This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-10-17 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner likewise claims that as a result of the delay in the repair of the Kiln Drive Motor, its production from August 29, 1990 to March 15, 1991 decreased since it had to use its old motor which was not able to produce cement as much as the one under repair;[44] and that every time the said motor was installed and tested, petitioner had to stop its operations; thereby, incurring more production losses.[45] To support its claim, petitioner presented its monthly production reports[46] for the months of April to June 1990 showing that on the average it was able to produce 1040 MT of cement per day. However, the production reports for the months of August 1990 to March 1991 were not presented. Without these production reports, it cannot be determined with reasonable certainty whether petitioner indeed incurred production losses during the said period. It may not be amiss to say that competent proof and a reasonable degree of certainty are needed to justify a grant of actual or compensatory damages; speculations, conjectures, assertions or guesswork are not sufficient.[47] | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Article 32 of the Civil Code provides that moral damages are proper when the rights of individuals, including the right against deprivation of property without due process of law, are violated. Jurisprudence has established the following requisites for the award of moral damages: (1) there is an injury - whether physical, mental, or psychological - clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) there is a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.[48] | |||||
|
2008-02-12 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| It is well-settled that the power to dismiss an employee is a recognized prerogative that is inherent in the employer's right to freely manage and regulate his business. An employer cannot be expected to retain an employee whose lack of morals, respect and loyalty to his employer or regard for his employer's rules and appreciation of the dignity and responsibility of his office has so plainly and completely been bared.[32] Thus, to compel respondent bank to keep petitioners in its employ after the latter have betrayed the confidence given to them would be unjust to respondent bank. The expectation of trust is more so magnified in the instant case in light of the nature of respondent bank's business. The banking industry is imbued with public interest and is mandated by law to serve its clients with extraordinary care and diligence. To be able to fulfill this duty, it in turn must rely on the honesty and loyalty of its employees.[33] | |||||
|
2002-04-03 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Case law establishes the following requisites for the award of moral damages: (1) there is an injury -- whether physical, mental or psychological -- clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) there is a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.[38] | |||||