JULIAN SINGSON and RAMONA DEL CASTILLO vs. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and SANTIAGO FREIXAS (Pres. Of BPI)
G.R. No. L-24837. 29 June 1968.
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
Facts: Appeal by plaintiffs from a decision of the CFI Mla dismissing their complaint against defendants.
On May 8, 1963, the Singsong commenced the present action against the Bank and its president, Freixas, for damages in consequence of said illegal freezing of plaintiffs' account.
After appropriate proceedings, the CFI Mla rendered judgment dismissing the complaint upon the ground that plaintiffs cannot recover from the defendants upon the basis of a quasi-delict, because the relation between the parties is contractual in nature.
Issue: WON the existence of a contractual relation between the parties bar recovery of damages.
Ruling: 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.
*Dani'q
Saturday, November 22, 2008
People vs Ligon
People vs Ligon
Facts: An appeal from te judgment of the RTC convicting accused of the crime of robbery with homicide sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The victim was Jose Rosales, a 17-year-old working student who was earning his keep as a cigarette vendor. He was allegedly robbed of his cigarette box, and the latter uon clinging to the window of the accused, lost his grip and fell down the pavement as the car sped up. On appeal. The Cort held that it was not convinced with moral certainty of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence he was acquitted.
Issue: WON a person feed from criminal liability is also freed from civil liability
Ruling: Accused acquitted but held civilly liable for his acts and omissions, there being fault and negligence.
Ratio: It does not follow that a person who is not criminally liable is also free from civil liability. While the guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal prosecution, only preponderance of evidence is required in a civil action.
On the basis of the trial court’s evaluation of the testimonies of both prosecution and defense witness at the trial and applying the quantum of proof required in civil cases, We find that a preponderance of evidence establishes that Gabat by his act and omission with fault and negligence caused damage to Rosales and should answer civilly for the damage done.
*Mia
Facts: An appeal from te judgment of the RTC convicting accused of the crime of robbery with homicide sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The victim was Jose Rosales, a 17-year-old working student who was earning his keep as a cigarette vendor. He was allegedly robbed of his cigarette box, and the latter uon clinging to the window of the accused, lost his grip and fell down the pavement as the car sped up. On appeal. The Cort held that it was not convinced with moral certainty of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence he was acquitted.
Issue: WON a person feed from criminal liability is also freed from civil liability
Ruling: Accused acquitted but held civilly liable for his acts and omissions, there being fault and negligence.
Ratio: It does not follow that a person who is not criminally liable is also free from civil liability. While the guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal prosecution, only preponderance of evidence is required in a civil action.
On the basis of the trial court’s evaluation of the testimonies of both prosecution and defense witness at the trial and applying the quantum of proof required in civil cases, We find that a preponderance of evidence establishes that Gabat by his act and omission with fault and negligence caused damage to Rosales and should answer civilly for the damage done.
*Mia
Imson vs. Ca
IMSON Vs. CA
Facts: The case arose from a vehicular collision involving petitioner's Tuyota Corolla and a hino diesel truck registered under the names of private respondents, FNCB Finance Corp, and Holiday Hills stock and Breeding Farm Corp. The collision seriously injured petitioner and totally wrecked hs car. A complaint for damages was instituted against the registered owners of the truck, the truck driver, the beneficial owners of the truck and the truck insurer, Western Guaranty Corp.In 1987, petitioner and insurer entered into a compromise agreement, hence the complaint was dismissed against the insurer. Later, private respondents moved to dismiss the case against all defendants contending that since they are all indispensable parties, the dismissal of the case against the insurer must result in the dismissal of the suit against all of them.
Issue: WON all of the defendants were indispensable parties.
Ruling: Petition granted.
Ratio: It is true that all of the petitioners' claims are premised on the wrong committed by the defendant truck driver. Concededly, the truck driver is an indispensable party to the suit. The other defendants cannot be as indispensable parties, they are merely proper parties to the case.
Thus, if petitioners did not sue Western Guaranty Corp, the omission would not cause the dismissal of the suit against the other defendants. Even without the insurer, the trial court would not lose its competency to act completely and validly on the damage suit.
*Mia
Facts: The case arose from a vehicular collision involving petitioner's Tuyota Corolla and a hino diesel truck registered under the names of private respondents, FNCB Finance Corp, and Holiday Hills stock and Breeding Farm Corp. The collision seriously injured petitioner and totally wrecked hs car. A complaint for damages was instituted against the registered owners of the truck, the truck driver, the beneficial owners of the truck and the truck insurer, Western Guaranty Corp.In 1987, petitioner and insurer entered into a compromise agreement, hence the complaint was dismissed against the insurer. Later, private respondents moved to dismiss the case against all defendants contending that since they are all indispensable parties, the dismissal of the case against the insurer must result in the dismissal of the suit against all of them.
Issue: WON all of the defendants were indispensable parties.
Ruling: Petition granted.
Ratio: It is true that all of the petitioners' claims are premised on the wrong committed by the defendant truck driver. Concededly, the truck driver is an indispensable party to the suit. The other defendants cannot be as indispensable parties, they are merely proper parties to the case.
Thus, if petitioners did not sue Western Guaranty Corp, the omission would not cause the dismissal of the suit against the other defendants. Even without the insurer, the trial court would not lose its competency to act completely and validly on the damage suit.
*Mia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
