Issue whether spouses lee should be made liable for

This preview shows page 58 - 60 out of 64 pages.

ISSUE: Whether Spouses Lee should be made liable for damages and restitution to PNB for having acted in bad faith RULING: No. Spouses Lee should not be made liable for damages and restitution. We find no reason to depart from the CA’s denial of PNB’s claim for restitution and damages against the Spouses Lee. The CA is correct in holding that this issue was never raised before the RTC and as such, the Spouses Lee could not have been afforded the opportunity to rebut PNB’s claims. Further, as aptly observed by the CA, PNB itself failed to file necessary cross-claim against the Spouses Lee, as such, PNB cannot belatedly complain an appeal. Page 58
DAMAGES: MORAL DAMAGES FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 203902, July 19, 2017 SPOUSES DIONISIO ESTRADA AND JOVITA R. ESTRADA, Petitiners v. PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. ad EDUARDO R. SAYLAN, Respondents DEL CASTILLO, J.: Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the May 16, 2012 Decision and October 1, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals which partially granted the appeal filed therewith by respondent Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (PRBLI) and denied petitioners spouses Dionisio C. Estarada and Jovita R. Estarada’s motion for reconsideration thereto FACTS: A mishap occurred between the passenger bus driven by respondent Saylan and owned by respondent PRBLI and Isuzu truck driven by Willy U. Urez and registered in the name of Rogelio Cuyton, Jr. The collision happened at the left lane or the lane properly belonging to the Isuzu truck. The right front portion of the Isuzu truck appear to have collided with the right side portion of the body of PRBLI bus. Before the collision, the bus was following closely a jeepney. When the jeepney stopped, the bus suddenly swerved to the left encroaching upon the rightful lane of the Isuzu truck, which resulted in the collision of the two (2) vehicles. The petitioner Dionisio, who was among the passengers of the PRBLI was injured on the right arm as a consequence of the accident.. his injured right arm was amputated. For the treatment of hi injury, he incurred expenses as evidence by various receipts. ISSUE: Whether moral damages are recoverable in this case RULING: No, moral damages are not recoverable in this case. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission. Under Article 2219 of the Civil Code, moral damages are recoverable in the following and analogous cases: (1) a criminal offense resulting in physical injuries; (2) quasi- delics causing physical injuries; (3) seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts; (4) adultery or concubinage; (5) illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest; (6) illegal search; (7) libel, slander, or any other form of defamation; (8) malicious prosecution; (9) acts mentioned in Article 309; and (10) acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 40, 32, 34, and 35.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture