ALBENSON v CA FACTS: Albenson Ent. delivered mild steel plates to Guaranteed Industries Inc.

A Pacific Banking Corporation Check was paid and drawn against the account of EL Woodworks. Check was later dishonored for the reason Account Closed. Company traced source of check and later discovered that the signature belonged to one Eugenio Baltao. Albenson made an extrajudical demand upon Baltao but latter denied that he issued the check or that the signature was his. Company filed a complaint against Baltao for violation of BP 22. It was later discovered that private respondent had son: Eugene Baltao III, who manages the business establishment, EL Woodworks. No effort from the father to inform Albenson of such information. Rather the father filed complaint for damages against Albenson. ISSUE: Whether there is indeed cause for the damages against Albenson Enterprise. RATIO: Based on Art 19, 20, 21 of the civil code, petitioners didnt have the intent to cause damage to the respondent or enrich themselves but just to collect what was due to them. There was no abuse of right on the part of Albenson on accusing Baltao of BP 22. Albenson Corp. honestly believed that it was private respondent who issued check based on ff inquiries: 1. SEC records showed that president to Guaranteed was Eugene Baltao 2. Bank said signature belonged to EB 3. EB did not do his part in clarifying that there were in fact 3 Ebs, Jr., Sr. and the III. There was no malicious prosecution on the part of Albenson: there must be proof that: 4. the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person and 5. that damages was initiated deliberately by defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless Elements of abuse of right under Article 19: there is a legal right or duty exercised in bad faith for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another Elements under Article 21: contra bonus mores: there is an act which is legal but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order or public policy it is done with intent to injure A person who has not been paid an obligation owed to him will naturally seek ways to compel the debtor to pay him. It was normal for petitioners to find means to make the issuer of the check pay the amount thereof. In the absence of a wrongful act or omission or of fraud or bad faith, moral damages cannot be awarded and that the adverse result of an action does not per se make the action wrongful and subject the actor to the payment of damages, for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. C.V. No. 14948 dated May 13, 1989, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Costs against respondent Baltao.

COGEO-CUBAO vs. Court of Appeals Case Digest COGEO-CUBAO vs. CA FACTS: It appears that a certificate of public convenience to operate a jeepney service was ordered to be issued in favor of Lungsod Silangan to ply the Cogeo-Cubao route. On the other hand, Cogeo-Cubao Association was registered as a non-stock, non-profit organization with the main purpose of representing the appellee for whatever contract and/or agreement it will have regarding the ownership of units, and the like, of the members of the Association. Perturbed by appellees Board Resolution No. 9 adopting a Bandera' System under which a member of the cooperative is permitted to queue for passenger at the disputed pathway in exchange for the ticket worth 20 pesos the proceeds of which shall be utilized for Christmas programs of the drivers and other benefits, the Association decided to form a human barricade on and assumed the dispatching of passenger jeepneys. This development as initiated by the Association gave rise to the suit for damages. The Association's Answer contained vehement denials to the insinuation of take over and at the same time raised as a defense the circumstance that the organization was formed not to compete with plaintiff-cooperative. It, however, admitted that it is not authorized to transport passengers. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of respondent Lungsod Corp and ordered. The CA affirmed the findings of the TC except with regard to the award of actual damages. ISSUE: W/N the petitioner usurped the property right of the respondent which shall entitle the latter to the award of nominal damages? - YES RULING: Under the Public Service Law, a certificate of public convenience is an authorization issued by the Public Service Commission for the operation of public services for which no franchise is required by law. In the instant case, a certificate of public convenience was issued to respondent corporation on to operate a public utility jeepney service on the Cogeo-Cubao route. A certification of public convenience is included in the term "property" in the broad sense of the term. Under the Public Service Law, a certificate of public convenience can be sold by the holder thereof because it has considerable material value and is considered as valuable asset. Although there is no doubt that it is private property, it is affected with a public interest and must be submitted to the control of the government for the common good. Hence, insofar as the interest of the State is involved, a certificate of public convenience does not confer upon the holder any proprietary right or interest or franchise in the route covered thereby and in the public highways. However, with respect to other persons and other public utilities, a certificate of public convenience as property, which represents the right and authority to operate its facilities for public service, cannot be taken or interfered with without due process of law. Appropriate actions may be maintained in courts by the holder of the certificate against those who have not been authorized to operate in competition with the former and those who invade the rights which the former has pursuant to the authority granted by the Public Service Commission. In the case at bar, the trial court found that petitioner association forcibly took over the operation of the jeepney service in the Cogeo-Cubao route without any authorization from the Public Service Commission and in violation of the right of respondent corporation to operate its services in the said route under its certificate of public convenience. These were its findings which were affirmed by the appellate court. It is clear form the facts of this case that petitioner formed a barricade and forcibly took over the motor units and personnel of the respondent corporation. This paralyzed the usual activities and earnings of the latter during the period of ten days and violated the right of respondent Lungsod Corp to conduct its operations thru its authorized officers. No compelling reason exists to justify the reversal of the ruling of the respondent appellate court in the case at bar. Considering the circumstances of the case, the respondent corporation is entitled to the award of nominal damages.

