PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

A dispute is defined as a conflict or controversy; a conflict of claims or rights; an assertion of a right, claim or demand on one side; met by contrary claims or allegations on the other. It is synonymous to a cause of action which is an act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. A petition or complaint originating from a dispute can be filed or initiated only by a real party-in-interest. The rules of court define a real party-in-interest as the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Every action, therefore, can only be prosecuted in the name of the real party-in-interest. It has been explained that a real party-in-interest plaintiff is one who has a legal right, while a real party-in-interest-defendant is one who has a correlative legal obligation whose act or omission violates the legal right of the former. On the other hand, interest means material interest, an interest in is

The DENR Secretarys power to cancel mining rights or agreements through the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) can be inferred from Sec. 230, Chapter XXIV of DENR AO 96-40 on cancellation, revocation, and termination of a permit/mineral agreement/FTAA. Sec. 230 provides: Section 230. Grounds. The following grounds for cancellation revocation and termination of a Mining Permit Mineral Agreement/FTAA. a. Violation of any of the terms and conditions of the Permits or Agreements; b. Nonpayment of taxes and fees due the government for two (2) consecutive years; and c. Falsehood or omission of facts in the application for exploration [or Mining] Permit Mineral Agreement/FTAA or other permits which may later, change or affect substantially the facts set forth in said statements. Though Sec. 230 is silent as to who can order the cancellation, revocation, and termination of a permit/mineral agreement/FTAA, it has to be correlated with the power of the MGB under Se

Ang parusang expulsion na ipinataw ng DLSU sa private respondents ay hindi angkop sa kanilang pagkakasala. It is true that schools have the power to instill discipline in their students as subsumed in their academic freedom and that the establishment of rules governing university-student relations, particularly those pertaining to student discipline, may be regarded as vital, not merely to the smooth and efficient operation of the institution, but to its very survival. This power, however, does not give them the untrammeled discretion to impose a penalty which is not commensurate with the gravity of the misdeed. If the concept of proportionality between the offense committed and the sanction imposed is not followed, an element of arbitrariness intrudes. That would give rise to a due process question. The Supreme Court agrees with respondent CHED that under the circumstances, the penalty of expulsion is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the acts committed by private res

GMA News reports, "AUV na maghahatid sa isang babae sa ospital, niratrat ng mga pulis sa akalang sasakyan ng mga suspek | Tinutukan 'yan ni Mark Salazar sa 24 Oras . Sa mga Kapuso abroad, tumutok o mag-subscribe sa GMA Pinoy TV , GMA Life TV , at GMA News TV International para sa iba pang mga balita." Revised Penal Code's Article 365. Imprudence and negligence. - Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed; if it would have constituted a light felony, the penalty of arresto menor in its maximum period shall be imposed. Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which would otherwise constitute a grave felony, sha

The pertinent provision of the Rules of Court on the issuance of a search warrant provides: Rule 126; Search and Seizure x x x x SEC. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. A search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. Thus, the validity of the issuance of a search warrant rests upon the following factors: (1) it must be issued upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place

It is settled that in determining probable cause, a judge is duty-bound to personally examine under oath the complainant and the witnesses he may present. Emphasis must be laid on the fact that the oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable cause. Search warrants are not issued on loose, vague or doubtful basis of fact, or on mere suspicion or belief. In the case at bar, petitioners capitalize on the first paragraph of the Application for Search Warrant executed by NBI SI Lacaran to support their argument that he lacked the personal knowledge required by both the Rules of Court and by jurisprudence. However, the very next paragraph of the application reveals the tremulous nature of their argument for it is clearly stated therein tha

No specific type of proof is required to show that there was demand. Demand need not even be formal; it may be verbal. The specific word "demand" need not even be used to show that it has indeed been made upon the person charged, since even a mere query as to the whereabouts of the money [in this case, property], would be tantamount to a demand. As expounded in Asejo v. People: With regard to the necessity of demand, the Supreme Court agrees with the CA that demand under this kind of estafa need not be formal or written. The appellate court observed that the law is silent with regard to the form of demand in estafa under Art. 315 1(b), thus: When the law does not qualify, the Supreme Court should not qualify. Should a written demand be necessary, the law would have stated so. Otherwise, the word "demand" should be interpreted in its general meaning as to include both written and oral demand. Thus, the failure of the prosecution to present a written demand as

