Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSE S. OROSA v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 170446 2011-03-23	EDGEWATER REALTY DEVELOPMENT v. METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS ABAD, J.
One. ERDI invokes the provisions of R.A. 8041 as cause for rendering a decision in its favor which would require MWSS and MWCI to disconnect all existing water service on ERDI's property. But fair play dictates that matters, which ERDI did not raise in its complaint, are not allowed to be raised for the first time on appeal.[11] Here, the Court cannot entertain ERDI's new cause of action based on its alleged right under the provisions of R.A. 8041 since it is only in the course of its appeal to the CA that ERDI brought up the matter.
	GR No. 171401 2007-12-13	ADELAIDA AMADO v. RENATO SALVADOR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moral damages may be recovered if they were the proximate result of defendants' wrongful acts or omissions.[51] Two elements are required. First, the act or omission must be the proximate result of the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury. Second, the act must be wrongful.[52] In this case, petitioners were not under any obligation to execute a Deed of Sale or guarantee Salvador's possession of the property. Absent any wrongful act which may be attributed to petitioners, an award of moral damages is inappropriate.
	GR NOS. 166143-47 2006-11-20	ABDUSAKUR M. TAN v. COMELEC VELASCO, JR., J.
In Labor Congress of the Philippines v. NLRC,[60] we have made it clear that "to allow fresh issues on appeal is violative of the rudiments of fair play, justice and due process."[61] Likewise, in Orosa v. Court of Appeals,[62] the Court disallowed it because "it would be offensive to the basic rule of fair play, justice and due process if it considered [the] issue[s] raised for the first time on appeal." We cannot take an opposite stance in the present case.
	GR NO. 140182 2005-04-12	TANAY RECREATION CENTER v. CATALINA MATIENZO FAUSTO+ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
With regard to the claim for exemplary damages, it is a requisite in the grant thereof that the act of the offender must be accompanied by bad faith or done in wanton, fraudulent or malevolent manner.[60] Moreover, where a party is not entitled to actual or moral damages, an award of exemplary damages is likewise baseless.[61] In this case, petitioner failed to show that respondent acted in bad faith, or in wanton, fraudulent or malevolent manner.
	GR NO. 137694 2005-01-17	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. LA CAMPANA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The causes of action, and logically, the issues in the two cases, are crystal clear, very much different, requiring divergent adjudications. In short, while there is identity of parties, there is NO identity of subject matter and cause of action. This being so, different causes of action and circumstances in different cases would make reliance on the doctrine of res judicata misplaced.[31] Res judicata cannot be interposed to bar the determination of a subsequent case if the first and second cases involve different subject matters and seek different reliefs.[32]
	GR No. 150925 2004-05-27	SPS. JAMES TAN AND FLORENCE TAN v. MANDAP QUISUMBING, J.
On the last issue, petitioners contest the award of attorney's fees. Indeed, no premium should be placed on the right to litigate, and not every winning party is entitled to an automatic grant of attorney's fees.[11] The party must show that he falls under one of the instances enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code, to wit:ART. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
	GR No. 142435 2003-04-30	ESTELITA BURGOS LIPAT v. PACIFIC BANKING CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
On the third and final issue, petitioners assail the decision of the Court of Appeals for not taking cognizance of the issue on attorney's fees on the ground that it was raised for the first time on appeal. We find the conclusion of the Court of Appeals to be in accord with settled jurisprudence. Basic is the rule that matters not raised in the complaint cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[35] A close perusal of the complaint yields no allegations disputing the attorney's fees imposed under the real estate mortgage and petitioners cannot now allege that they have impliedly disputed the same when they sought the annulment of the contract.
	GR No. 127957 2001-02-21	COLLIN A. MORRIS v. CA PARDO, J.
As we find petitioners not entitled to moral damages, "an award of exemplary damages is likewise baseless."[23] "Where the award of moral and exemplary damages is eliminated, so must the award for attorney's fees be deleted."[24]