E.

HUMAN RELATIONS

11. G.R. No. 167017, June 22, 2009

Serafin Cheng v. Spouses Vittorio and Ma. Helen Donini

FACTS: The subject of this petition is an oral lease agreement that went
sour. Petitioner Serafin Cheng agreed to lease his property located at 479 Shaw
Blvd., Mandaluyong City to respondents, Spouses Vittorio and Ma. Helen Donini, who
intended to put up a restaurant thereon. They agreed to a monthly rental of P17,000,
to commence in December 1990.

However, before respondents business could take off and before any final lease
agreement could be drafted and signed, the parties began to have serious
disagreements regarding its terms and conditions. Petitioner thus wrote respondents
on January 28, 1991, demanding payment of the deposit and rentals, and signifying
that he had no intention to continue with the agreement should respondents fail to
pay. Respondents, however, ignoring petitioners demand, continued to occupy the
premises until April 17, 1991 when their caretaker voluntarily surrendered the
property to petitioner.

Respondents then filed an action for specific performance and damages with a
prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Pasig City

Respondents prayed that petitioner be ordered to execute a written lease contract for
five years, deducting from the deposit and rent the cost of repairs in the amount
of P445,000, or to order petitioner to return their investment in the amount
of P964,000 and compensate for their unearned net income of P200,000 with
interest, plus attorneys fees.[2]

Petitioner, in his answer, denied respondents claims and sought the award of moral
and exemplary damages, and attorneys fees

Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) which, in its decision[5] dated
March 31, 2004, recalled and set aside the RTC decision, and entered a new one
ordering petitioner to pay respondents the amount of P964,000 representing the
latters expenses incurred for the repairs and improvements of the premises.[6]

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the award of
reimbursement had no factual and legal bases, [7] but this was denied by the CA in its
resolution

ISSUE: Are the spouses possessors in good faith?

HELD: The relationship between petitioner and respondents was explicitly governed
by the Civil Code provisions on lease, which clearly provide for the rule on
reimbursement of useful improvements and ornamental expenses after termination of
a lease agreement. Article 1678 states:
If the lessee makes, in good faith, useful improvements which are suitable to the use
for which the lease is intended, without altering the form or substance of the property
leased, the lessor upon the termination of the lease shall pay the lessee one-half of
the value of the improvements at that time. Should the lessor refuse to reimburse
said amount, the lessee may remove the improvements, even though the principal
thing may suffer damage thereby. He shall not, however, cause any more impairment
upon the property leased than is necessary.

With regard to ornamental expenses, the lessee shall not be entitled to any
reimbursement, but he may remove the ornamental objects, provided no damage is
caused to the principal thing, and the lessor does not choose to retain them by
paying their value at the time the lease is extinguished.

Contrary to respondents position, Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code did not
apply. Under these provisions, to be entitled to reimbursement for useful
improvements introduced on the property, respondents must be considered builders
in good faith. Articles 448 and 546, which allow full reimbursement of useful
improvements and retention of the premises until reimbursement is made, apply only
to a possessor in good faith or one who builds on land in the belief that he is the
owner thereof. A builder in good faith is one who is unaware of any flaw in his title to
the land at the time he builds on it.

Respondents are not entitled to reimbursement for the ornamental expenses under
the express provision of Article 1678. Moreover, since they failed to remove these
ornaments despite the opportunity to do so when they vacated the property, then
they were deemed to have waived or abandoned their right of removal.
Petitioner Serafin Cheng is ORDERED to pay respondents, spouses Vittorio and Ma.
Helen Donini, the amount of P171,650.95 as indemnity for the useful improvements;
and respondents, spouses Vittorio and Ma. Helen Donini, are ORDERED to pay
petitioner Serafin Cheng the following sums: (a) P100,000.00 moral damages; (b)
P50,000.00 exemplary damages and (c) P25,000.00 attorneys fees.
13. ASJ Corp. vs. Evangelista
February 14, 2008
QUISUMBING, J.:

FACTS: Spouses Efren and Maura Evangelista, under the name and style of R.M.
Sy Chicks, are engaged in the large-scale business of buying broiler eggs, hatching
them, and selling their hatchlings (chicks) and egg by-products. For the incubation
and hatching of these eggs, spouses Evangelista availed of the hatchery services of
ASJ Corp., a corporation duly registered in the name of Antonio San Juan.