Preliminarily, the present petition calls for a determination of whether there exists an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and the spouses-respondents. Denying the existence of such relationship, petitioner argues that the appellate court, as well as the NLRC, overlooked its twice-a-week reporting arrangement with respondents who are free to practice their profession elsewhere the rest of the week. And it invites attention to the uncontroverted allegation that respondents, aside from their monthly retainers, were entitled to one-half of all suturing, admitting, consultation, medico-legal and operating room assistance fees. These circumstances, it stresses, are clear badges of the absence of any employment relationship between them. The Supreme Court is unimpressed. Under the "control test," an employment relationship exists between a physician and a hospital if the hospital controls both the means and the details of the process by which the physician i

Turning now to the issue of dismissal, the Court upholds the appellate court's conclusion that private respondents were illegally dismissed. Dr. Lanzanas was neither a managerial nor supervisory employee but part of the rank-and-file. This is the import of the Secretary of Labor's Resolution of May 22, 1998 in OS A-05-15-98 which reads: x x x x In the motion to dismiss it filed before the Med-Arbiter, the employer (CMC) alleged that 24 members of petitioner are supervisors, namely x x x Rolando Lanzonas [sic] x x x.  A close scrutiny of the job descriptions of the alleged supervisors narrated by the employer only proves that except for the contention that these employees allegedly supervise, they do not however recommend any managerial action. At most, their job is merely routinary in nature and consequently, they cannot be considered supervisory employees.   They are not therefore barred from membership in the union of rank[-]and[-]file, which the petitioner [the

Mr. Paul Padua on Facebook reports, "According to Asec. Uson, hindi binabalita ng mainstream media ang turnover ng temporary shelters para sa mga na-displace dahil sa marawi siege. Clearly this government official is not only misinformed and out of the loop. She is also inciting hate. Gusto niya na lalong magalit ang followers niya sa Media at palabasin na “vias” ang mga journo."

Falsus in Unum, Falsus in Omnibus Fair Comment Fair Use Finality of Judgment Forum non Conviniens Facio ut des facio ut facias Fortuitous event Financial rehabilitation Foreign corporations Fraud in performance Future fraud Future negligence Future negligence Freedom from vs. Freedom to vs. Freedom of French rule Fungible goods Final withholding tax Fringe benefits Fruit of the poisonous tree Fiduciary capacity Fresh period rule (Neypes Rule) Fiscal adequacy Final assessment notice Forum shopping Final and executory Filial privilege fait accompli Filipino first policy Free on board (FOB) Forgiveness (Condonation) Force majeure Fear of imminent bodily harm Fideicommissary Fair Market Value Firsthand Knowledge Frustration of the commercial object or Frustration of enterprise

Despite its finding that the petitioner corporation did not violate the modified terms of the three promissory notes and that the payment of the principal loans were not yet due when the complaint was filed, the trial court did not dismiss the complaint, citing Section 5, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which reads: Section 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence. — When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the p

RULE 16 of the Rules of Court on Motion to Dismiss provides, "Section 1. Grounds. — Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds: x x x x (g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; x x x x" A complaint states a cause of action if it sufficiently avers the existence of the three (3) essential elements of a cause of action, namely: (a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (b) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (c) an act or omission on the part of the named defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant tothe plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages. If the allegations of the complaint do not state the concurrence of these

It is likewise well to reiterate here that probable cause, as far as the issuance of a search warrant is concerned, has been uniformly defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable, discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. Equally important is our declaration in Microsoft Corporation and Lotus Development Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc. that "The determination of probable cause does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits. As implied by the words themselves, probable cause is concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral certainty. The prosecution need not present at this stage reasonable doubt. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man, not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial." Appl

It must also be considered that, as elucidated by the statements of Aviles himself, he and Contapay had never met before the stabbing incident. Contapay cannot therefore, could not have been impelled by ill will or evil intent in testifying against Aviles whom he did not know prior to the incident. Neither is the Supreme Court persuaded by Aviles argument that it is more consistent with human nature that a persons attention would be caught up in the ongoing struggle, rather than in trying to recognize the attacker. Different people react differently to a given situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience. Witnessing a crime is one novel experience which elicits different reactions from witnesses for which no clear-cut standard of behavior can be drawn. This is especially true if the assailant is physically near the witness. In People v. Aquino, the Supreme Court even held that: There is n

