Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GERARDO F. SAMSON JR. v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 164703 2010-05-04	ALLAN C. GO v. MORTIMER F. CORDERO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Moral damages are meant to compensate and alleviate the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injuries unjustly caused. Although incapable of pecuniary estimation, the amount must somehow be proportional to and in approximation of the suffering inflicted. Moral damages are not punitive in nature and were never intended to enrich the claimant at the expense of the defendant. There is no hard-and-fast rule in determining what would be a fair and reasonable amount of moral damages, since each case must be governed by its own peculiar facts. Trial courts are given discretion in determining the amount, with the limitation that it "should not be palpably and scandalously excessive." Indeed, it must be commensurate to the loss or injury suffered.[71]
	GR Nos. 140743 & 140745 2009-09-17	CITY GOVERNMENT OF TAGAYTAY v. ELEUTERIO F. GUERRERO NACHURA, J.
The social standing of the aggrieved party is essential to the determination of the proper amount of the award. Otherwise, the goal of enabling him to obtain means, diversions, or amusements to restore him to the status quo ante would not be achieved.[61]
	GR No. 155033 2007-12-19	ALICE A.I. SANDEJAS v. SPS. ARTURO IGNACIO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
There is no hard-and-fast rule in the determination of what would be a fair amount of moral damages since each case must be governed by its own peculiar facts.[38] The yardstick should be that it is not palpably and scandalously excessive.[39] Moreover, the social standing of the aggrieved party is essential to the determination of the proper amount of the award.[40] Otherwise, the goal of enabling him to obtain means, diversions, or amusements to restore him to the status quo ante would not be achieved.[41] In the present case, the Court finds no cogent reason to modify the amount of moral damages granted by the CA.
	GR No. 156037 2007-05-25	MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION v. SEBASTIAN M. BAKING SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
There is no hard-and-fast rule in determining what would be a fair and reasonable amount of moral damages, since each case must be governed by its own peculiar facts. However, it must be commensurate to the loss or injury suffered.[8] Taking into consideration the attending circumstances here, we are convinced that the amount awarded by the trial court is exorbitant. Thus, we reduce the amount of moral damages from P250,000.00 to P50,000.00 only.
	GR No. 136371 2005-11-11	PRUDENTIAL BANK v. CHONNEY LIM TINGA, J.
Needless to say, the bank's wrongful act caused injury to respondent. Credit is very important to businessmen, and its loss or impairment needs to be recognized and compensated.[21] This Court in Leopoldo Araneta v. Bank of America[22] highlights the importance of good credit in the business community:The financial credit of a businessman is a prized and valuable asset, it being a significant part of the foundation of his business. Any adverse reflection thereon constitutes some material loss to him. As stated in the case Atlanta National Bank vs. Davis, supra, citing 2 Morse Banks, Sec. 458, "it can hardly be possible that a customer's check can be wrongfully refused payment without some impeachment of his credit, which must in fact be an actual injury, though he cannot, from the nature of the case, furnish independent, distinct proof thereof."
	GR NO. 158674 2005-10-17	LAPRECIOSISIMA CAGUNGUN v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Settled is the rule that gross negligence of a bank in the handling of its client's deposit amounts to bad faith that calls for an award of moral damages. Moral damages are meant to compensate the claimant for any physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injuries unjustly caused.[15]
	GR NO. 145441 2005-04-26	PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK v. SPS. RODOLFO C. MAÑALAC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Moral damages are meant to compensate the claimant for any physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injuries unjustly caused. Although incapable of pecuniary estimation, the amount must somehow be proportional to and in approximation of the suffering inflicted. Moral damages are not punitive in nature and were never intended to enrich the claimant at the expense of the defendant. There is no hard-and-fast rule in determining what would be a fair and reasonable amount of moral damages, since each case must be governed by its own peculiar facts. Trial courts are given discretion in determining the amount, with the limitation that it "should not be palpably and scandalously excessive." Indeed, it must be commensurate to the loss or injury suffered.[32]
	GR No. 137147 AND GR No. 137148 2003-11-18	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CARLOS LEOBRERA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Moral damages are meant to compensate the claimant for any physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injuries unjustly caused. Although incapable of pecuniary estimation, the amount must somehow be proportional to and in approximation of the suffering inflicted. Moral damages are not punitive in nature and were never intended to enrich the claimant at the expense of the defendant. Trial courts are given discretion in determining the amount, with the limitation that it "should not be palpably and scandalously excessive."[15] Considering the amount of the loss suffered by respondent, the amount of P500,000.00 as moral damages is reasonable.