This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-09-08 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| A review of similar jurisprudence would tell us that this Court had repeatedly recognized this distinction and awarded interest at a rate of 6% on actual or compensatory damages arising from a breach not only of construction contracts,[28] such as the one subject of this case, but also of contracts wherein one of the parties reneged on its obligation to perform messengerial services,[29] deliver certain quantities of molasses,[30] undertake the reforestation of a denuded forest land,[31] as well as breaches of contracts of carriage,[32] and trucking agreements.[33] We have explained therein that the reason behind such is that said contracts do not partake of loans or forbearance of money but are more in the nature of contracts of service. | |||||
|
2009-10-09 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The Court finds the appellate court's award of P200,000 as exemplary damages excessive, however. Exemplary damages are imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish another but to serve as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions.[24] The Court finds that P100,000 is reasonable in this case. | |||||
|
2009-06-22 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The award of P100,000 as exemplary damages is likewise excessive. Exemplary damages are imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish another but to serve as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions.[51] We think P50,000 is reasonable in this case. | |||||