There is treachery when the following requisites are present: (1) the employment of means, methods, or manner of execution to ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliatory action on the part of the victim and (2) the deliberate or conscious adoption of such means, method or manner of execution. The Court of Appeals ruled that the fact that Arenas shouted Apaya (perhaps a shortened form of apay aya, which is more accurately translated in Filipino as bakit ba) showed that he was probably surprised to see Aviles trying to get inside the jeepney which was moving slowly because of heavy traffic. The testimony of Contapay that after hearing Arenas shout Apaya, he saw Aviles already stabbing Arenas, showed that the attack was sudden and unexpected. The Supreme Court agrees with Aviles on this score. Although Contapay testified that he turned around immediately when the deceased shouted Apaya, he did not testify as to how the attack was initiated. Also, considerin

Neither does the fact that Arenas was in between Contapay and Aviles conclusively prove the presence of treachery. While this situation proved fatal to Arenas who had nowhere to run, there was no evidence that this situation was deliberately and consciously adopted to ensure safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliatory action on the part of the victim. As we have similarly held in People v. Latag, "Furthermore, no other circumstance attendant to the shooting supports the allegation that appellant carefully and deliberately planned the killing in a manner that would ensure his safety and success. There were no indications that he had deliberately chosen the place, the time or the method of killing. In addition, there was no showing that the meeting between him and the victim had been planned. The fact that the former was seen by Atienza behind some shrubs after a gunshot had rung out does not, by itself, compel a finding of treachery. Such a finding must be based on some

The relevant law dealing with the suspension of payments for money claims against corporations under rehabilitation is Presidential Decree (PD) No. 902-A, as amended.The term claim under said law refers to debts or demands of pecuniary nature. It is the assertion of rights for the payment of money. The raison d' tre behind the suspension of claims pending rehabilitation was explained in the case of BF Homes, Inc. v. CA: ...the reason for suspending actions for claims against the corporation should not be difficult to discover. It is not really to enable the management committee or the rehabilitation receiver to substitute the [corporation] in any pending action against it before any court, tribunal, board or body. Obviously, the real justification is to enable the management committee or the rehabilitation receiver to effectively exercise its/his powers free from any judicial or extra-judicial interference that might unduly hinder or prevent the rescue of the debtor [corporatio

Ecarg Arevir  reports, "Ito po ung aksidente [s]a Agoo, La Union kung saan 20 ang magkakapamilyang namatay. Base sa imbistigasyon ng mga pulis, ang jeep ay nag-overtake sa isang kotse at hindi napansin ng driver ng jeep na may paparating na bus (Partas). Ang Partas bus ay nasa tamang linya. Pero ang driver ng bus ay nasasangkot sa napakaraming kasong kakaharapin. Ano po sa tingin n[in]yo[?] May mali po ba sa batas[?] Nakikiramay po ako sa lahat ng [m]ga naiwan ng mga n[a]mtayan."

Effective Occupation Election of Remedies Equitable Recoupment Equivalents Equivalents Test Estoppel Estoppel by Laches Executive Privilege Executive Prerogative Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Exercise of Jurisdiction Error of Jurisdiction Entry of Judgment Error in Extremis Enrolled Bill Ex Post Facto Ejusdem Generis Equipose Efficient Intervening Cause Economic Duress Ex Parte Exclusive Economic Zone Excessive Entanglement Exclusionary Rule Error in Personae Entertainment Expenses Eminent Domain Equal Protection Emergency Powers Estoppel by Acquiescence Ex Contractu Ex Delicto Ex Officio Exempting Circumstance Exculpatory Evidence Evidence Aliunde Escheat Easement Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius En Banc Exequatur Expressum Facit Cessare Tacitum Earnest Money Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat Election Notice Electoral Tribunal El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado Entrapment (vs. Instigation)

Article 1191 of the Civil Code provides:  "The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission, even after he had chosen fulfillment, if the latter should become impossible. xxx xxx xxx" From the foregoing, the right of rescission is implied in every reciprocal obligation where one party fails to perform what is incumbent upon him while the other is willing and ready to comply. Certainly, petitioner's failure to deliver the units on the commencement date of the lease on October 1, 1997 gave respondent the right to rescind the contract after the latter had already paid the contract price in full. Furthermore, respondent's right to rescind the contract cannot be prevented by the fact that petitioner had the optio

It is a well-established principle that in the interpretation of an ambiguous provision of law, the history of the enactment of the law may be used as an extrinsic aid to determine the import of the legal provision or the law. History of the enactment of the statute constitutes prior laws on the same subject matter. Legislative history necessitates review of the origin, antecedents and derivation of the law in question to discover the legislative purpose or intent. It can be assumed that the new legislation has been enacted as continuation of the existing legislative policy or as a new effort to perpetuate it or further advance it. (G.R. No. 169080; December 19, 2007)

