A. Abuse of Rights 1. ASJ Corp. vs. Sps. Evangelista, G.R. No. 158086, Feb.

14, 2008 -Elements must be established before an act may be considered as constituting an abuse of right. 2. Heirs of Purisima Nala vs. Cabansag, G.R. No. 161188, June 13, 2008 -Principle of abuse of rights distinguished from injury -Present when it is exercised only for the purpose of prejudicing or injuring another -Requisites for the award of damages based on abuse of right 3. Cebu Country Club, Inc. vs., G.R. No. 160273, Jan. 18, 2008 -Violation of abuse of rights warranted the award of damages -Damnum absque injuria, not applicable 4. Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Ong, G.R. No. 190755, Nov. 24, 2010 -The act of receiving payment without returning it when demanded is contrary to the adage of giving someone what is due to him. 5. Manzanal vs. Ilusorio, G.R. No. 189311, Dec. 6, 2010 -The standard which must be observed in the exercise of ones right are: to act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith. B. Damages 1. Actual Damages a. Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co., Ltd. Vs. Dynamic Planners and Construction Corp., G.R. Nos. 169408 & 170144, April 30, 2008 -must be pleaded and adequately proven in court to be recoverable b. B.F. Metal Corp. vs. Sps. Lomotan, G.R. No. 170813, April 16, 2008 -must be supported by competent proof of the actual amount of loss c. Heirs of Redentor Completo and Elpidio Abiad vs. Sgt. Albayda, Jr., G.R. No. 172200, July 6, 2010; Financial Building Corp. vs. Rudlin Intl. Corp., G.R. No. 164186, Oct. 4, 2010; Equitable PCIBank vs. Tan, G.R. No. 165339, Aug. 23, 2010 -competent proof of the actual amount of loss is necessary 2. Attorneys fees a. Quimpo, Sr. vs. Vda. De Beltran, G.R. No. 160956, Feb. 13, 2008; Northwest Airlines, Inc. vs. Chiong, G.R. No. 155550, Jan. 31, 2008; Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., Inc. vs. BOD of Riverside Mills Corp. Provident and Retirement Fund, G.R. No. 176959, Sept. 8, 2010; Equitable PCIBank vs. Tan, supra; -Award thereof is allowed when a party is compelled to litigate or incur expenses to protect his interest, or where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiffs plainly valid, just and demandable claim. b. Sapio vs. Undaloc Construction , G.R. No. 155034, May 22, 2008; Norkis Trading Co., Inc. vs. Gnilo, G.R. No. 159730, Feb. 11, 2008 -Can be recovered in actions for the recovery of wages and laborers and actions for indemnity under employers liability but shall not exceed 10% of the amount awarded. c. ASJ Corp. vs. Sps. Evangelista, supra. -Grant thereof cannot be allowed except when exemplary damages are awarded. d. Hanjin, supra. -Not awarded in the absence of stipulation; exceptions e. Citytrust Banking Corp. vs. Cruz, G.R. No. 157049, Aug. 11, 2010 -Awarded when a bank failed to exercise the required diligence and meticulousness in the handling of the account of its depositors. f. Sps. Pudadera vs. Magallanes, G.R. No. 170073, Oct. 18, 2010; Benedicto vs. Villaflores, G.R. No. 185020, Oct. 6, 2010 -Not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate; exceptions. 3. Attorneys fees and litigation expenses a. Cebu Country Club, Inc. vs. Elizagaque, supra.

-Award thereof may be allowed in cases when exemplary damages are awarded and where the court deems it just and equitable. 4. Civil Damages a. Moster vs. People, G.R. No. 167461, Feb. 19, 2008 -Acquittal based on reasonable doubt does not preclude the award of civil damages b. People vs. Tolentino, G.R. No. 176385, Feb. 26, 2008 -The award thereof is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. c. Svendsen vs. People, G.R. No. 175381, Feb. 26, 2008 -The personal injury of the victim is sought to be compensated through indemnity. 5. Compensatory Damages a. Titan-Ikeda Construction and Devt. Corp. vs. Primetown Property Group, Inc., G.R. No. 158768, Feb. 12, 2008 -The actual amount of the alleged loss must be proved by preponderance of evidence. 6. Exemplary Damages a. Northwest Airlines, Inc. vs. Chiong, supra. -Grant thereof, when proper. b. B.F. Metal Corp. vs. Sps. Lomotan, supra. -Imposed by way of example or correction of the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. c. Equitable PCIBank case; Citytrust Banking Corp. case d. Air France vs. Gillego, G.R. No. 165266, Dec. 15, 2010 -For a common carrier to be liable, it must be shown that the carrier acted fraudulently or in bad faith. -Awarded in view of the carriers failure to act timely on its passengers predicament e. People vs. Barde, G.R. No. 183094, Sept. 22, 2010; People vs. Alcazar, G.R. No. 186494, Sept. 15, 2010; People vs. Lasanas, G.R. No. 183829, Sept. 6, 2010 -Imposed in criminal cases as part of the civil liability when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. f. Queensland-Tokyo Commodities, Inc. vs. George, G.R. No. 172727, Sept. 8, 2010 -Imposed not to enrich one party or impoverished another, but to serve as a deterrent against or a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions.

