FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION

vs.
THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and NESTOR B.
SUGA JR.
G.R. No. L-65935 September 30, 1988
FACTS:
Nestor B. Sunga Jr., businessman and owner of the NBS
Machineries Marketing and the NAP-NAP Transit filed a case
for damages alleging that he purchased a passenger minibus
Mazda from the Motor center, Inc. at Calasiao, Pangasinan on
March 21, 1978 and for which he executed a promissory note
to cover the amount of P62,592.00 payable monthly in the
amount of P2,608.00 for 24 months. On the same date,
however, a chattel mortgage was executed by him in favor
of the Motor center, Inc. The Chattel Mortgage and
Assignment was assigned to the Filinvest Credit Corporation
with the conformity of Sunga.
He claimed that on October 21, 1978, the minibus was
seized by two employees of Filinvest Credit Corporation upon
orders of the branch manager Mr. Gaspar de los Santos,
without any receipt, who claimed that he was delinquent in
the payments of his vehicle. The said vehicle was recovered
from the Crisologo Compound which was later released by
Rosario Fronda Assistant Manager of the Filinvest, and Arturo
Balatbat as caretaker of the compound.
Florence Onia of the Filinvest explained that the
minibus was confiscated because the balance was already
past due. After verification that his accounts are all in order,
Florence Onia admitted it was their fault. The motor vehicle
was returned to the plaintiff upon proper receipt.
The trial court ordered Filinvest Credit Corporation to
pay the plaintiff Nestor Sunga Jr. the following damages, to
wit:
a. Moral Damages P30,000.00
b. Loss on Income of the minibus for three days 600.00

c. Actual damages 500.00

d. Litigation expenses 5,000.00
e. Attorney's Fees 10,000.00
f. And to pay the costs.
Filinvest appealed in CA but the latter promulgated its
decision affirming in toto the decision of the trial court and
increased the moral damages from P30,000.00 to
P50,000.00.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Filinvest constitutional right to due
process of law was violated.
2. Whether or not the CA exceeded its jurisdiction
and acted with grave abuse of discretion.
HELD:
When the respondent Court granted private respondent
moral damages in an exaggerated and unconscionable
amount, respondent Court exceeded the bounds of its
discretion, amounting to an absence or lack of jurisdiction.
Respondent Court had no authority to increase the award of
damages to private respondent when the latter did not
appeal the decision because private respondent considered
the judgment.
It asserts that the constitutionality of the contractual
stipulation between the parties embodied in the documents
denominated as Promissory Note and Deed of Mortgage was
not in issue in the court a quo and neither was the same
raised on appeal and therefore should not have been
passed upon based on the premise that the appellate court
should not consider any error other than those assigned or
specified. It rationalizes that the respondent court's
invocation of a pending bill in the legislature, Batasan Bill
3075, to

Well settled is the rule in this jurisdiction that whenever

an appeal is taken in a civil case, an appellee who has not
himself appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any
affirmative relief other than the ones granted in the decision
of the court below." Verily the respondent court disregarded
such a well settled rule when it increased the award for
moral damages.
Certiorari lies when a court has acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion.Without jurisdiction means that the court acted
with absolute want of jurisdiction. There is "excess of
jurisdiction" where the court has jurisdiction but has
transcended the same or acted without any statutory
authority. "Grave abuse of discretion" implies such capricious
and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack
of jurisdiction, or in other words, where the power is
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and
gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a
virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in
contemplation of law.
There is no dispute that the Sunga, a businessman and
owner of the NBS Machineries Marketing and NAP-NAP
Transit, is entitled to moral damages due to the unwarranted
seizure of the minibus Mazda, because he was delinquent in
the payment of its monthly amortizations, which turned out
to be incorrect. No doubt such intent tainted private
respondent Sunga's reputation in the business community,
thus causing him mental anguish, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, and
social humiliation. Considering, however, that respondent
Sunga was dispossessed of his motor vehicle for barely three
days, possession of which was restored to him soon after the
accounting errors were ironed out, the court finds that the
award of moral damages even in the sum of P30,000.00 is
excessive. Moral damages are awarded only to enable the
injured parties to obtain means, diversions or amusements
that will serve to alleviate the moral sufferings the injured
parties have undergone by reason of defendant's culpable

action. Therefore it must be proportionate to the suffering

inflicted."

EDUARDO F. HERNANDEZ et al,

vs.
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION,
G.R. No. 145328

, March 23, 2006

FACTS:
In 1996, NAPOCOR began the construction of 29
decagon-shaped steel poles to support overhead high
tension cables in connection with 230 Kilovolt Sucat-AranetaBalintawak Power Transmission. Said transmission line
passes through the petitioners home in Dasmarias Village.
Petitioners scoured the internet of possible adverse
effects of such structures to their health and well-being and
found articles and studies linking the incidence of a fecund

of illnesses to exposure to electromagnetic fields (from

cancer to leukemia).
NAPOCOR then conducted series of meeting with them.
Rep. Arnulfo Fuentebella, asked NAPOCOR to shed light
on the petitioners problem. NAPOCOR, upon discussion with
the petitioners came up with four options to fix the problem,
to wit:
Option 1: transfer the line to Lawton Avenue
Option 2: maintain 12 meters distance
Option 3: construct an underground line
Option 4: reroute along C-5 and SLEX
Negotiations however was not successful.
Petitioners filed a Complaint for Damages with Prayer
for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a
Writ of Preliminary Injunction against NAPOCOR. The lower
court then issued an order which temporarily restrained the
respondent from energizing and transmitting high voltage
electric current through the said project.
NAPOCOR invoked P.D No. 1818, which prohibits Courts
from Issuing Restraining Orders or Preliminary Injunctions in
Cases Involving Infrastructure and Natural Resource
Development Projects of, and Public Utilities Operated by,
the Government.
The trial court still ordered the issuance of writ of
preliminary injunction against NAPOCOR. And enjoined it
from further preparing and installing voltage cables.
NAPOCOR then filed with CA a prayer for nullification of
the said order. The same was granted.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court may issue a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction.

HELD:
Yes. P.D.1818 says, "No court in the Philippines shall
have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order, preliminary
injunction or preliminary order, preliminary mandatory
injunction in any case, dispute or controversy involving an
infrastructure project." This rule is not absolute. The
prohibition extends only to the issuance of injunctions or
restraining orders against administrative acts in
controversies involving facts or the exercise of discretion in
technical cases. On issues outside this dimension and
involving questions of law, courts could not be prevented
from exercising their power to restrain or prohibit
administrative acts.
In this case, there is a violation of petitioners right to
health and NAPOCOR had violated the Local Government
Code provision on prior consultation with the affected
communities. These are veritable questions of law that
invested the trial court with jurisdiction to issue a TRO and a
preliminary injunction. Such these acts divest the case from
the protective mantle of P.D. 1818.
Further, the location of the project is a fragile zone
being proximate to local earthquake faults.

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
GR No. 110120, March 16, 1994
On 1991, the Task Force Camarin Dumpsite of Our Lady
of Lourder Parish, Brgy. Camarin, Caloocan City, filled a

complaint with the LLDA seeking to stop the operation of the

8.6-hectare open dumpsite in Brgy. Camarin due to its
harmful effect on the health of the people and possible
pollution of water. Such dumpsite is without an
Environmental Compliance Certificate from the
Environmental Management Bureau of the DENR and
clearance from LLDA.
After a public hearing, the LLDA found the presence of
bacteria in the water nearby.
LLDA then issued a CEASE and DESIST ORDER for the
City Government of Caloocan to stop the operation of the
dumpsite.
The City Government of Caloocan filed with the RTC,
Caloocan an action for the declaration of nullity of the cease
and desist order, and sought to be declared as the sole
authority empowered to promote heath and safe of the
people in Caloocan City.
Thereafter, the RTC issued a TRO enjoining LLDA from
enforcing its order.
ISSUES:
1.Whether or not the LLDA may entertain the complaint
against the dumpsite
2. Wheter or not the LLDA has the power and
authority to issue a "cease and desist" order.
HELD:
Yes, LLDA may entertain the complaint.
LLDA shall carry out and make effective the declared
national policy of promoting and accelerating the balanced
growth of the Laguna Lake and the surrounding provinces
of Rizal with due regard and adequate provisions for
environmental management and control, preservation of
the quality of human life and ecological systems, and the
prevention of undue ecological disturbances, deterioration
and pollution. The LLDA, by virtue of its special charter, has
the responsibility to protect the inhabitants of the Laguna
Lake region from the deleterious effects of pollutants
emanating from the discharge of wastes from the
surrounding areas.
YES, the power "to make, alter or modify orders
requiring the discontinuance of pollution" is expressly and
clearly bestowed upon the LLDA by Executive Order No. 927,
series of 1983.

AGAPITO MAGBANUA, et. Al

vs.
HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE, EDUARDO, BUTCH,
DIEGO AND NENA All Surnamed PEREZ
G.R. Nos. L-66870-72 June 29, 1985
FACTS:

Agapito Magbanua and others alleged that they are

share tenants of the defendants, that the latter diverted the
free flow of water from their farm lots which caused portions

of their landholdings to dry up to their great damage and

prejudice.
They were told by the defendants' overseer to vacate
their respective areas for they could not plant palay any
longer due to lack of water.
The trial court rendered a decision in favor of Magbanua
and ordered the defendants to pay moral and exemplary
damages.
According to the trial court, as shared tenants, they are
entitled to be maintained as agricultural lessees in peaceful
cultivation in their respective landholdings.
Issue:
Whether or not he petitioners are entitled to moral and
exemplary damages.
Held:
The plaintiffs are entitled to receive award of moral
and exemplary damages by the defendants.
Landowners has an obligation to keep the tenant in the
peaceful and continuous cultivation of his landholding. In this
case, it shows that the petitioners were denied irrigation
water for their farm lots in order to make them vacate their
landholdings. The defendants violated the plaintiff's rights
and caused prejudiced to the latter by the diversion of water.
Article 21 of the Civil Code which provides that, Any person
who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that
is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage. The defendants
acted in an oppressive manner which is contrary to the
morals of the petitioners and therefore, they are liable for
the compensation to the latter.
ERNESTO R. RODRIGUEZ, JR., et. Al
vs.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and DAYTONA
CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
G.R. No. 74816 March 17, 1987
FACTS:
Petitioners filed an action for abatement of a public
nuisance with damages against Daytona. Accordingly, the
continued operation of the cement batching plant of the

defendant poses a "great menace to the neighbourhood,

both in point of health and property."
From the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, the
cement dust coming from the batching plant of the
corporation is injurious to the health. The noise, the
vibration, the smoke and the odor generated by the day and
night operation of the plant is causing them serious
discomfort and untold miseries. Its operation therefore
violates certain rights of the plaintiffs and causes them
damage. It is thus a nuisance and its abatement justified.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is a need for the closure and
stoppage Daytonas cement batching plant
HELD:
Yes. There is a need for the closure and stoppage of the
operation of the cement batching plant because it posed "a
great menace to the neighborhood both in point of health
and property.
The evidence shows that the defendant is a domestic
corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of
the Philippines It was issued by the government a business
permit for the manufacture of road and building concrete
materials such as concrete aggregates, with cement
batching plant, with conditions that the said batching plant
shall (1) institute measures to prevent dust emission during
the manual charging of cement from bags to the receiving
hopper of the bucket elevator of the batching plant; (2)
remove all sediment deposit in the settling of tank for
process water and proper maintenance should be observed
at all times. Such conditions were violated.
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPERS, INC
vs.
The Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 94759, Jan. 21, 1991, 201 SCRA

FACTS:
A domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture
and export of charcoal briquette, the Technology Developers,
Inc. received a letter from acting mayor Pablo Cruz,
1) ordering the full cessation of its plant in Guyong, Sta.
Maria, Bulacan until further order,
2) requesting its Plant Manager to bring before the
office of the mayor:
a. Building permit;
b. Mayor's permit;
c. Region III-Pollution of Environment and Natural
Resources Anti-Pollution Permit;
d. other document.
Technology Developers undertook to comply with the
request to produce the required documents. It commenced
to secure "Region III-DENR Anti-Pollution Permit," although
among the permits previously secured prior to the operation
of petitioner's plant was a "Temporary Permit to Operate Air
Pollution Installation" issued by the Environmental
Management Bureau and is now at a stage where the
Environmental Management Bureau is trying to determine
the correct kind of anti-pollution devise to be installed as
part of petitioner's request for the renewal of its permit. It
sent its representatives to the office of the mayor to secure
the same but were not entertained.
However, the acting mayor ordered that the plant
premises be padlocked, which was done without previous
and reasonable notice.
Technology Developers then instituted an action for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary
injunction against the acting mayor with Bulacan RTC,
alleging that the closure order was issued in grave abuse of
discretion.
Marivic Guina, however, recommended that, "Due to
the manufacturing process and nature of raw materials used,
the fumes coming from the factory may contain particulate
matters which are hazardous to the health of the people. As
such, the company should cease operating until such a time
that the proper air pollution device is installed and
operational."

ISSUE:
Whether or not the acting mayor acted with grave
abuse of discretion.
HELD:
The mayor of a town has much responsibility to protect
its inhabitants from pollution, and by virtue of his police
power, he may deny the application for a permit to operate a
business or otherwise close the same unless appropriate
measures are taken to control and/or avoid injury to the
health of the residents of the community from the emissions
in the operation of the business. The action of the Acting
Mayor was in response to the complaint of the residents
directed to the Provincial Governor through channels.
The petitioner has a huge investment in this dollarearning industry. However, that concomitant with the need
to promote investment and contribute to the growth of the
economy is the equally essential imperative of protecting the
health, nay the very lives of the people, from the deleterious
effect of the pollution of the environment.