GF Equity v Valenzona
Every person must, in the exercise of his
rights and the performance of his duties, act
with justice, give every man his due, and
observe honesty and good faith. (Art 19 of
the CC)
GF Equity while holding a right to
terminate its employees, pursuant to manage
prerogative, exercised the same arbitrarily. It
negligently failed to provide any legal basis
to justify the dismissal of Valenzona and
therefore entitles the latter compensation.
The contract which the purported right was
based upon was void, in that the contract’s
validly was left solely and exclusively to the
discretion of GF Equity.
CEBU COUNTRY CLUB v. RICARDO
F. ELIZAGAQUE, GR No. 160273, 2008-
01-18
Article 2219 of the NCC states in
essence that moral damages may be
recovered in acts and actions referred to in
Article 21. Art 21 provides in part that any
person who willfully causes injury to others
in manner that is contrary to M, GC, or PP
shall compensate the latter for damages.
In this case, although the board of
CCCI has the right to approve or disprove
any application for proprietary membership,
but the same should not be exercised
arbitrarily. Here, the SC was convinced that
the respondent suffered mental anguish,
social humiliation and wounded feelings
because of the arbitrary denial of his
application.
However, the SC court held that the
damages awarded are excessive and decided
to reduce it. In awarding damages, there is
no hard-and-fast rule. To be fair and
reasonable amount, the award of damages
should not be palpable and scandalously
excessive.
Further, the principle of damnum
absque injuria or damage without injury
does not apply when there is an abuse of a
person's right such as in this case.
NALA V CABANSAG
In order to be liable for damages under the
abuse of rights principle, the following
requisites must concur: (a) the existence of a
legal right or duty; (b) which is exercised in
bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent of
prejudicing or injuring another.
There is nothing on record which
will prove that Nala and her counsel, Atty.
Del Prado, acted in bad faith or malice in
sending the demand letters to respondent.
There was ground for Nala's actions since
she believed that the property was owned by
her husband Eulogio Duyan and that
respondent was illegally occupying the
same.
It may be true that respondent
suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety and
sleepless nights when he received the
demand letters; however, there is a material
distinction between damages and injury.
Injury is the legal invasion of a legal
right while damage is the hurt, loss or harms
which results from the injury. Thus, there
can be damage without injury in those
instances in which the loss or harm was not
the result of a violation of a legal duty. In
such cases, the consequences must be borne
by the injured person alone; the law affords
no remedy for damages resulting from an act
which does not amount to a legal injury or
wrong. These situations are often called
damnum absque injuria.
One who makes use of his own legal
right does no injury. Thus, whatever
damages are suffered by respondent should
be borne solely by him.
AMONOY v GUTIERREZ
Upon buying some lots and getting a writ of
possession to them, man proceeds to obtain
demolition orders and demolish the houses.
Houseowners say wait a minute, go up to the
SC for a TRO, but upon granting their house
was gone. Court said this was abuse of
rights, insisting on demolition even though
there was a case for a TRO.
UAE v JADER
Man learns that he failed a removal exam
after graduation and before reviewing for the
bar. He even quit his job to review for the
bar, so after he sued the law school. Court
said he is entitled to recover damages for
abuse of rights, it is the duty of the school to
inform students and not wait for the latter to
inquire.
CARPIO v VALMONTE
Legal duty, exercised in bad faith, sole
intent of prejudicing another. Wedding
planner gets called out by bride's aunt for
being a thief, stealing her bling. Turns out
she's not, but the damage is done and she's
been searched multiple times and gotten her
reputation scarred. No public apology from
auntzilla, she goes to court and wins,
because auntzilla had no iota of proof that
she stole anything and yet she insisted, thus
she had no other purpose in mind but to
prejudice our wedding planner. Abuse of
rights, Art. 21.
GARCIA v SALVADOR
A violation of Art. 20 against a clinical
laboratory who tested somebody as positive
for Hepa B, who wasn't, causing her to lose
her job and her father to have a heart attack.
Court said clinics have a statutory duty to
observe the care which a reasonably prudent
health care provider would observe.
INIEGO v PURGANAN
Fault or negligence, which the Court of
Appeals claims is not capable of pecuniary
estimation, is not actionable by itself. For
such fault or negligence to be actionable,
there must be a resulting damage to a third
person. The relief available to the offended
party in such cases is for the reparation,
restitution, or payment of such damage,
without which any alleged offended party
has no cause of action or relief. The fault or
negligence of the defendant, therefore, is
inextricably intertwined with the claim for
damages, and there can be no action based
on quasi-delict without a claim for damages.
We therefore rule that the subject matter of
actions for damages based on quasi-delict is
capable of pecuniary estimation.
SINGSON v BPI
The judgment appealed from is reversed
holding defendant BPI to pay to the
plaintiffs nominal damages, and attorney's
fees, apart from the costs.
The SC have repeatedly held that the
existence of a contract between the parties
does not bar the commission of a tort by the
one against the order and the consequent
recovery of damages therefore.
In view, of the facts obtaining in the case at
bar, and considering, particularly, the
circumstance, that the wrong done to the
plaintiff was remedied as soon as the
President of the bank realized the mistake
they had committed, the Court finds that an
award of nominal damages the amount of
which need not be proven in the sum of
P1,000, in addition to attorney's fees in the
sum of P500, would suffice to vindicate
plaintiff's rights.
UP v PHILAB
Unjust enrichment claims do not lie simply
because one party benefits from the efforts
or obligations of others, but instead it must
be shown that a party was unjustly enriched
in the sense that the term unjustly could
mean illegally or unlawfully. Moreover, to
substantiate a claim for unjust enrichment,
the claimant must unequivocally prove that
another party knowingly received something
of value to which he was not entitled and
that the state of affairs are such that it would
be unjust for the person to keep the benefit.
Unjust enrichment is a term used to depict
result or effect of failure to make
remuneration of or for property or benefits
received under circumstances that give rise
to legal or equitable obligation to account
for them; to be entitled to remuneration, one
must confer benefit by mistake, fraud,
coercion, or request. Unjust enrichment is
not itself a theory of recovery. Rather, it is a
prerequisite for the enforcement of the
doctrine of restitution.
Article 22 of the New Civil Code reads:
Every person who, through an act of
performance by another, or any other means,
acquires or comes into possession of
something at the expense of the latter
without just or legal ground, shall return the
same to him.
In order that accion in rem verso may
prosper, the essential elements must be
present: (1) that the defendant has been
enriched, (2) that the plaintiff has suffered a
loss, (3) that the enrichment of the defendant
is without just or legal ground, and (4) that
the plaintiff has no other action based on
contract, quasi-contract, crime or quasi-
delict.
An accion in rem verso is considered merely
an auxiliary action, available only when
there is no other remedy on contract, quasi-
contract, crime, and quasi-delict. If there is
an obtainable action under any other
institution of positive law, that action must
be resorted to, and the principle of accion in
rem verso will not lie. The essential
requisites for the application of Article 22 of
the New Civil Code do not obtain in this
case. The respondent had a remedy against
the FEMF via an action based on an
implied-in-fact contract with the FEMF for
the payment of its claim. The petitioner
legally acquired the laboratory furniture
under the MOA with FEMF; hence, it is
entitled to keep the laboratory furniture.