Title
LBC Express, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 108670
Decision Date
Sep 21, 1994
LBC failed to deliver cash and documents on time, causing a bank penalty. Court denied moral damages to the bank and Carloto, upheld reimbursement for penalties, and dismissed exemplary damages due to lack of bad faith.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 108670)

Factual Background

Private respondent Adolfo Carloto was engaged in business activities concerning the Rural Bank of Labason. He was required to travel to Manila to follow up on the bank's rediscounting obligations with the Central Bank. He requested his sister to send him Php 1,000.00 for his trip and pertinent documents via LBC, which were instead delayed. After multiple follow-ups, the cashpack containing the money was eventually returned to LBC's office without being delivered to him, resulting in penalties that his bank had to pay as it missed submission deadlines due to the delay.

Legal Proceedings

Carloto filed a complaint against LBC, claiming damages due to their failure to deliver the cashpack in a timely manner. The Regional Trial Court awarded him moral and exemplary damages, along with reimbursement for the penalty interest incurred by the bank. The Court of Appeals upheld this decision but revised the amount by denying attorney’s fees.

Supreme Court Findings on Moral Damages

The Supreme Court found merit in LBC's petition and ruled against the award of moral damages. The Court highlighted that moral damages are intended for individuals suffering real emotional or mental anguish, which an artificial person like the Rural Bank of Labason cannot experience. As such, the Court ruled that awarding moral damages to a corporation violates the principles underlying such compensation.

Rationale Against Granting Damages

The Court noted that while Carloto had responsibilities tied to the time-sensitive nature of his bank's obligations, he could have proceeded more expediently. His delay in traveling was deemed unnecessary given that the cash he sought was not indispensable for his trip. The Court criticized Carloto for using the cashpack's delay as a basis for embarrassment, suggesting that his priorities were misplaced, reflecting poor business judgment that undermined his claim for relief.

Lack of Malice or Gross Negligence

The Supreme Court held that there was insufficient evidence to prove that LBC acted with bad faith or gross negligence in the delivery of the cashpack. The timeline indicated no deliberate malfeasance as the cashpack was sent promptly. Thus, the natural and foreseeable consequences of the a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.