Scribd
Upload
684 views

Cogeo-Cubao Operators Vs CA

The petitioner, Cogeo-Cubao Operators and Drivers Association, formed a human barricade that disrupted the operations of the respondent, Lungsod Silangan Transport Services Corp., for ten days. The respondent sued for damages. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent, awarding damages and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed except modifying the damages award. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, finding that the petitioner violated Article 21 of the Civil Code by willfully causing injury to the respondent in a manner contrary to morals and public policy.

Uploaded by

Julianne Ruth Tan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
684 views

Cogeo-Cubao Operators Vs CA

The petitioner, Cogeo-Cubao Operators and Drivers Association, formed a human barricade that disrupted the operations of the respondent, Lungsod Silangan Transport Services Corp., for ten days. The respondent sued for damages. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent, awarding damages and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed except modifying the damages award. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, finding that the petitioner violated Article 21 of the Civil Code by willfully causing injury to the respondent in a manner contrary to morals and public policy.

Uploaded by

Julianne Ruth Tan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

COGEO-CUBAO

OPERATORS VS CA
G.R. No. 100727, March 18, 1992
MEDIALDEA, J. :
Important Details:

• Petitioner – Cogeo-Cubao Operators and Drivers Association
• Respondents -
o Court of Appeals
o Lungsod Silangan Transport Services, Corp., Inc
• Lesson: Article 21 of the Civil Code

** This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed with modification
the decision of the Regional Trial Court awarding damages in favor of respondent Lungsod Silangan Transport
Services Corp., Inc. (Lungsod Corp. for brevity).**



Facts:

• A Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) was issued in favor of Lungsod Silangan to ply the Cogeo-
Cubao route due to public necessity and convenience.
• Disturbed by plaintiff’s (Lungsod Silangan) Board Resolution No 9 adopting Bandera System, in
which a member of the cooperative is permitted to queue for a passenger at the disputed pathway
in exchange for the ticket worth P20, the proceeds of which shall be utilized for Christmas
programs of the drivers and other benefits.
• Defendants (Association), being a collective body registered with the SEC, formed a human
barricade and assumed the dispatching of passenger jeepneys. Thus, the suit for damages.
• July 31, 1989, the Trial Court decided in favor of respondent Lungsod Corp., ordering the the
defendants to pay P50,000.00 for damages; P10,000.00 for attorney’s fees.
• Association appealed with Court of Appeals, and in COA’s decision on May 27, 1991, it affirmed the
decision of the RTC except with regard to the award of damages and fees. The COA modified the
RTC’s judgment for the actual amount of damages amounting to P10,000.00.

Issues: Whether or not the Association violated article 21 of the civil code.

Ruling: Yes. Although there is no question that petitioner can exercise their constitutional right to redress
their grievances with respondent Lungsod Corp., the manner by which this constitutional right is to be
exercised should not undermine public peace and order nor should it violate the legal rights of other
persons. Article 21 of the Civil Code 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 provision covers a situation where a person has a legal right which was violated by another in
a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. It presupposes loss or injury, material or
otherwise, which one may suffer as a result of such violation. It is clear from the facts of this case that
petitioner formed a barricade and forcibly took over the motor units and personnel of the respondent
corporation. This paralyzed the usual activities and earnings of the latter during the period of ten days and
violated the right of respondent Lungsod Corp. to conduct its operations thru its authorized officers.

No compelling reason exists to justify the reversal of the ruling of the respondent appellate court in the case
at bar. Article 2222 of the Civil Code states that the court may award nominal damages in every obligation
arising from any source enumerated in Article 1157, or in every case where any property right has been
invaded. Considering the circumstances of the case, the respondent corporation is entitled to the award of
nominal damages.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy