G.R. No.

189218:

Title: OUR LADY OF LOURDES HOSPITAL, Petitioner vs SPOUSES ROMEO AND

REGINA CAPANZANA, Respondents

Facts: Regina Capanzana, a 40-year-old nurse and clinical instructor, was scheduled for her third
caesarean section (C-section) on 2 January 1998. However, a week earlier, on 26 December
1997, she went into active labor and was brought to Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital for an
emergency C-section. She gave birth to a baby boy but later suffered from pulmonary edema and
amniotic fluid embolism. Regina lost the use of her speech, eyesight, hearing, and limbs.
Respondent spouses Capanzana filed a complaint for damages against petitioner hospital, along
with co-defendants: Dr. Miriam Ramos, an obstetrician/gynecologist; Dr. Milagros Joyce Santos,
an anesthesiologist; and Jane Does, the nurses on duty stationed on the second floor of petitioner
hospital on 26-27 December 1997. Respondents imputed negligence to Ors. Ramos and Santos
for the latter’s failure to detect the heart disease of Regina, resulting in failure not only to refer
her to a cardiologist for cardiac clearance, but also to provide the appropriate medical
management before, during, and after the operation. They further stated that the nurses were
negligent for not having promptly given oxygen, and that the hospital was equally negligent for
not making available and accessible the oxygen unit on that same hospital floor at the time.

Issues: The main issue in this case is whether or not the hospital, doctors, and nurses were
negligent in the care of Regina Capanzana.

Ruling: The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision that the proximate cause of
Regina’s condition was hypoxic encelopathy, a diffuse brain damage secondary to lack of
oxygen in the brain. The hospital and the doctors were found liable for damages. However, the
nurses were not found to be negligent. The Supreme Court also ordered the hospital and the
doctors to pay the respondents damages for actual, moral, and exemplary damages, as well as
attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

G.R. No. 233774:

Title: MA. LUISA A. PINEDA, PETITIONER, VS. VIRGINIA ZUÑIGA VDA. DE VEGA,
RESPONDENT

Facts: Ma. Luisa A. Pineda filed a complaint against Virginia Zuñiga Vda. de Vega for the
payment of the latter’s principal obligation and the interest thereon or, in default of such
payment, the foreclosure of the property subject of a real estate mortgage. In her complaint,
Pineda alleged that, on March 25, 2003, Vega borrowed from her P 500,000.00 payable within
one year with an interest rate of 8% per month. To secure the loan, Vega executed a real estate
mortgage over a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-339215, together
with all the buildings and improvements existing thereon (Property), in Pineda’s favor. On the
loan’s maturity, Vega failed to pay her loan despite demand. As of May 2005, the unpaid
accumulated interest amounted to P 232,000.00. In her answer, Vega denied Pineda’s material
allegations and countered that the complaint was dismissible for lack of prior barangay
conciliation proceeding and for failure to join her husband as a party. She also argued that the
interest rate agreed upon was excessive and unconscionable, thus illegal. She further denied
receiving P 500,000.00 from Pineda and claimed that the said amount was the accumulated
amount of another obligation she earlier secured from Pineda.

Issues: The main issue was whether the interest rate agreed upon was excessive and
unconscionable, thus illegal. Respondent denied receiving P500,000.00 from petitioner and
claimed that the said amount was the accumulated amount of another obligation she earlier
secured from petitioner.
Ruling: The court ruled that although the agreement was to charge an interest rate of 8% per
month, what was charged was just 4% per month. Petitioner admitted that the original loan
which respondent obtained in 2000 was only P200,000.00 with an undertaking to pay 3% interest
per month.

