Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

I.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Art. 2195. The provisions of this Title


shall be respectively applicable to all
obligations mentioned in Article
1157.
Art. 2196. The rules under this Title
are without prejudice to special
provisions on damages formulated
elsewhere in this Code.
Compensation for workmen and other
employees in case of death, injury or
illness is regulated by special laws.
Rules governing damages laid down
in other laws shall be observed
insofar as they are not in conflict with
this Code.
Art. 2197. Damages may be:
(1) Actual or compensatory;

The case reached the Supreme Court


and it was dismissed due to technical
reasons, but the Supreme Court said that
there was no GAD of the Labor Arbiter.
Respondent filed damages against the
Petitioner in the RTC due to the losses it
made during the stint of Banez as the
sales operation manager. They alleged
that he constituted another business while
being the manager.
o The RTC ruled in favor of
Respondent, awarding damages to the
Respondent.
The Petitioner filed this case stating that
the RTC has no jurisdiction for it should be
with the NLRC.
ISSUES & ARGUMENTS

(2) Moral;

Was the RTC acting in GAD in awarding the


damages?

(3) Nominal;

HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI

(4) Temperate or moderate;

Yes

(5) Liquidated; or
(6) Exemplary or corrective.
Art. 2198. The principles of the
general law on damages are hereby
adopted insofar as they are not
inconsistent with this Code.
CASE: BANEZ V VALDEVILLA
TOPIC: General Principles
FACTS
Banez (Petitioner) was the sales
operation manager of Oro Marketing
(Respondent). The Respondent indefinitely
suspended the Petitioner, thus prompting
him to file illegal dismissal charges against
the respondent.

It will be recalled that years prior to R.A.


6715, jurisdiction over all money claims of
workers, including claims for damages,
was originally lodged with the Labor
Arbiters and the NLRC by Article 217 of
the Labor Code. 7 On May 1, 1979,
however, Presidential Decree ("P.D.") No.
1367 amended said Article 217 to the
effect that "Regional Directors shall not
indorse and Labor Arbiters shall not
entertain claims for moral or other forms
of damages." 8 This limitation in
jurisdiction, however, lasted only briefly
since on May 1, 1980, P.D. No. 1691
nullified P.D. No. 1367 and restored Article
217 of the Labor Code almost to its
original form. Presently, and as amended
by R.A. 6715, the jurisdiction of Labor
Arbiters and the NLRC in Article 217 is
comprehensive enough to include claims
for all forms of damages "arising from the
employer-employee relations"
There is no mistaking the fact that in the
case before us, private respondent's claim
against petitioner for actual damages
arose from a prior employer employee
relationship. In the first place, private
respondent would not have taken issue
with petitioner's "doing business of his
own" had the latter not been concurrently
its employee.

II.

without prejudice to
special provisions on
damages formulated
elsewhere in this Code.
Compensation for
workmen and other
employees in case of
death, injury or illness is
regulated by special
laws. Rules governing
damages laid down in
other laws shall be
observed insofar as they
are not in conflict with
this Code.
Art. 2197. Damages may
be:
(1) Actual or
compensatory;
(2) Moral;
(3) Nominal;
(4) Temperate or
moderate;
(5) Liquidated; or

ACTUAL AND
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES

(6) Exemplary or
corrective.

Title XVIII. - DAMAGES

Art. 2198. The principles


of the general law on
damages are hereby
adopted insofar as they
are not inconsistent with
this Code.

CHAPTER 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Art. 2195. The provisions
of this Title shall be
respectively applicable to
all obligations mentioned
in Article 1157.
Art. 2196. The rules
under this Title are

CHAPTER 2
ACTUAL OR
COMPENSATORY
DAMAGES

Art. 2199. Except as


provided by law or by
stipulation, one is
entitled to an adequate
compensation only for
such pecuniary loss
suffered by him as he has
duly proved. Such
compensation is referred
to as actual or
compensatory damages.
Art. 2200.
Indemnification for
damages shall
comprehend not only the
value of the loss suffered,
but also that of the
profits which the obligee
failed to obtain. (1106)
Art. 2201. In contracts
and quasi-contracts, the
damages for which the
obligor who acted in good
faith is liable shall be
those that are the natural
and probable
consequences of the
breach of the obligation,
and which the parties
have foreseen or could
have reasonably foreseen
at the time the obligation
was constituted.
In case of fraud, bad
faith, malice or wanton
attitude, the obligor shall
be responsible for all
damages which may be
reasonably attributed to
the non-performance of
the obligation. (1107a)

Art. 2202. In crimes and


quasi-delicts, the
defendant shall be liable
for all damages which are
the natural and probable
consequences of the act
or omission complained
of. It is not necessary
that such damages have
been foreseen or could
have reasonably been
foreseen by the
defendant.
Art. 2203. The party
suffering loss or injury
must exercise the
diligence of a good father
of a family to minimize
the damages resulting
from the act or omission
in question.
Art. 2204. In crimes, the
damages to be
adjudicated may be
respectively increased or
lessened according to the
aggravating or mitigating
circumstances.
Art. 2205. Damages may
be recovered:
(1) For loss or
impairment of earning
capacity in cases of
temporary or permanent
personal injury;
(2) For injury to the
plaintiff's business
standing or commercial
credit.

