ABS CBN vs CA

GENERAL RULE: DI MAKA CLAIM NG MORAL DAMAGES ANG CORPO

The Court finds ABS-CBN on the issue of damages. Moral damages are in the category of an
award designed to compensate the claimant for an actual injury suffered and not to impose
a penalty on the wrongdoer. The award of moral damages cannot be granted in favor of a
corporation because, being an artificial person and having existence only in legal
contemplation, it has no feelings, no emotions, and no senses. It cannot, therefore,
experience physical suffering and mental anguish, which can be experienced only by one
having a nervous system. The statement that a corporation may recover moral damages if it
“has a good reputation that is debased, resulting in social humiliation” is an obiter dictum.
On this score alone the award for damages must be set aside since RBS is a corporation.

PILIPINAS BROADCASTING vs CA -// FILIPINAS BROADCASTING VS AGO

MEDICAL

EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE ITOOOO – PWEDE IN CASES OF LIBEL, SLANDER, OR

OTHER FORMS OF DEFAMATION

YES. AMEC is entitled to moral damages. A juridical person is generally not entitled to moral
damages because, unlike a natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or such
sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish or moral shock. The Court
of Appeals cites Mambulao Lumber Co. v. PNB, et al. to justify the award of moral damages.
However, the Court’s statement in Mambulao that “a corporation may have a good
reputation which, if besmirched, may also be a ground for the award of moral damages” is
an obiter dictum.

Nevertheless, AMEC’s claim for moral damages falls under item 7 of Article 2219 of the Civil
Code. This provision expressly authorizes the recovery of moral damages in cases of libel,
slander or any other form of defamation. Article 2219(7) does not qualify whether the
plaintiff is a natural or juridical person. Therefore, a juridical person such as a corporation
can validly complain for libel or any other form of defamation and claim moral damages.

Moreover, where the broadcast is libelous per se, the law implies damages. In such a case,
evidence of an honest mistake or the want of character or reputation of the party libeled
goes only in the mitigation of damages. Neither in such a case is the plaintiff required to
introduce evidence of actual damages as a condition precedent to the recovery of some
damages. In this case, the broadcasts are libelous per se. Thus, AMEC is entitled to moral
damages.

DOCTRINE: Since Article 2219(7) of the Civil Code does not qualify whether the plaintiff is a
natural or juridical person, a juridical person such as a corporation may validly complain for
libel or any other form of defamation and claim for moral damages.
 STONEHILL vs DIOKNO

SEPARATE PERSONALITY

Whether or not the petitioners can validly assail the legality of the search warrants on the
premises of the Corporations?

No, the Court ruled that the petitioners have no cause of action to assail the legality of the
contested warrants and seizures because said corporations have a separate and distinct
personality of herein petitioners, regardless of the amount of shares of stock or of the
interest of each of them in said corporations, and whatever the offices they hold therein
may be.

Indeed, it is well settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party
whose rights have been impaired thereby and that the objection to an unlawful search and
seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. 

Consequently, petitioners herein may not validly object to the use in evidence of the things
seized from the offices and premises of the corporations, since the right to object to the
admission of said papers in evidence belongs exclusively to the corporations, to whom the
seized effects belong, and may not be invoked by the corporate officers in proceedings
against them in their individual capacity.

GAMBOA VS TEVES

60-40 OWNERSHIP - at least 60 percent of the common shares and at least 60 percent of
the preferred non-voting shares must be owned by Filipinos. In short, the 60-40 ownership
requirement in favor of Filipino citizens must apply separately to each class of shares,
whether common, preferred non-voting, preferred voting or any other class of shares.

Issue: Whether or not the term capital in Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution refers to
the common shares of PLDT, a public utility.

Held: Yes. Section 11, Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony) of the 1987 Constitution
mandates the Filipinization of public utilities, to wit:

Section 11. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the
operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to
corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines, at least
sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens; nor shall such franchise,
certificate, or authorization be exclusive in character or for a longer period than fifty
years. Neither shall any such franchise or right be granted except under the
condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the
Congress when the common good so requires. The State shall encourage equity
participation in public utilities by the general public. The participation of foreign
investors in the governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to
their proportionate share in its capital, and all the executive and managing officers of
 such corporation or association must be citizens of the Philippines. (Emphasis
supplied)

Any citizen or juridical entity desiring to operate a public utility must therefore meet the
minimum nationality requirement prescribed in Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution.
Hence, for a corporation to be granted authority to operate a public utility, at least 60
percent of its capital must be owned by Filipino citizens.

Thus, the 40% foreign ownership limitation should be interpreted to apply to both the
beneficial ownership and the controlling interest.

Clearly, therefore, the forty percent (40%) foreign equity limitation in public utilities
prescribed by the Constitution refers to ownership of shares of stock entitled to vote, i.e.,
common shares. Furthermore, ownership of record of shares will not suffice but it must be
shown that the legal and beneficial ownership rests in the hands of Filipino citizens.