Sometime in 1991, the spouses Evangelista delivered to ASJ Corp. various quantities
of eggs at an agreed service fee of 80 centavos per egg, whether successfully
hatched or not. Initially, the service fees were paid upon release of the eggs and by-
products to the spouses Evangelista. But as their business went along, the
Evangelistas delays on their payments were tolerated by San Juan, who just carried
over the balance, as there may be, into the next delivery, out of keeping goodwill.

Sometime in 1993, San Juan refused to release the chicks and by-products due to
the spouses Evangelistas failure to settle accrued service fees. The parties tried to
settle amicably their differences before police authorities, but to no avail. Thus, the
spouses Evangelista filed with the RTC an action for damages based on San Juan s
retention of the chicks and by-products.

San Juans obligation to deliver the chicks and by -products corresponds to three
dates: the date of hatching, the delivery/pick-up date and the date of spouses
Evangelistas payment. On several setting reports, the spouses Evangelista made
delays on their payments, but San Juan tolerated such delay. When the spouses
Evangelistas accounts accumulated because of their successive failure to pay on
several setting reports, San Juan opted to demand the full settlement of their
accounts as a condition precedent to the delivery. However, the spouses Evangelista
were unable to fully settle their accounts.
Believing firmly that the total value of the eggs delivered was more than sufficient to
cover the outstanding balance, Maura promised to settle their accounts only upon
proper accounting by San Juan. San Juan disliked the idea and threatened to
impound their vehicle and detain them at the hatchery compound if they should come
back unprepared to fully settle their accounts with him.

RTC: ruled in favor of the spouses Evengelista based on a finding that the retention
of the chicks and by-products was unjustified.
CA: affirmed the RTCs decision.

ISSUE: Whether the retention of the chicks and by-products constitute an abuse of
rights.

HELD: Yes.
San Juans act of withholding the chicks and by -products is entirely different from his
unjustifiable acts of threatening the spouses Evangelista. The retention had legal
basis; the threats had none.
The spouses Evangelistas offer to partially satisfy their accounts is not enough to
extinguish their obligation. Under Article 1248 of the Civil Code, the creditor cannot
be compelled to accept partial payments from the debtor, unless there is an express
stipulation to that effect. More so, the spouses Evangelista cannot substitute or apply
as their payment the value of the chicks and by-products they expect to derive
because it is necessary that all the debts be for the same kind, generally of a
monetary character. Thus, there was no valid application of payment in this case.
It was the spouses Evangelista who violated the very essence of reciprocity in
contracts, consequently giving rise to San Juans right of retention. This case is
clearly one among the species of non-performance of a reciprocal obligation.
Reciprocal obligations are those which arise from the same cause, wherein each
party is a debtor and a creditor of the other, such that the performance of one is
conditioned upon the simultaneous fulfillment of the other. From the moment one of
the parties fulfills his obligation, delay by the other party begins. Since the spouses
Evangelista are guilty of delay in the performance of their obligations, they are liable
to pay San Juan actual damages

Nonetheless, San Juans subsequent acts of threatening the spouses Evangelista

should not remain among those treated with impunity . Under Article 19 of the Civil
Code, an act constitutes an abuse of right if the following elements are present : (a)
the existence of a legal right or duty; (b) which is exercised in bad faith; and (c) for
the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. Here, while San Juan had the right to
withhold delivery, his high-handed and oppressive acts had no legal leg to stand on.
Since it was established that the spouses Evangelista suffered some pecuniary loss
anchored on San Juans abuse of rights, although the exact amount of actual
damages cannot be ascertained, temperate damages are recoverable.

13. UP vs. Philab

September 29, 2004
CALLEJO, SR., J.

FACTS: Sometime in 1979, the University of the Philippines (UP) decided to

construct an integrated system of research organization known as the Research
Complex. As part of the project, laboratory equipment and furniture were purchased
for the National Institute of Biotechnology and Applied Microbiology (BIOTECH) at
the UP Los Baos. The Ferdinand E. Marcos Foundation (FEMF) came forward and
agreed to fund the acquisition of the laboratory furniture, including the fabrication
thereof.
Renato E. Lirio, the Executive Assistant of the FEMF, gave the go-signal to BIOTECH
to contact a corporation to accomplish the project. On July 23, 1982, Dr. William
Padolina, the Executive Deputy Director of BIOTECH, arranged for Philippine
Laboratory Industries, Inc. (PHILAB), to fabricate the laboratory furniture and deliver
the same to BIOTECH for the BIOTECH Building Project, for the account of the
FEMF. Lirio directed Padolina to give the go-signal to PHILAB to proceed with the
fabrication of the laboratory furniture, and requested Padolina to forward the contract
of the project to FEMF for its approval.

On July 13, 1982, Padolina wrote Lirio and requested for the issuance of the
purchase order and down payment for the office and laboratory furniture for the
project. Padolina informed Hector Navasero, the President of PHILAB, to proceed
with the fabrication of the laboratory furniture, per the directive of FEMF Executive
Assistant Lirio. Padolina also requested for copies of the shop drawings and a
sample contract for the project, and that such contract and drawings had to be
finalized before the down payment could be remitted to the PHILAB the following
week. However, PHILAB failed to forward any sample contract. Navasero promised
to submit the contract for the installation of laboratory furniture to BIOTECH, by
January 12, 1983. However, Navasero failed to do so. In a Letter dated
February 1, 1983, BIOTECH reminded Navasero of the need to submit the contract
so that it could be submitted to FEMF for its evaluation and approval. Instead of
submitting the said contract, PHILAB submitted to BIOTECH an accomplishment
report on the project as of
February 28, 1983, and requested payment thereon.

On July 1, 1984, PHILAB submitted to BIOTECH an Invoice for the final payment of
laboratory furniture. Representatives from BIOTECH, PHILAB, and Lirio for the
FEMF, conducted a verification of the accomplishment of the work and confirmed the
same. FEMF failed to pay the bill.
President Marcos was ousted from office during the February 1986 EDSA Revolution.

PHILAB wrote President Corazon C. Aquino asking her help to secure the payment
of the amount due from the FEMF. Raul P. de Guzman, the Chancellor of UP Los
Baos, wrote then Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government
(PCGG) Jovito Salonga, submitting PHILABs claim to be officially entered as
accounts payable as soon as the assets of FEMF were liquidated by the PCGG.

In the meantime, the PCGG wrote UP requesting for a copy of the relevant contract
and the MOA for its perusal. Chancellor De Guzman wrote Navasero requesting for a
copy of the contract executed between PHILAB and FEMF. Navasero informed De
Guzman that PHILAB and
FEMF did not execute any contract regarding the fabrication and delivery of
laboratory furniture to BIOTECH.
Thereafter, PHILAB filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against UP.

RTC: Dismissed the complaint without prejudice to PHILABs recourse against the
FEMF.
CA: Reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC and held that there was never a
contract between FEMF and PHILAB. Consequently, PHILAB could not be bound by
the MOA between the FEMF and UP since it was never a party thereto. It further
ruled that, although UP did not bind itself to pay for the laboratory furniture;
nevertheless, it is liable to PHILAB under the maxim: No one should unjustly enrich
himself at the expense of another.

ISSUE: Whether U.P. is liable for PHILABs claim based on the maxim that no one
should
enrich itself at the expense of another.

HELD: No.

Unjust enrichment claims do not lie simply because one party benefits from the
efforts or obligations of others, but instead it must be shown that a party was unjustly
enriched in the sense that the term unjustly could mean illegally or unlawfully.

To substantiate a claim for unjust enrichment, the claimant must unequivocally prove
that another party knowingly received something of value to which he was not
entitled and that the state of affairs are such that it would be unjust for the person to
keep the benefit. Unjust enrichment is a term used to depict result or effect of failure
to make remuneration of or for property or benefits received under circumstances
that give rise to legal or equitable obligation to account for them; to be entitled to
remuneration, one must confer benefit by mistake, fraud, coercion, or request. Unjust
enrichment is not itself a theory of reconvey. Rather, it is a prerequisite for the
enforcement of the doctrine of restitution.

