Professional Documents
Culture Documents
65935
Facts:
Nestor B. Sunga, businessman and owner of the NBS Machineries
Marketing and the NAP-NAP Transit. Plaintiff alleged that he purchased a
passenger minibus Mazda from the Motor Center, Inc. on March 21, 1978 and for
which he executed a promissory note to cover the amount of P62, 592.00 payable
monthly. On the same date, however, a chattel mortgage was executed by him in
favor of the Motor Center. The Chattel Mortgage and Assignment was assigned to
the Filinvest Credit Corporation with the conformity of the plaintiff. Sunga claimed
that the minibus was seized by two employees of the defendant Filinvest upon
orders of the branch manager, without any receipt, who claimed that he was
delinquent in the payments of his vehicle. the loss was reported to PC and the said
vehicle was later recovered from the Crisologo Compound which was released by
Assistant Manager of Filinvest. Florence Onia of the Filinvest explained that the
minibus was confiscated because the balance was already past due. After
verification that his accounts are all in order, Florence Onia admitted it was their
fault. The motor vehicle was returned to the plaintiff upon proper receipt.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent court committed a grave abuse of discretion
in increasing extravagantly the award of moral damages and in granting litigation
expenses?
Held:
The respondent court disregarded such a well settled rule when it increased
the award for moral damages from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00, notwithstanding the
fact that the private respondent did not appeal from the judgment of the trial court,
an act indicative of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
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
circumstances." Be that as it may and in amplification of this generalization, the
criterion "in the case of moral damages, the yardstick should be that the "amount
awarded should not be palpably and scandalously excessive" so as to indicate that
it was the result of passion, prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial court.
Judicial discretion granted to the courts in the assessment of damages must
always be exercised with balanced restraints and measured objectivity.
and quasi-judicial body with respect to pollution cases in Laguna Lake region, the
authority of the LLDA to issue a cease and desist order is, perforce, implied.
Magbanua v. IAC, G.R. Nos. L-66870-72 June 29, 1985
Facts:
Magbanua and the other petitioners are share tenants of an agricultural land
owned by the private respondents. The petitioners alleged in the case they filed in
the trial court that the private respondents diverted the free flow of water from their
landholdings which dried up their farm and wilted their palay crops. The trial court
decided in favor of the petitioners. They were maintained as agricultural lessees
and granted each one of them the amount of P10, 000 as moral & exemplary
damages and P5,000 for the attorneys fees to be paid by the private
respondents. However, the private respondents appealed the decision to the
Intermediate Appellate Court which affirmed the decision of the trial court but
removed the award of payment of damages and attorneys fees granted to the
petitioners. The IAC said in removing the damages award that there was no
evidence that private respondents acted fraudulently or in bad faith, and no reason
either in the recovery of attorneys fees under Art 2208, Civil Code. And so the
petitioners filed in the SC for the reinstatement of the damages and attorneys fees
awarded by the trial court, on the ground that the IAC committed a grave abuse of
discretion in removing the said award.
Held:
The SC granted the reinstatement of the award of moral and exemplary
damages and attorneys fees, subject to modification of the amount. Art 2219,
Civil Code states that moral damages may be recovered when a person willfully
causes loss or injury to another in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy. Under Art 2232, Civil Code, In contract and quasi-contracts, the
court may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in wanton, fraudulent,
reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. Art 2208, Civil Code states
that attorneys fees can be recovered, among others, when exemplary damages are
awarded. The private respondents acted in an oppressive manner in closing the free
flow of water into the farm lots of the petitioners in order to make the latter vacate
their landholdings. The closure caused losses on the petitioners palay crops. The
foregoing entitled the petitioners to payment of moral and exemplary damages, and
as such, entitled them also to the recovery of attorneys fees. And so the SC
granted the payment to each of the petitioners in the amount of P1000 as moral
damages, P500 as exemplary damages, and P1000 for attorneys fees payable by
the private respondents.
Finding for the petitioners, the Court stated that even though the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is under the Declaration of Principles and
State Policies of the Constitution and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not
follow that it is less important than any of the rights enumerated in the latter:
concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation, the
advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and
constitutions.
The right is linked to the constitutional right to health, is fundamental,
constitutionalized, self-executing and judicially enforceable. It imposes the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. The court stated that
the petitioners were able to file a class suit both for others of their generation and
for succeeding generations as the minors assertion of their right to a sound
environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation
to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.
