This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-08-07 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Court upholds the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts with respect to petitioners' liability for breach of their contract with respondent. Questions of facts are beyond the pale of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court as a petition for review may only raise questions of law.[23] Moreover, factual findings of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally binding on this Court.[24] More so, as in this case, where petitioners have failed to show that the courts below overlooked or disregarded certain facts or circumstances of such import as would have altered the outcome of the case.[25] The Court, thus, finds no reason to set aside the lower courts' factual findings. | |||||
|
2004-06-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Q: We know that it is impossible to put money terms(s) [on] the life of [a] human, but since you are now in court and if you were to ask this court how much would you and your family compensate? (sic) A: Even if they pay me millions, they cannot remove the anguish of my son (sic).[23] Moral damages are emphatically not intended to enrich a plaintiff at the expense of the defendant. They are awarded to allow the former to obtain means, diversion or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone due to the defendant's culpable action and must, perforce, be proportional to the suffering inflicted.[24] We have previously held as proper an award of P500,000.00 as moral damages to the heirs of a deceased family member who died in a vehicular accident. In our 2002 decision in Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, et al.,[25] we affirmed the award of moral damages of P500,000.00 to the heirs of the victim, a mother, who died from injuries she sustained when a bus driven by an employee of the petitioner hit her. In the case at bar, we likewise affirm the portion of the assailed decision awarding the moral damages. | |||||