G.R. No. 169694:

Title: MEGAWORLD PROPERTIES AND HOLDINGS, INC., EMPIRE EAST LAND

HOLDINGS, INC., and ANDREW L. TAN, Petitioners vs. MAJESTIC FINANCE AND
INVESTMENT CO., INC., RHODORA LOPEZ-LIM, and PAULINA CRUZ, Respondents

Facts: Megaworld Properties and Holdings, Inc. entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA)
with Majestic Finance and Investment Co., Inc. for the development of a residential subdivision
located in Brgy. Alingaro, General Trias, Cavite. According to the JVA, the development of the
215 hectares of land belonging to the owner (joint venture property) would be for the sole
account of the developer; and that upon completion of the development of the subdivision, the
owner would compensate the developer in the form of saleable residential subdivision lots. The
JVA further provided that the developer would advance all the costs for the relocation and
resettlement of the occupants of the joint venture property, subject to reimbursement by the
owner; and that the developer would deposit the initial amount of ₱10,000,000.00 to defray the
expenses for the relocation and settlement, and the costs for obtaining from the Government the
exemptions and conversion permits, and the required clearances. The owner filed a complaint for
specific performance with damages against the developer, the developer/assignee, and
respondent Andrew Tan, who are now the petitioners herein. The complaint was mainly based on
the failure of the petitioners to comply with their obligations under the JVA, including the
obligation to maintain a strong security force to safeguard the entire joint venture property of 215
hectares from illegal entrants and occupants.

Issues: The main issue was whether either party of a joint venture agreement to develop property
into a residential subdivision has already performed its obligation as to entitle it to demand the
performance of the other's reciprocal obligation.

Ruling: The court ruled that the defendants (petitioners herein) were directed to perform their
obligation to provide round-the-clock security for the property under development. The Court of
Appeals upheld the order issued on November 5, 2002 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 67,
in Pasig City (RTC) in Civil Case No. 67813.

G.R. No. 115838:

Title: CONSTANTE AMOR DE CASTRO and CORAZON AMOR DE CASTRO, petitioners,

vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FRANCISCO ARTIGO, respondents.

Facts: On May 29, 1989, private respondent Francisco Artigo sued petitioners Constante A. De
Castro and Corazon A. De Castro to collect the unpaid balance of his broker’s commission from
the De Castros. Appellants were co-owners of four lots located at EDSA corner New York and
Denver Streets in Cubao, Quezon City. In a letter dated January 24, 1984, appellee was
authorized by appellants to act as real estate broker in the sale of these properties for the amount
of P 23,000,000.00, five percent (5%) of which will be given to the agent as commission. It was
appellee who first found Times Transit Corporation, represented by its president Mr. Rondaris,
as prospective buyer which desired to buy two lots only, specifically lots 14 and 15. Eventually,
sometime in May of 1985, the sale of lots 14 and 15 was consummated. Appellee received from
appellants P 48,893.76 as commission. It was then that the rift between the contending parties
soon emerged. Appellee apparently felt short changed because according to him, his total
commission should be P 352,500.00 which is five percent (5%) of the agreed price of P
7,050,000.00 paid by Times Transit Corporation to appellants for the two lots, and that it was he
who introduced the buyer to appellants and unceasingly facilitated the negotiation which
ultimately led to the consummation of the sale. Hence, he sued below to collect the balance of P
303,606.24 after having received P 48,893.76 in advance. On the other hand, appellants
completely traverse appellee’s claims and essentially argue that appellee is selfishly asking for
more than what he truly deserved as commission to the prejudice of other agents who were more
instrumental in the consummation of the sale. Although appellants readily concede that it was
appellee who first introduced Times Transit Corp. to them, appellee was not designated by them
as their exclusive real estate agent but that in fact there were more or less eighteen (18) others
whose collective efforts in the long run dwarfed those of appellee’s, considering that the first
negotiation for the sale where appellee took active participation failed and it was these other
agents who successfully brokered in the second negotiation.

Issues: The main issue in this case is whether or not the petitioners are liable to pay the
respondent’s unpaid balance of his broker’s commission.

Ruling: The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision that petitioners Constante
and Corazon Amor de Castro are jointly and solidarily liable to respondent Francisco Artigo for
the sum of: a) P 303,606.24 representing unpaid commission; b) P 25,000.00 for and by way of
moral damages; c) P 45,000.00 for and by way of attorney’s fees; d) To pay the cost of this suit

G.R. No. 138814:

Title: MAKATI STOCK EXCHANGE, INC., MA. VIVIAN YUCHENGCO, ADOLFO M.