Sa Pilipinas, hindi po krimen ang pagiging bakla o tomboy (lesbian). Hindi rin po krimen na may boyfriend si mister o may girlfriend si misis. Kaya nga lang, may dalawang bagay po tayong dapat tandaan. Una, isa po sa mga dahilan para ma-annul ang kasal ay ang pagtatago ng kabaklaan o katomboyan. Pero, kailangan po ang kabaklaan o katomboyan na ito ay "existing at the time of the marriage." EO 209's Article 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding Article: (1) Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of the other party of a crime involving moral turpitude; (2) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband; (3) Concealment of sexually transmissible disease, regardless of its nature, existing at the time of the marriage; or (4) Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or lesbianism existing at

The Court finds the petition bereft of merit. There is no compelling reason for the Court to disturb the findings of facts of the lower courts. The trial court's findings are as follows: (1) Rosita failed to establish that there is an agreement between her and Arturo that the latter will give her one-third of the proceeds of the sale of the Morayta property; (2) petitioners were not able to establish by clear and sufficient evidence that the P3,000,000.00 which they took from Arturo when they encashed the subject check was part of the proceeds of the sale of the Morayta property; (3) Rosita's counterclaim is permissive and she failed to pay the full docket and filing fees for her counterclaim. Petitioners challenge the findings of the RTC and insist that they should not be held liable for encashing the subject check because Arturo defrauded Rosita and that he committed deceitful acts which deprived her of her rightful share in the sale of her building in Morayta; that t

The pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code read: SEC. 408. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement; Exception Thereto. – The lupon of each barangay shall have authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes except: (a) Where one party is the government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof; (b) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions; (c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine exceeding Five Thousand pesos (P5,000.00); (d) Offenses where there is no private offended party; (e) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon; (f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, ex

It must be noted that Presidential Decree No. 1508 has been repealed by codification in the Local Government Code of 1991 which took effect on January 1, 1992. The basic complaint was filed by petitioners before the trial court on July 10, 1991 before the effectivity of the Local Government Code. Nevertheless, Sections 4 and 6 of the former law have been substantially reproduced in Sections 410 (b) and 412, respectively, of the latter law. The pertinent provisions read as follows: Sec. 410. PROCEDURE FOR AMICABLE SETTLEMENT. — (b) . . . . If he (lupon chairman) fails in his mediation effort within fifteen (15) days from the first meeting of the parties before him, he shall forthwith set a date for the constitution of the pangkat in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Sec. 412. CONCILIATION. — (a) Precondition to filing of Complaint in Court. — No complaint . . . shall be filed or instituted in court . . . unless there has been a confrontation of the parties before the

Petitioners' assignments of errors boil down to the basic issue of whether or not Alice and Rosita are justified in encashing the subject check given the factual circumstances established in the present case. Petitioners' posture is not sanctioned by law. If they truly believe that Arturo took advantage of and violated the rights of Rosita, petitioners should have sought redress from the courts and should not have simply taken the law into their own hands. Our laws are replete with specific remedies designed to provide relief for the violation of one's rights. In the instant case, Rosita could have immediately filed an action for the nullification of the sale of the building she owns in light of petitioners' claim that the document bearing her conformity to the sale of the said building was taken by Arturo from her without her knowledge and consent. Or, in the alternative, as the CA correctly held, she could have brought a suit for the collection of a sum of money to

Kapag nagpapagupit po kayo ay mayroong nabubuong kontrata sa pagitan ninyo at ng barbershop. Ang barbershop po ang employer ng barbero. Kapag naman tao-sa-tao lang po ang usapan, mayroon paring kontrata. Kapag hindi po sinunod ng barbero ang gusto ninyo, may tinatawag pong "breach of contract."

Una po sa lahat, hindi po tinatanggap sa korte ang pagiging "Born-Again Christian" ninyo para patunayang totoo ang sinasabi ng anak ninyo. Kailangan pa rin niyang patunayan sa korte ang kaniyang "credibility" at ang basehan ng kaniyang mga alegasyon. Pangalawa, hindi po sapat na basehan ang pagliban sa pagpasok or paga-apply sa ibang trabaho para i-hold ang suweldo ng isang trabahador. Ayon po sa Batas Trabaho (Labor Code), hindi puwedeng ipitin ng isang employer ang wages ng kaniyang employees. Depende po sa laki ng claim ninyo ay maaari kayong magfile sa Regional Director's Office (RDO) ng Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) o sa National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Kung 5,000 pesos po o mas maliit pa ang inyong claim, sa RDO po kayo magtungo. Tungkol po sa 13-month pay, tandaan po na may mga rekisitos para matanggap ng isang tao ang kaniyang 13-month pay. Hindi lahat ng nagtatrabaho ay nakatatanggap ng 13th-month pay. Para po sa mas detalyado