Article 22 of the New Civil Code reads: Every person who, through an act of
performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of
something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground , shall return the
same to him.

In order that accion in rem verso may prosper, the essential elements must be
present: (1) that the defendant has been enriched, (2) that the plaintiff has suffered a
loss, (3) that the enrichment of the defendant is without just or legal ground, and (4)
that the plaintiff has no other action based on contract, quasi-contract, crime or
quasidelict .

An accion in rem verso is considered merely an auxiliary action, available only when
there is no other remedy on contract, quasi-contract, crime, and quasi-delict. If there
is an obtainable action under any other institution of positive law, that action must be
resorted to, and the principle of accion in rem verso will not lie. The essential
requisites for the application of Article 22 of the New Civil Code do not obtain in this
case. PHILAB had a remedy against the FEMF via an action based on an implied-in-
fact contract with the FEMF for the payment of its claim. U.P. legally acquired the
laboratory furniture under the MOA with FEMF; hence, it is entitled to keep the
laboratory furniture.

14. Ilusorio vs. Bildner (2001)

July 19, 2001 PARDO, J.:
FACTS: This is Erlinda Ilusorios motion for reconsideration of the SC Decision
dismissing her petition for writ of habeas corpus to have the custody of her husband,
Potenciano. Erlinda states that Article XII of the 1987 Constitution and Articles 68 and
69 of the Family Code support her position that as spouses, they (Potenciano and
Erlinda) are duty bound to live together and care for each other.

ISSUE: Whether as spouses, Potenciano and Erlinda are duty bound to live together
and care for each other

HELD: Yes.

The law (i.e. Article XII of the 1987 Constitution and Articles 68 and 69 of the Family
Code) provides that the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe
mutual love, respect and fidelity. The sanction therefor is the "spontaneous, mutual
affection between husband and wife and not any legal mandate or court order" to
enforce consortium. Obviously, there was absence of empathy between spouses
Erlinda and Potenciano, having separated from bed and board since 1972. Empathy
has been defined as a shared feeling between husband and wife experienced not
only by having spontaneous sexual intimacy but a deep sense of spiritual
communion. Marital union is a two-way process.
Marriage is definitely for two loving adults who view the relationship with "amor gignit
amorem (Lat. for Love produces love ) respect, sacrifice and a continuing
commitment to togetherness, conscious of its value as a sublime social institution.

15. Ilusorio vs. Bildner (2000)

May 12, 2000
PARDO, J.:

FACTS: Erlinda Kalaw Ilusorio is the wife of lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio. Potenciano
Ilusorio is about 86 years of age possessed of extensive property valued at millions
of pesos. Erlinda and Potenciano got married on July 11, 1942 and lived together for
a period of thirty (30) years. In 1972, they separated from bed and board for
undisclosed reasons.

On December 30, 1997, upon his arrival from the United States, Potenciano stayed
with Erlinda. The children, Sylvia and Erlinda (Lin), alleged that during this time, their
mother gave Potenciano an overdose of antidepressant drug. As a consequence,
Potencianos health deteriorated. Thereafter, Erlinda filed with the RTC a petition for
guardianship over the person and property of Potenciano due to the latters ad
vanced age, frail health, poor eyesight and impaired judgment.

Meanwhile, after attending a corporate meeting in Baguio City, Potenciano did not
return to live with Erlinda. On March 11, 1999, Erlinda filed with the CA a petition for
habeas corpus to have the custody of Potenciano and enforce consortium as the
wife. She alleged that Lin and Sylvia refused her demands to see and visit her
husband and prohibited Potenciano from returning to live with her in Antipolo City.

CA: dismissed the application for habeas corpus but, nevertheless, granted Erlinda
visitation rights to Potenciano.

ISSUE: Whether a wife may secure a writ of habeas corpus to compel her husband
to live
with her.

HELD: No, Marital rights including coverture and living in conjugal dwelling may not
be enforced by the extra-ordinary writ of habeas corpus.

