailed notice and letter are reviewable only by COMELEC itself pursuant to Article IX-C, Section 2(3) of the Constitution[24] on COMELEC's power to decide all questions affecting elections.[25] Respondents invoke the cases of Ambil, Jr. v. COMELEC,[26] Repol v. COMELEC,[27] Soriano, Jr. v. COMELEC,[28] Blanco v. COMELEC,[29] and Cayetano v. COMELEC,[30] to illustrate how judicial intervention is limited to final decisions, orders, rulings and judgments of the COMELEC En Banc.[31] | |||||
|
2012-10-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Since respondent Go is entitled to temperate damages, then the court may also award exemplary damages in his favor.[15] Indeed, exemplary damages are in order because petitioner and Rainbow Tours, through their respective employees, acted in bad faith by not informing respondents Lao Lim and Go of the erroneous cancellation of their bookings on the PR300 flight on February 26, 1991. Both the trial and appellate courts are correct in their interpretation that Ms. Mancao, petitioner's employee, and Rainbow Tours' Ms. Dingal acted in concert in not telling respondents Lao Lim and Go of the problems regarding their bookings. Ms. Mancao in effect reinforced and agreed to Ms. Dingal's decision not to tell respondents Lao Lim and Go, by telling Ms. Dingal that "if you tell the passengers, it might just create further problems."[16] | |||||