GASHEEM SHOKAT BAKSH vs. COURT OF APPEALS Case Digest GASHEEM SHOKAT BAKSH vs. COURT OF APPEALS Facts: Private respondent, without the assistance of counsel, filed with the trial court a complaint against the petitioner for the alleged violation of their agreement of marriage. Respondent alleged that she is 22 years old, single, Filipino and pretty lass of good moral character and reputation duly respected in her community. Petitioner, on the other hand, is an Iranian citizen residing at the Lozano Apartment, Guilig, Dagupan City, and is an exchange student at the Lyceum Northwestern Colleges. Before August 20, 1987, the latter courted and proposed to marry her. She accepted his love on the condition that they would get married. Petitioner then visited the respondents parents in Banaga, Pangasinan to secure their approval to the marriage. Sometime on August 20, 1987, the petitioner forced her to live with him in the Lozano Apartment. She was a virgin before she began living with him.A week before the filing of the complaint, petitioners attitude towards her started to change. He maltreated her and thr eatened to kill her, and as a result of such maltreatment, she sustained injuries. During a confrontation with a representative of the barangay captain of Guilig a day before the filing of the complaint, petitioner repudiated their marriage agreement and asked her not to live with him anymore and; the petitioner is already married to someone living inBacolod City. Private respondent then prayed for judgment ordering the petitioner to pay her damages in the amount not less than P45,000, reimbursement for actual expenses amounting to P600, attorneys fees and costs, and granting her such other relief and remedies as maybe just and equitable, which then rendered decision by court in favor of private respondent. Issue: Whether or not damages is recoverable for breach of promise to marry. Held: The Supreme Court held that when a mans promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter becomes proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in the sexual congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of damages pursuant to Art. 21 not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter. It is essential, however, that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy.

Hermosisima vs Court of Appeals Case Digest

Hermosisima vs Court of Appeals 103 Phil 629

FACTS: An appeal by certiorari, on October 4, 1954, Soledad Cagigas, hereinafter referred to as complainant, filed with the said CFI a complaint for the acknowledgment of her child, Chris Hermosisima, as a natural child of said petitioner, as well as for support of said child and moral damages for alleged breach of promise to marry. Petitioner admitted the paternity of the child and expressed willingness to support the latter, but denied having ever promised to marry complainant. Complainant Soledad Cagigas, was born in July 1917, since 1950, Soledad then a teacher and petitioner who was almost ten years younger than her used to go around together and were regarded as engaged, although he made no promise of marriage thereto. In 1951, she gave up teaching and became a life insurance underwriter where intimacy developed between her and petitioner, since one evening in 1953 when after coming from the movies, they had sexual intercourse in his cabin on board MV Escano to which he was then attached as apprentice pilot. In February 1954, Soledad advised petitioner that she was pregnant, whereupon he promised to marry her. However, subsequently, or on July 24, 1954, defendant married one Romanita Perez.

ISSUE: Whether or not moral damages are recoverable under our laws for breach of promise to marry.

HELD: It appearing that because of the defendant-appellants seductive prowess, plaintiff-appellee overwhelmed by her love for him yielded to his sexual desires in spite of her age and self-control. In the present case, the court is unable to say that petitioner is morally guilty of seduction, not only because he is approximately ten years younger but also because the Court of First Instance found that complainant surrendered herself to the petitioner because overwhelmed by her love for him she wanted to bind him by having a fruit of their engagement even before they had the benefit of clergy.

