Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROMEO RANOLA v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 164648 2008-08-06	ERIC L. LEE v. HENRY J. TROCINO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
On January 3, 2001, the trial court issued an Order[21] directing the Manila Golf and Country Club, Inc., under pain of contempt, to comply with the court's Orders dated October 4, 2000 and December 20, 2000 ordering the Corporate Secretary thereof to cancel Stock Certificate No. 2395 in the name of Lee and to transfer the same in the name of Sylvia Ting, who appears to be the successful bidder in the execution sale of said Manila Golf share.
	GR NO. 138939 2006-12-06	MR. v. ISABEL LEONEN GARCIA, J.
We are, however, with the petitioners in their challenge as regards the trial court's award of moral damages, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, as affirmed by the CA. As it is, the trial court erred in this respect, as it did not disclose in the body of its decision the factual basis for such awards. Whenever such awards are made, the court must explicitly state in the body of its decision, and not merely in its dispositive portion, the legal reason for the award.[11] Here, the trial court made the award only in the dispositive portion of its decision without stating the basis therefor in the body thereof. The power of courts to grant damages and attorney's fees demands factual, legal and equitable justification; its basis cannot be left to speculation or conjecture.[12]
	GR NO. 144320 2006-04-26	NATIVIDAD ARIAGA VDA. DE GURREA v. ENRIQUE SUPLICO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to petitioners' entitlement to other forms of damages, while the complaint filed by herein petitioners with the trial court contains a general prayer for the grant of other reliefs, the rule is that evidence should be taken of the damages claimed and the court should determine who are the persons entitled to such indemnity.[26] The power of the courts to grant damages and attorney's fees demands factual, legal and equitable justification; its basis cannot be left to speculation or conjecture.[27] In the present case, no allegation, much less, evidence was presented by petitioners to prove that they are entitled to damages.