UP VS DIZON
2
UP VS DIZON(JUDGE OF RTC) F: On August 30, 1990, the UP, through its then President Jose V. Abueva, entered into a General Construction Agreement with respondent Stern Builders Corporation (Stern Builders), represented by its President and General Manager Servillano dela Cruz, for the construction of the extension building and the renovation of the College of Arts and Sciences Building in the campus of the University of the Philippines in Los Baños (UPLB). 3 In the course of the implementation of the contract, Stern Builders submitted three progress billings corresponding to the work accomplished, but the UP paid only two of the billings. The third billing worth P 273,729.47 was not paid due to its disallowance by the Commission on Audit (COA). Despite the lifting of the disallowance, the UP failed to pay the billing, prompting Stern Builders and dela Cruz to sue the UP and its co-respondent officials to collect the unpaid billing and to recover various damages. After trial, on November 28, 2001, the RTC rendered its decision in favor of the STERN BUILDERS awarding, among others, moral damages I: WON STERN BUILDERS CORPORATION IS ENTITLED TO MORAL DAMAGES R: the grant of moral damages in that manner contravened the law that permitted the recovery of moral damages as the means to assuage "physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury." 111 The contravention of the law was manifest considering that Stern Builders, as an artificial person, was incapable of experiencing pain and moral sufferings. 112 Assuming that in granting the substantial amount of P 10,000,000.00 as moral damages, the RTC might have had in mind that dela Cruz had himself suffered mental anguish and anxiety. If that was the case, then the RTC obviously disregarded his separate and distinct personality from that of Stern Builders. 113 Moreover, his moral and emotional sufferings as the President of Stern Builders were not the sufferings of Stern Builders. Lastly, the RTC violated the basic principle that moral damages were not intended to enrich the plaintiff at the expense of the defendant, but to restore the plaintiff to his status quo ante as much as possible. Taken together, therefore, all these considerations exposed the substantial amount of P 10,000,000.00 allowed
description
cvxcvdsaas
Transcript of UP VS DIZON
UP VS DIZON(JUDGE OF RTC)F: On August 30, 1990, the UP, through its then President Jose V. Abueva, entered into a General Construction Agreement with respondent Stern Builders Corporation (Stern Builders), represented by its President and General Manager Servillano dela Cruz, for the construction of the extension building and the renovation of the College of Arts and Sciences Building in the campus of the University of the Philippines in Los Baos (UPLB).3In the course of the implementation of the contract, Stern Builders submitted three progress billings corresponding to the work accomplished, but the UP paid only two of the billings. The third billing worthP273,729.47 was not paid due to its disallowance by the Commission on Audit (COA). Despite the lifting of the disallowance, the UP failed to pay the billing, prompting Stern Builders and dela Cruz to sue the UP and its co-respondent officials to collect the unpaid billing and to recover various damages.After trial, on November 28, 2001, the RTC rendered its decision in favor of the STERN BUILDERS awarding, among others, moral damagesI: WON STERN BUILDERS CORPORATION IS ENTITLED TO MORAL DAMAGESR: the grant of moral damages in that manner contravened the law that permitted the recovery of moral damages as the means to assuage "physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury."111The contravention of the law was manifest considering that Stern Builders, as an artificial person, was incapable of experiencing pain and moral sufferings.112Assuming that in granting the substantial amount ofP10,000,000.00 as moral damages, the RTC might have had in mind that dela Cruz had himself suffered mental anguish and anxiety. If that was the case, then the RTC obviously disregarded his separate and distinct personality from that of Stern Builders.113Moreover, his moral and emotional sufferings as the President of Stern Builders were not the sufferings of Stern Builders. Lastly, the RTC violated the basic principle that moral damages were not intended to enrich the plaintiff at the expense of the defendant, but to restore the plaintiff to his status quo ante as much as possible. Taken together, therefore, all these considerations exposed the substantial amount ofP10,000,000.00 allowed as moral damages not only to be factually baseless and legally indefensible, but also to be unconscionable, inequitable and unreasonable.
