8/31/16, 11:39 PM
751
_______________
*
SECOND DIVISION.
752
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e1459b4174b4e5ef003600fb002c009e/p/APK093/?username=Guest
Page 1 of 13
752
8/31/16, 11:39 PM
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e1459b4174b4e5ef003600fb002c009e/p/APK093/?username=Guest
Page 2 of 13
8/31/16, 11:39 PM
753
Page 3 of 13
8/31/16, 11:39 PM
QUISUMBING, J.:
1
Id. at 57-58.
754
754
Page 4 of 13
8/31/16, 11:39 PM
Ibid.
755
755
Page 5 of 13
8/31/16, 11:39 PM
756
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e1459b4174b4e5ef003600fb002c009e/p/APK093/?username=Guest
Page 6 of 13
8/31/16, 11:39 PM
Id. at 41-42.
757
757
Page 7 of 13
8/31/16, 11:39 PM
issues:
I. WHETHER THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN
AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURTS DECISION
FINDING SO PING BUN GUILTY OF TORTUOUS
INTERFERENCE OF CONTRACT?
II. WHETHER THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN
AWARDING ATTORNEYS FEES OF P200,000.00
IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.
The foregoing issues involve, essentially, the correct
interpretation of the applicable law on tortuous conduct,
particularly unlawful interference with contract. We have
to begin, obviously, with certain fundamental principles on
torts and damages.
Damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from
injury, and damages are the recompense
or compensation
6
awarded for the damage suffered. One becomes liable in an
action for damages for a nontrespassory invasion of
anothers interest in the private use and enjoyment of asset
if (a) the other has property rights and privileges with
respect to the use or enjoyment interfered with, (b) the
invasion is substantial, (c) the defendants conduct is a
legal cause of the invasion, and (d) the invasion is either
intentional and unreasonable or unintentional
and
7
actionable under general negligence rules.
_______________
6
758
Page 8 of 13
8/31/16, 11:39 PM
631.
10
Zoby vs. American Fidelity Co., 242 Federal Reporter, 2d Series, 76,
80 (1957).
759
759
Page 9 of 13
8/31/16, 11:39 PM
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
14
15
Kurtz vs. Oremland, 33 N.J. Super. 443, 111 A.2d 100; Restatement
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e1459b4174b4e5ef003600fb002c009e/p/APK093/?username=Guest
Page 10 of 13
8/31/16, 11:39 PM
760
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e1459b4174b4e5ef003600fb002c009e/p/APK093/?username=Guest
Page 11 of 13
8/31/16, 11:39 PM
_______________
16
17
18
761
decision
and
resolution
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e1459b4174b4e5ef003600fb002c009e/p/APK093/?username=Guest
Page 12 of 13
8/31/16, 11:39 PM
Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 159 SCRA 433, 442
(1988).
21
Mayer Steel Pipe Corp. vs. CA, 274 SCRA 432 (1997); Fortune
Express, Inc. vs. CA, G.R. 119756, March 18, 1999, 305 SCRA 14; RCBC
vs. CA, G.R. 133107, March 25, 1999, 305 SCRA 449; Urquiaga vs. CA,
G.R. 127833, January 22, 1999, 301 SCRA 738.
762
762
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e1459b4174b4e5ef003600fb002c009e/p/APK093/?username=Guest
Page 13 of 13