7. Moral Damages a. B.F. Metal Corp. vs. Sps. Lomotan, supra -Article 2220 of the Civil Code speaks of awarding moral damages where there is injury to property, but the injury must be willful and the circumstances show that such damages are justly due. -Proper in cases of culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict and in culpa criminal. b. Cebu Country Club, supra. -Award thereof is not intended to impose a penalty to the wrongdoer, neither to enrich the claimant at the expense of the defendant. c. Northwest Airlines, Inc., supra. -Award thereof is proper in breaches of contract where bad faith is present. d. People vs. Combate, supra -Considered and allowed for resulting pain and suffering, and for humiliation, indignity, and vexation suffered by the plaintiff as a result of his or her assailants conduct, as well as the factors of provocation, the reasonableness of the force used, the attendant humiliating circumstances, the sex of the victim and mental distress. 8. Temperate Damages

a. Saludaga vs. FEU, G.R. No. 179337, April 30, 2008 -Award thereof is proper when actual damages cannot be ascertained but some pecuniary loss has been incurred due a persons abuse of rights. -Allowed where no documentary evidence of actual damages was presented in the trial. -Proper in homicide or murder cases when no evidence of burial and funeral expenses is presented in the trial court. b. People vs. Barde; Equitable PCIBank vs. Tan; Adrian Wilson vs. TMX; Heirs of Completo and Albiad vs. Sgt. Albayda, Jr. -May be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty. 9. Nominal Damages a. Spic N Span Services Corp. vs. Paje, G.R. No. 174084, Oct. 13, 2010; Phimco Industries, Inc. vs. Phimco Industries Labor Assn., G.R. No. 170830, Aug. 11, 2010 -For failure to comply with the due process requirement, the employer is liable for nominal damages even if the dismissal is for a just cause. 10. Civil Indemnity a. People vs. Combate, G.R. No. 189301, Dec. 15, 2010 -An indemnity authorized in our criminal law for the offended party, in the amount authorized by the prevailing judicial policy and apart from other proven actual damages, which itself is equivalent to actual or compensatory damages in civil law. 11. Compensation for Loss of Earning Capacity a. People vs. Combate, supra -Documentary evidence must be presented to substantiate a claim for damages; exceptions b. OMC Carriers, Inc. vs. Sps. Nabua, G.R. No. 148974, July 2, 2010 -Evidence must be presented that the victim, f not yet employed at the time of death, was reasonably certain to complete the training for a specific profession. c. Tamayo vs. Seora, G.R. No. 176946, Nov. 15, 2010 -Formula to determine net earning capacity is Net Earning Capacity = Life Expectancy x (Gross Annual Income Reasonable and Necessary Living Expenses). -The amount recoverable is not the loss of the victims entire earnings, but rather the loss of that portion of the earnings which the beneficiary would have received. 12. Liquidated Damages a. Transcept Construction and Management Professionals, Inc. vs. Aguilar, G.R. No. 177556, Dec. 8, 2010 -May not be awarded due to substantial completion of the project. b. Pentacapital Investment Corp. vs. Mahinay, G.R. No. 1717 36, July 5, 2010 -Whether intended as an indemnity or as a penalty, it shall be equitably reduced if it is iniquitous or unconscionable. C. Damages in Contracts and Quasi-Contracts a. Adrian Wilson Intl. Associates, Inc. vs. TMX Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 162608, July 26, 2010 -The damages for which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation. D. 1. Damnum Absque Injuria Laynesa vs. Uy, G.R. No. 149553, Feb. 29, 2008 -If damage results from a persons exercising his legal rights, it is damnum absque injuria. E. 1. Proximate Cause Dy Teban Trading, Inc. vs. Ching, G.R. No. 161803, Feb. 4, 2008

-ConceptElucidated 2. Allied Banking Corp. vs. Lim Sio Wan, G.R. No. 133179, Mar.27, 2008; GSIS vs. Pacific Airways Corp. -Proximate cause is that cause, which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred. F. Cause of Action for Damages 1. Manaloto vs. Veloso III, G.R. No. 171365, Oct. 6 2010 -Exists if the following elements are present: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for the recovery of damages. G. Quasi-delict 1. BPI vs. Lifetime Marketing Corp., G.R. No. 176434, June 25, 2008 -ConceptElements 2. Lampesa vs. Dr. De Vera, Jr., G.R. No. 155111, Feb. 14, 2008 -Liability for QD is provided in Article 2176 of the Civil Code -Negligence of employeeOnce negligence on the part of the employee is established, a presumption instantly arises that the employer was negligent in the selection and/or supervision of said employee. 3. Dy Teban Trading, supra -Liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and solidary. -RequisitesTo sustain a claim based on a quasi-delict, the requisites must be established. 4. Corinthian Gardens Assn., Inc. vs. Sps. Tanjangco, G.R. No. 160795, June 27, 2008 -NegligenceCommitted in case a homeowners association failed to prevent the encroachment of perimeter wall of one of its members property, despite the inspection conducted. -Test to determine existence of negligence 5. Sealoader Shipping Corp. vs. Grand Cement Mfg. Corp., G.R. No. 167363, Dec. 15, 2010 -Contributory negligence is defined as the conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection. -Negligence is defined as the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs , would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. 6. GSIS vs. Pacific Airways Corp., supra -Gross negligence is one that is characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. 7. Briones vs. Macabagdal, G.R. No. 150666, Aug. 3, 2010 -Liability for damages based on negligencePlaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of evidence: (1) the damages suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose act he must respond; and (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damages incurred. 8. Heirs of Completo and Abiad vs. Sgt. Albayda, Jr., supra -Presumption of negligence on the part of the employer in the selection and supervision of his employees arises when an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee. 9. OMC Carriers, Inc. vs. Sps. Nabua, G.R. No. 148974, July 2, 2010

-Presumption may be overcome by a clear showing on the part of the employer that he has exercised the care and diligence of good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employees. H. Doctrine of Volenti Non Fit Injuria 1. Pantaleon vs. American Express Intl. Inc., G.R. No. 174269, August 25, 2010 -Refers to self-inflicted injury or to the consent to injury which precludes the recovery of damages by one who has knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even if he is not negligent in doing so.