DUARTE, MYRON C. PAPA, NORBERTO C. NAZARENO, GEORGE UY-TIOCO,
ANTONIO A. LOPA, RAMON B. ARNAIZ, LUIS J.L. VIRATA, and ANTONIO GARCIA,
JR., Petitioners, vs. MIGUEL V. CAMPOS, substituted by JULIA ORTIGAS VDA. DE
CAMPOS, Respondent.

Facts: Miguel V. Campos filed a petition against Makati Stock Exchange, Inc. (MKSE) and its
directors for the nullification of the Resolution dated June 3, 1993 of the MKSE Board of
Directors, which allegedly deprived him of his right to participate equally in the allocation of
Initial Public Offerings (IPO) of corporations registered with MKSE. Campos also sought the
delivery of the IPO shares he was allegedly deprived of, for which he would pay IPO prices, and
the payment of ₱2 million as moral damages, ₱1 million as exemplary damages, and
₱500,000.00 as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. The Securities, Investigation and
Clearing Department (SICD) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) granted
Campos’ prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin petitioners from
implementing or enforcing the 3 June 1993 Resolution of the MKSE Board of Directors. The
SICD subsequently issued another Order granting Campos’ application for a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction, to continuously enjoin, during the pendency of SEC Case No. 02-94-4678, the
implementation or enforcement of the MKSE Board Resolution in question.

Issues: The main issue in this case is whether or not the petitioners deprived Campos of his right
to participate equally in the allocation of Initial Public Offerings (IPO) of corporations registered
with MKSE.

Ruling: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision that the petitioners are
liable to pay Campos the sum of: a) P 2,000,000.00 as moral damages; b) P 1,000,000.00 as
exemplary damages; c) P 500,000.00 as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses; and d) the cost of
suit.
G.R. No. 139523:

Title: SPS. FELIPE AND LETICIA CANNU, Petitioners vs. SPS. GIL AND FERNANDINA
GALANG AND NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE CORPORATION, Respondents

Facts: Petitioners-spouses Felipe and Leticia Cannu filed a complaint for Specific Performance
and Damages against respondents-spouses Gil and Fernandina Galang and the National Home
Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC) before Branch 135 of the RTC of Makati, on 24 June
1993. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 93-2069. Respondents-spouses Gil and
Fernandina Galang obtained a loan from Fortune Savings & Loan Association for P 173,800.00
to purchase a house and lot located at Pulang Lupa, Las Piñas, with an area of 150 square meters
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-8505 in the names of respondents-spouses.
In early 1990, NHMFC purchased the mortgage loan of respondents-spouses from Fortune
Savings & Loan Association for P 173,800.00. Petitioner Leticia Cannu agreed to buy the
property for P 120,000.00 and to assume the balance of the mortgage obligations with the
NHMFC and with CERF Realty (the Developer of the property). Of the P 120,000.00, the
following payments were made by petitioners: July 19, 1990 P 40,000.00, March 13, 1991 P
15,000.00, April 6, 1991 P 15,000.00, November 28, 1991 P 5,000.00, thus leaving a balance of
P 45,000.00. A Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage Obligation dated 20 August 1990
was made and entered into by and between spouses Fernandina and Gil Galang (vendors) and
spouses Leticia and Felipe Cannu (vendees) over the house and lot in question which contains,
inter alia, the following: “NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of TWO
HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS ( P 250,000.00), Philippine Currency, receipt of which
is hereby acknowledged by the Vendors and the assumption of the mortgage obligation, the
Vendors hereby sell, cede and transfer unto the Vendees, their heirs, assigns and successor in
interest the above-described property together with the existing improvement thereon. It is a
special condition of this contract that the Vendees shall assume and continue with the payment of
the amortization with the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation Inc. in the outstanding
balance of P _______________, as of __________ and shall comply with and abide by the terms
and conditions of the mortgage document dated Feb. 27, 1989 and identified as Doc. No. 82,
Page 18, Book VII, S. of 1989 of Notary Public for Quezon City Marites Sto.”

Issues: The main issue in this case is whether or not the petitioners are liable to pay the balance
of the mortgage obligations with the NHMFC and with CERF Realty.

Ruling: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision that the petitioners are
liable to pay the balance of the mortgage obligations with the NHMFC and with CERF Realty.