Held:
Since the trial court's order of November 13, 1981, denying defendant's motion to
set aside the order of default was appealable but was not appealed by defendant,
the necessary conclusion is that the default order became final. Clearly therefore,
respondent Court committed a grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the finality
of the default order.
The validity and finality of the default order was upheld by the judgment of the
Appellate Court in the injunction case (which passed upon the merits of the
issuance of an order of execution pending appeal) by virtue of the principle of res
judicata and the doctrine re the law of the case.
There is no question that there were good reasons for the trial court to issue
the order of execution pending appeal. The order categorically stated that there was
a need for the closure and stoppage of the operation of defendant's (Daytona
Construction) cement batching plant because it posed "a great menace to the
neighborhood both in point of health and property." The trial court thus stated:
From the uncontroverted evidence presented by the plaintiffs, there is hardly
any question that the cement dust coming from the batching plant of the defendant
corporation is injurious to the health of the plaintiffs and other residents in the area.
The noise, the vibration, the smoke and the odor generated by the day and night
operation of the plant must indeed be causing them serious discomfort and untold
miseries. Its operation therefore violates certain rights of the plaintiffs and causes
them damage. It is thus a nuisance and its abatement justified.
the fumes emitted by the plant of petitioner goes directly to the surrounding houses
and that no proper air pollution device has been installed.7
Petitioner failed to produce a building permit from the municipality of Sta.
Maria, but instead presented a building permit issued by an official of Makati on
March 6,1987.
While petitioner was able to present a temporary permit to operate by the
then National Pollution Control Commission on December 15, 1987, the permit
was good only up to May 25, 1988.9 Petitioner had not exerted any effort to extend
or validate its permit much less to install any device to control the pollution and
prevent any hazard to the health of the residents of the community.
All these factors justify the dissolution of the writ of preliminary injunction
by the trial court and the appellate court correctly upheld the action of the lower
court.
Petitioner takes note of the plea of petitioner focusing on its huge investment
in this dollar-earning industry. It must be stressed however, that concomitant with
the need to promote investment and contribute to the growth of the economy is the
equally essential imperative of protecting the health, nay the very lives of the
people, from the deleterious effect of the pollution of the environment.
justify the conclusion that the Napocor project would probably imperil the health
and safety of petitioners.
First, petitioners presented copies of studies linking the incidence of
illnesses, such as cancer and leukemia, to exposure to electromagnetic fields.
Second, the Napocor brochure on its Quezon power project had a provision
that power lines should be located within safe distances from residences because of
the danger concomitant with high-voltage power.
Third, documents on record showed that respondent had made
representations that it was looking into the possibility of relocating the project, and
that it had even undertaken a series of negotiations and meetings with petitioners.
These documents and negotiations suggested that their health concerns were far
from imaginary. If there was indeed no cause for concern, it would not have come
up with options to address their woes. Neither would Representative Escudero
have fired away strong words of censure in his privileged speech.
While it was true that the issue of whether the transmission lines were safe
was essentially evidentiary in nature and pertained to the very merits of the action
below, the Court found that the possibility of health risks from exposure to
electromagnetic radiation was within the realm of a scientific scale of probability.
It held that there was sufficient basis on record engendering a cloud of doubt over
the danger posed by the project upon the lives of petitioners. Indeed, probability
was enough for injunction to issue as a provisional remedy. In contrast, injunction
as a main action was resorted to when one needed to establish absolute certainty as
basis for a final and permanent injunction. Pending the final determination of the
trial court on the main case, it was prudent to preserve the status quo.
The Supreme Court held that its circulars on the observance of PD 1818 did
not suggest an unbridled prohibition on the issuance of writs of preliminary
injunction or temporary restraining orders. What these circulars prohibited was the
indiscriminate issuance of court injunctions. They simply enjoined judges to
observe utmost caution, prudence and judiciousness in issuing temporary
restraining orders and in granting writs of preliminary injunction, so as to avoid
any suspicion that these measures were for considerations other than the strict
merits of the case. Thus, there was nothing in the circulars that would tie the hands
of the courts from issuing a writ of preliminary injunction.
This Decision did not seek to undermine the purpose of the Napocor
project, which was aimed at the common good of the people. But the Court
recognized, too, that the primordial concern should be the far-reaching irreversible
effects to human safety, rather than the economic benefits presumed by respondent.
Of what use would modernization be if it proved to be a scourge to an individuals
fundamental right, not just to health and safety, but to the preservation of life itself
in all of its desired quality
Citizen Valentin Legaspi requested from the Civil Service Commission information on the civil
service eligibilities of sanitarian employees in the Health Department of Cebu City.