Art. 2206. The amount of


damages for death
caused by a crime or
quasi-delict shall be at
least three thousand
pesos, even though there
may have been mitigating
circumstances. In
addition:
(1) The defendant shall
be liable for the loss of
the earning capacity of
the deceased, and the
indemnity shall be paid
to the heirs of the latter;
such indemnity shall in
every case be assessed
and awarded by the
court, unless the
deceased on account of
permanent physical
disability not caused by
the defendant, had no
earning capacity at the
time of his death;
(2) If the deceased was
obliged to give support
according to the
provisions of Article 291,
the recipient who is not
an heir called to the
decedent's inheritance by
the law of testate or
intestate succession, may
demand support from the
person causing the
death, for a period not
exceeding five years, the
exact duration to be fixed
by the court;
(3) The spouse,
legitimate and

illegitimate descendants
and ascendants of the
deceased may demand
moral damages for
mental anguish by reason
of the death of the
deceased.
Art. 2207. If the plaintiff's
property has been
insured, and he has
received indemnity from
the insurance company
for the injury or loss
arising out of the wrong
or breach of contract
complained of, the
insurance company shall
be subrogated to the
rights of the insured
against the wrongdoer or
the person who has
violated the contract. If
the amount paid by the
insurance company does
not fully cover the injury
or loss, the aggrieved
party shall be entitled to
recover the deficiency
from the person causing
the loss or injury.
Art. 2208. In the absence
of stipulation, attorney's
fees and expenses of
litigation, other than
judicial costs, cannot be
recovered, except:
(1) When exemplary
damages are awarded;
(2) When the defendant's
act or omission has
compelled the plaintiff to
litigate with third

persons or to incur
expenses to protect his
interest;
(3) In criminal cases of
malicious prosecution
against the plaintiff;
(4) In case of a clearly
unfounded civil action or
proceeding against the
plaintiff;
(5) Where the defendant
acted in gross and
evident bad faith in
refusing to satisfy the
plaintiff's plainly valid,
just and demandable
claim;
(6) In actions for legal
support;
(7) In actions for the
recovery of wages of
household helpers,
laborers and skilled
workers;
(8) In actions for
indemnity under
workmen's compensation
and employer's liability
laws;
(9) In a separate civil
action to recover civil
liability arising from a
crime;
(10) When at least double
judicial costs are
awarded;

(11) In any other case


where the court deems it
just and equitable that
attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation
should be recovered.
In all cases, the
attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation
must be reasonable.
Art. 2209. If the
obligation consists in the
payment of a sum of
money, and the debtor
incurs in delay, the
indemnity for damages,
there being no
stipulation to the
contrary, shall be the
payment of the interest
agreed upon, and in the
absence of stipulation,
the legal interest, which
is six per cent per
annum. (1108)
Art. 2210. Interest may,
in the discretion of the
court, be allowed upon
damages awarded for
breach of contract.
Art. 2211. In crimes and
quasi-delicts, interest as
a part of the damages
may, in a proper case, be
adjudicated in the
discretion of the court.
Art. 2212. Interest due
shall earn legal interest
from the time it is
judicially demanded,
although the obligation

may be silent upon this


point. (1109a)
Art. 2213. Interest cannot
be recovered upon
unliquidated claims or
damages, except when
the demand can be
established with
reasonably certainty.
Art. 2214. In quasidelicts, the contributory
negligence of the plaintiff
shall reduce the damages
that he may recover.
Art. 2215. In contracts,
quasi-contracts, and
quasi-delicts, the court
may equitably mitigate
the damages under
circumstances other than
the case referred to in
the preceding article, as
in the following
instances:
(1) That the plaintiff
himself has contravened
the terms of the contract;
(2) That the plaintiff has
derived some benefit as a
result of the contract;
(3) In cases where
exemplary damages are
to be awarded, that the
defendant acted upon the
advice of counsel;
(4) That the loss would
have resulted in any
event;

(5) That since the filing of


the action, the defendant
has done his best to
lessen the plaintiff's loss
or injury.
CASE: PEOPLE V TAMBIS
Appeal opens entire case for
review
Facts:
1) The case is an automatic review of
the decision of RTC-Carmen, Bohol
convicting Pablito Tambis of murder
and sentencing him to the penalty of
death.
2) On or about December 25, 1994
Tambis, armed with three bolos,
hacked and beheaded Leonardo Tagsa,
who was physically handicapped.
Tambis also went around the
neighbourhood publicly displaying the
head of his victim. The incident was
corroborated by two prosecution
witnesses, Agapito Danos and Edgar
Regis.
3)Tambis admitted to the killing of the
victim. When asked why he killed and
beheaded the victim, he said he was
not aware of what he did.
4) Accused-appellant does not
question his conviction; he questions
the trial courts appreciation of the
mitigating and aggravating
circumstances against him, leading to
the imposition of the death penalty. He
claims that he should be meted only
with the lesser penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
Issue:

Was there merit in the accusedappellants contention?


Discussion:
Yes, there is.
1) An appeal in criminal case opens
the entire case for review and the
appellate court may correct even
unassigned error -> the trial court
erred in appreciating the mitigating
circumstances of the case.
2) Accused-appellant is entitled to a
reduction of the penalty due to the
attendance of two mitigating
circumstances:
a. Voluntary surrender He
surrendered the day following the

incident, turned over himself and the


weapons used in the commission of
the crime
b. Voluntary plea of guilty
Ruling:
The decision of RTC-Carmen,
Bohol convicting accused-appellant
Pablito Tambis of murder is AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION as to the death
penalty imposed. In lieu of the death
penalty, the accused is sentenced to
the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA,
with the accessory penalties to
indemnify the heirs of the victim.