Una po sa lahat, ang mismong pagfa-file ng criminal complaint ay hindi po, sa ganang sarili nito, sapat na basehan para mag-file din ng kaso laban sa isang taong naunang mag-file laban sa inyo. Pangalawa, hindi rin po depensa sa batas na nauna si legal wife na magka-kabit para mapawalangsala kayo sa inyong kaso. Kung sa tingin po ninyo ay talagang may lalaki din si legal wife at kaya ninyong patunayan ito sa korte, mag-file din po kayo ng criminal complaint. Ang basehan po ninyo ay ang batas ukol sa adultery sa ilalim ng Revised Penal Code.

Petitioners invoke the rule of pari delicto to support their contention that respondents do not deserve any relief from the courts. The principle of pari delicto provides that when two parties are equally at fault, the law leaves them as they are and denies recovery by either one of them. Indeed, one who seeks equity and justice must come to court with clean hands. However, in the present case, petitioners were not able to establish that respondents are also at fault. Thus, the principle of pari delicto cannot apply. In any case, the application of the pari delicto principle is not absolute, as there are exceptions to its application. One of these exceptions is where the application of the pari delicto rule would violate well-established public policy. The prevention of lawlessness and the maintenance of peace and order are established public policies. In the instant case, to deny respondents relief on the ground of pari delicto would put a premium on the illegal act of petitio

Petitioners also question the trial court's ruling that their counterclaim is permissive. The Supreme Court has laid down the following tests to determine whether a counterclaim is compulsory or not, to wit: [1] Are the issues of fact or law raised by the claim and the counterclaim largely the same? [2] Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendants claims, absent the compulsory counterclaim rule? [3] Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiffs claim as well as the defendants counterclaim? and [4] Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim, such that the conduct of separate trials of the respective claims of the parties would entail a substantial duplication of effort and time by the parties and the court? Tested against the above-mentioned criteria, the Supreme Court agrees with the view of the RTC that Rosita's counterclaim for the recovery of her alleged share in the sale of the Morayta property is permissive in

It is settled that any decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down at any time, even on appeal before this Court. In the present case, considering that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the permissive counterclaim of Rosita, any proceeding taken up by the trial court and any ruling or judgment rendered in relation to such counterclaim is considered null and void. In effect, Rosita may file a separate action against Arturo for recovery of a sum of money. However, Rosita's claims for damages and attorney's fees are compulsory as they necessarily arise as a result of the filing by respondents of their complaint. Being compulsory in nature, payment of docket fees is not required. Nonetheless, since petitioners are found to be liable to return to respondents the amount of P3,000,000.00 as well as to pay moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees, it necessarily follows that Rosita's counterclaim for damages and at

Under RA 7942, the power of control and supervision of the DENR Secretary over the MGB to cancel or recommend cancellation of mineral rights clearly demonstrates the authority of the DENR Secretary to cancel or approve the cancellation of mineral agreements. Under Sec. 9 of RA 7942, the MGB was given the power of direct supervision of mineral lands and resources, thus:  Sec. 9. Authority of the Bureau. The Bureau shall have direct charge in the administration and disposition of mineral lands and mineral resources and shall undertake geological, mining, metallurgical, chemical, and other researches as well as geological and mineral exploration surveys. The Director shall recommend to the Secretary the granting of mineral agreements to duly qualified persons and shall monitor the compliance by the contractor of the terms and conditions of the mineral agreements. The Bureau may confiscate surety, performance and guaranty bonds posted through an order to be promulgated by the Director. T

As to Patricia's entitlement to damages, the Supreme Court has held that while no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded, the amount of indemnity being left to the discretion of the court, it is nevertheless essential that the claimant should satisfactorily show the existence of the factual basis of damages and its causal connection to defendants acts. This is so because moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. Moreover, additional facts must be pleaded and proven to warrant the grant of moral damages under the Civil Code, these being, social humiliation, wounded feelings, grave anxiety, etc. that resulted from the act being complained of. In the present case, both the RTC and the CA were not convinced that Patricia is entitled to damages. Quoting the RTC, the CA held thus: With resp