CONSTANTINO vs. MENDEZ Case Digest CONSTANTINO vs. MENDEZ G.R. No. 57227 May 14, 1992 FACTS: It appears on record that on June 5, 1975, petitioner Amelita Constantino filed an action for acknowledgment, support and damages against private respondent Ivan Mendez. The case was filed with the then CFI of Davao, 10th Judicial District and docketed as Civil Case No. 8881. In her complaint, Amelita Constantino alleges, among others, that sometime in the month of August, 1974, she met Ivan Mendez at Tony's Restaurant located at Sta. Cruz, Manila, where she worked as a waitress; that the day following their first meeting, Ivan invited Amelita to dine with him at Hotel Enrico where he was billeted; that while dining, Ivan professedhis love and courted Amelita; that Amelita asked for time to think about Ivan's proposal; that at about 11:00 o'clock in the evening, Amelita asked Ivan to bring her home to which the latter agreed, that on the pretext of getting something, Ivan brought Amelita inside his hotel room and through a promise of marriage succeeded in having sexual intercourse with the latter; that after the sexual contact, Ivan confessed to Amelita that he is a married man; that they repeated their sexual contact in the months of September and November, 1974, whenever Ivan is in Manila, as a result of which Amelita got pregnant; that her pleas for help and support fell on deaf ears; that Amelita had no sexual relations with any other man except Ivan who is the father of the child yet to be born at the time of the filing of the complaint; that because of her pregnancy, Amelita was forced to leave her work as a waitress; that Ivan is a prosperous businessman of Davao City with a monthly income of P5,000 to P8,000. As relief, Amelita prayed for the recognition of the unborn child, the payment of actual, moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees plus costs. In his answer dated August 5, 1975, Ivan admitted that he met Amelita at Tony's Cocktail Lounge but denied having sexual knowledge or illicit relations with her. He prayed for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of cause of action. By way of counterclaim, he further prayed for the payment of exemplary damages and litigation expense including attorney's fees for the filing of the malicious complaint On September 11, 1975, Ivan Mendez filed his answer to the amended complaint reiterating his previous answer denying that Michael Constantino is his illegitimate son. ISSUE: WON Ivan sired the still unborn child of Amelita. NO HELD: It is the conclusion of the Court of Appeals, based on the evidence on record, that Amelita Constantino has not proved by clear and convincing evidence her claim that Ivan Mendez is the father of her son Michael Constantino. Such conclusion based on the evaluation of the evidence on record is controlling on this Court as the same is supported by the evidence on record. Even the trial court initially entertained such posture. It ordered the recognition of Michael as the illegitimate son of Ivan only when acting on the motions for reconsideration, it reconsidered, on October 21, 1976, its earlier decision dated June 21, 1976. Amelita's testimony on cross-examination that she had sexual contact with Ivan inManila in the first or second week of November, 1974 (TSN, December 8, 1975, p. 108) is inconsistent with her response that she could not remember the date of their last sexual intercourse in November, 1974 (Ibid, p. 106). Sexual contact of Ivanand Amelita in the first or second week of November, 1974 is the crucial point that was not even established on direct examination as she merely testified that she had sexual intercourse with Ivan in the months of September, October and November, 1974. Michael Constantino is a full-term baby born on August 3, 1975 (Exhibit 6) so that as correctly pointed out by private respondent's counsel, citing medical science (Williams Obstetrics, Tenth Ed., p. 198) to the effect that "the mean duration of actual pregnancy, counting from the day of conception must be close to 267days", the conception of the child (Michael) must have taken place about 267 days before August 3, 1975 or sometime in the second week of November, 1974. While Amelita testified that she had sexual contact with Ivan in November, 1974, nevertheless said testimony is contradicted by her own evidence (Exh. F), the letter dated February 11, 1975, addressed to Ivan Mendez requesting for a conference, prepared by her own counsel Atty. Roberto Saren as to whom she must have confided the attendant circumstances of her pregnancy while still fresh in her memory, informing Ivan that Amelita is four (4) months pregnant so that applying the period of the duration of actual pregnancy, the child was conceived on or about October 11, 1974. Petitioner's assertion that Ivan is her first and only boyfriend (TSN, December8, 1975, p. 65) is belied by Exhibit 2, her own letter addressed to Mrs. Mendez where she revealed the reason for her attachment to Ivan who possessed certain traits not possessed by her boyfriend. She also confided that she had a quarrel with her boyfriend because of gossips so she left her work. An order for recognition and support may create an unwholesome atmosphere or may be an irritant in the family or lives of the parties so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiations is established by clear and convincing evidence. The burden of proof is on Amelita to establish her

affirmative allegations that Ivan is the father of her son. Consequently, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence establishing paternity or filiation, the complaint must be dismissed. As regards Amelita's claim for damages which is based on Articles 19 3 & 21 4 of the Civil Code on the theory that through Ivan's promise of marriage, she surrendered her virginity, we cannot but agree with the Court of Appeals that more sexual intercourse is not by itself a basis for recovery. Damages could only be awarded if sexual intercourse is not a product of voluntariness and mutual desire. At the time she met Ivan at Tony's Restaurant, Amelita was already 28 years old and she admitted that she was attracted to Ivan (TSN, December 3, 1975, p. 83).Her attraction to Ivan is the reason why she surrendered her womanhood. Had she been induced or deceived because of a promise of marriage, she could have immediately severed her relation with Ivan when she was informed after their first sexual contact sometime in August, 1974, that he was a married man. Her declaration that in the months of September, October and November, 1974, they repeated their sexual intercourse only indicates that passion and not the alleged promise of marriage was the moving force that made her submit herself to Ivan.