A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention, or by

which the rightful custody of a person is withheld from the one entitled thereto. It is
available where a person continues to be unlawfully denied of one or more of his
constitutional freedoms, where there is denial of due process, where the restraints
are not merely involuntary but are unnecessary, and where a deprivation of freedom
originally valid has later become arbitrary. It is devised as a speedy and effectual
remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, as the best and only sufficient
defense of personal freedom.

Object and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus: to inquire into all manner of
involuntary restraint, and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal. To
justify the grant of the petition, the restraint of liberty must be an illegal and
involuntary deprivation of freedom of action. The illegal restraint of liberty must be
actual and effective, not merely nominal or moral.

The evidence shows that there was no actual and effective detention or deprivation
of Potencianos liberty that would justify the issuance of the writ. The fact that lawyer
Potenciano Ilusorio is about 86 years of age, or under medication does not
necessarily render him mentally incapacitated. Soundness of mind does not hinge on
age or medical condition but on the capacity of the individual to discern his actions.

With his full mental capacity coupled with the right of choice, Potenciano Ilusorio may
not be the subject of visitation rights against his free choice. Otherwise, he will
deprived of his right to privacy.
In case the husband refuses to see his wife for private reasons, he is at liberty to do
so without threat of any penalty attached to the exercise of his right. No court is
empowered as a judicial authority to compel a husband to live with his wife.
Coverture cannot be enforced by compulsion of a writ of habeas corpus or by any
other process. That is a matter beyond judicial authority and is best left to the man
and womans free choice.

16. UE v. JADER
GR No. 132344, February 7, 2000

FACTS: Romeo Jader graduated at UE College of law from 1984-88. During his last
year, 1st semester, he failed to take the regular final examination in Practical Court
1where he was given an incomplete grade remarks. He filed an application for
removal of the incomplete grade given by Prof. Carlos Ortega on February 1, 1988
which was approved by Dean Celedonio Tiongson after the payment of required fees.
He took the exam on March 28 and on May 30, the professor gave him a grade of 5.

The commencement exercise of UE College of law was held April 16, 1988, 3PM. In
the invitation, his name appeared. In preparation for the bar exam, he took a leave of
absence from work from April 20- Sept 30, 1988. He had his pre-bar class review in
FEU. Upon learning of such deficiency, he dropped his review classes and was not
able to take the bar exam.

Jader sued UE for damages resulting to moral shock, mental anguish, serious
anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, sleepless nights due to UEs
negligence.

ISSUE: Whether UE should be held liable for misleading a student into believing
Jader satisfied all the requirements for graduation when such is not the case. Can
he claim moral damages?

HELD: Yes, SC held that petitioner was guilty of negligence and this liable to
respondent for the latters actual damages. Educational institutions are duty-bound to
inform the students of their academic status and not wait for the latter to inquire from
the former. However, respondent should not have been awarded moral damages
though JADER suffered shock, trauma, and pain when he was informed that he could
not graduate and will not be allowed to take the bar examinations as what CA held
because its also respondents duty to verify for himself whether he has completed all
necessary requirements to be eligible for the bar examinations. As a senior law
student, he should have been responsible in ensuring that all his affairs specifically
those in relation with his academic achievement are in order. Before taking the bar
examinations, it doesnt only entail a mental preparation on the subjects but there are
other prerequisites such as documentation and submission of requirements which
prospective examinee must meet.

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with

MODIFICATION. Petitioner is ORDERED to PAY respondent the sum of Thirty-five
Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Pesos (P35,470.00), with legal interest of 6% per
annum computed from the date of filing of the complaint until fully paid; the amount of
Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) as attorney's fees; and the costs of the suit. The
award of moral damages is DELETED.
17. Patricia Figueroa vs. Simeon bBarranco, Jr.
SBC Case No. 519. July 31, 1997
ROMERO, J.:
FACTS: Figueroa and Barranco were sweethearts since their teens. Their intimacy
eventually resulted to a son born out of wedlock. At this point (1964) Barranco
promised Figueroa that he would marry her when he passes the bar examinations.
After four takes, he finally passed but did not hold true to his promise of marriage. In
1971, their relationship ended. Years later, he married another woman. When
Barranco was about to take his oath to enter the legal profession, Figueroa filed a
complaint relaying to the court what happened between her and Barranco. Until
1988, Barranco has filed three motions to dismiss because Figueroa still would not
persecute and because for the past years, he has become elected in the
Sangguniang Bayan, has actively participated in various civic organizations and has
acquired a good standing within his community while the case was pending. The
court sought the opinion of the IBP which recommended that Barranco be allowed to
take his oath. Figueroa reappeared and intercepted the scheduled oath-taking of
Barranco which led to its delay.

