Hometown Development, Inc. v. Union Bank of the Philippines

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 240531. January 14, 2019.]

HOMETOWN DEVELOPMENT, INC., petitioner,vs. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 14, 2019 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 240531 (Hometown Development, Inc. v. Union Bank of the Philippines). — The court resolves to DENY the petition for lack of merit. It is evident that the petition is being utilized as a desperate attempt to salvage a right that petitioner has long foregone by its own neglect. Certainly, the court cannot declare a right when none anymore exists. The issues raised in the petition have been judiciously settled not only by the trial court, but also by the Court of Appeals. We are bound by their factual findings, that are supported by evidence on record and legal conclusions, that are in accord with law and jurisprudence.

However, We find it necessary to modify the award of damages. Article 2234 of the Civil Code provides, that the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded. In Spouses Mamerto v. Rural Bank of San Jose, 1 We held that the requirements for an award of exemplary damages are: 1) they may be imposed by way of example or correction only in addition, among others, to compensatory damages, and cannot be recovered as a matter of right; 2) the claimant must first establish his right to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages; and 3) the wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith, and the award would be allowed only if the guilty party acted in a wanted, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. In light of the trial court's ruling that respondent is not entitled to moral damages, the award of exemplary damages must also be deleted for lack of legal basis. We agree, however, that petitioner's acts compelled respondent to incur expenses to protect its interest. Thus, respondent is entitled to attorney's fees and litigation expenses under Article 2208 of the Civil Code.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 107490 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the award of exemplary damages to respondent is DELETED. Petitioner is ordered to pay respondent P100,000.00 by way of attorney's fees, litigation expenses and cost of suit. This amount shall then earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this resolution until full payment.

The petitioner's compliance with the Resolution dated August 29, 2018, submitting the original duplicate copies of the Decision dated May 31, 2016 and Resolution dated August 15, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 132, Makati City, is NOTED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Spouses Mamerto v. Rural Bank of San Jose, G.R. No. 201436, July 11, 2016, 796 SCRA 185,191-192.