ISSUE: Whether or not Barranco should be allowed to take his oath despite the
accusations of Figueroa.

HELD: Yes. The maintenance of an intimate relationship between a man and a

woman, both of whom had no impediment to marry and voluntarily carried on with the
affair, does not amount to a grossly immoral conduct even if a child was born out of
the relationship. His previous acts may be said to be a question to his moral
character but none of these are so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or
so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. Her
allegations that she was forced to have sexual relations with him cannot lie as
evidenced by her continued cohabitation with him even after their child was born in
1964. The ignobleness of his treatment of Figueroa is sufficiently punished by the 26
years that he has been prevented from entering the profession he has worked so
hard for.

F. UNFAIR COMPETITION
1. WILLAWARE PRODUCTS CORPORATIO vs. JESICHRIS MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 195549 September 3, 2014
Peralta, J:

FACTS: Jesichris Manufacturing Company the respondent filed this present

complaint for damages for unfair competition with prayer for permanent injunction to
enjoin Willaware Products Corporation the petitioner from manufacturing and
distributing plastic-made automotive parts similar to Jesichris Manufacturing
Company. The respondent, alleged that it is a duly registered partnership engaged in
the manufacture and distribution of plastic and metal products, with principal office at
No. 100 Mithi Street, Sampalukan, Caloocan City. Since its registration in 1992,
Jesichris Manufacturing Company has been manufacturing in its Caloocan plant and
distributing throughout the Philippines plastic-made automotive parts. Willaware
Products Corporation, on the other hand, which is engaged in the manufacture and
distribution of kitchenware items made of plastic and metal has its office near that of
the Jesichris Manufacturing Company. Respondent further alleged that in view of the
physical proximity of petitioners office to respondents office, and in view of the fact
that some of the respondents employees had transferred to petitioner, petitioner had
developed familiarity with respondents products, especially its plastic-made
automotive parts.

That sometime in November 2000, [respondent] discovered that [petitioner] had been
manufacturing and distributing the same automotive parts with exactly similar design,
same material and colors but was selling these products at a lower price as
[respondents] plastic-made automotive parts and to the same customers.

Respondent alleged that it had originated the use of plastic in place of rubber in the
manufacture of automotive under chassis parts such as spring eye bushing, stabilizer
bushing, shock absorber bushing, center bearing cushions, among others.
[Petitioners] manufacture of the same automotive parts with plastic material was
taken from respondents idea of using plastic for automotive parts. Also, [petitioner]
deliberately copied [respondents] products all of which acts constitute unfair
competition, is and are contrary to law, morals, good customs and public policy and
have caused [respondent] damages in terms of lost and unrealized profits in the
amount of 2,000,000 as of the date of respondents complaint.

ISSUE: 1. Whether or not there is unfair competition under human relations when
the parties are not competitors and there is actually no damage on the part of
Jesichris?
2. Consequently, if there is no unfair competition, should there be moral damages
and attorneys fees?
3. Whether or not the addition of nominal damages is proper although no rights have
been established?

HELD: Article 28 of the Civil Code provides that "unfair competition in agricultural,
commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation,
deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive or high-handed method shall give
rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage."

From the foregoing, it is clear that what is being sought to be prevented is not
competition per se but the use of unjust, oppressive or high handed methods which
may deprive others of a fair chance to engage in business or to earn a living.
Plainly,what the law prohibits is unfair competition and not competition where the
means use dare fair and legitimate.

In sum, petitioner is guilty of unfair competition under Article 28 of the Civil Code.
However, since the award of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) in actual damages
had been deleted and in its place Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) in
nominal damages is awarded, the attorney's fees should concomitantly be modified
and lowered to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).