Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
and the existence of the actual basis thereof must be proved. Where there
is no findings of fact on the claims for damages and attorneys fees in the
lower courts decision, there is no factual basis upon which to make an
award therefor. [Chaves vs. Gonzales, 32 SCRA 547(1970)]
Where these are allowed, they are not treated as an equivalent of a wrong
inflicted but simply in recognition of the existence of a technical injury.
However, the amount to be awarded as nominal damages shall be equal
or at least commensurate to the injury sustained by private respondent
considering the concept and purpose of such damages. The amount of
nominal damages to be awarded may also depend on certain special
reasons extant in the case.
Same; Pleadings and Practice; Allegations in the original and amended
complaints can be the basis for determination of a fair amount of nominal
damages inasmuch as a complaint alleges the ultimate facts constituting
the plaintiffs cause of action.Applying now such principles to the instant
case, we have on record the fact that petitioners vessel Petroparcel was
at fault as well as private respondents complaint claiming the amount of
P692,680.00 representing the fishing nets, boat equipment and cargoes
that sunk with the M/V Maria Efigenia XV. In its amended complaint,
private respondent alleged that the vessel had an actual value of
P800,000.00 but it had been paid insurance in the amount of P200,000.00
and, therefore, it claimed only the amount of P600,000.00. Ordinarily, the
receipt of insurance payments should diminish the total value of the
vessel quoted by private respondent in his complaint considering that
such payment is causally related to the loss for which it claimed
compensation. This Court believes that such allegations in the original and
amended complaints can be the basis for determination of a fair amount
of nominal damages inasmuch as a complaint alleges the ultimate facts
constituting the plaintiffs cause of action. Private respondent should be
bound by its allegations on the amount of its claims.
Same; Same; Docket Fees; A plaintiffs failure to pay the docket fee
corresponding to its increased claim for damages under the amended
complaint should not be considered as having curtailed the lower courts
jurisdictionthe unpaid docket fee should be considered as a lien on the
judgment.With respect to petitioners contention that the lower court did
not acquire jurisdiction over the amended complaint increasing the
amount of damages claimed to P600,000.00, we agree with the Court of
Appeals that the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the case when
private respondent paid the docket fee corresponding to its claim in its
original complaint. Its failure to pay the docket fee corresponding to its
increased claim for damages under the amended complaint should not be
considered as having curtailed the lower courts jurisdiction. Pursuant to
the ruling in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion, the unpaid
docket fee should be considered as a lien on the judgment even though
private respondent specified the amount of P600,000.00 as its claim for
damages in its amended complaint. [PNOC Shipping and Transport
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 402(1998)]
Same; Same; Same; Damages; The mechanic is obliged to take care of the
truck with proper diligence of a good father of a family while the same is
in his possession, and failure to do so would render him liable to pay for
the value of the truck, when restitution is no longer feasible, and the value
should be based on the fair market value that the property would
command at the time it was entrusted to the mechanic, which value may
be recovered without prejudice to such other damages a claimant is
entitled to under applicable laws.From another perspective, Optimum is
obliged to take care of the truck with the proper diligence of a good father
to a family while the same is in its possession. Records show that the
subject truck had already deteriorated while in the possession of
Optimum. Taking into consideration the last known condition of the truck
in tandem with the fact that the court proceedings have spanned almost a
decade, it can be readily inferred that the truck has become wholly
useless. Since restitution is no longer feasible, Optimum is bound to pay
the value of the truck. The value of the truck should be based on the fair
market value that the property would command at the time it was
entrusted to Optimum. Such recoverable value is fair and reasonable
considering that the value of a motor vehicle depreciates. This value may
be recovered without prejudice to such other damages a claimant is
entitled to under applicable laws. [Optimum Motor Center Corporation vs.
Tan, 558 SCRA 267(2008)]
profit lost.In the present case, petitioners insist that as the passenger
jeepney was purchased in 1982 for only P30,000.00 to award damages
considerably greater than this amount would be improper and unjustified.
Petitioners are at best reminded that indemnification for damages
comprehends not only the value of the loss suffered but also that of the
profits which the obligee failed to obtain. In other words, indemnification
for damages is not limited to damnum emergens or actual loss but
extends to lucrum cessans or the amount of profit lost. [Lim vs. Court of
Appeals, 373 SCRA 394(2002)]
reading through the text of the CA decision, this Court finds that the same
is bereft of any findings of fact and law to justify the award of attorneys
fees. While it may be safe to surmise that the RTC granted attorneys fees
as a consequence of its grant of exemplary damages, such cannot be said
for the CA, since the same deleted the award of exemplary damages after
finding that petitioner Aalucas was not grossly negligent. The CA did not
explain why it was still awarding attorneys fees to respondents, therefore,
such an award must be deleted.
Same; Same; Actual Damages; Appeals; To justify an award of actual
damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss; An
appellate court is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if
they are not assigned as errors, especially so if the court finds that their
consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case before
it.While petitioners did not put in error the award of actual damages,
this Court feels that the same should nevertheless be reviewed as an
appellate court is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if
they are not assigned as errors. This is especially so if the court finds that
their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case
before it. For one to be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove
the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised
upon competent proof and the best evidence obtainable by the injured
party. Actual damages are such compensation or damages for an injury
that will put the injured party in the position in which he had been before
he was injured. They pertain to such injuries or losses that are actually
sustained and susceptible of measurement. To justify an award of actual
damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss.
Credence can be given only to claims which are duly supported by
receipts.
Same; Same; Loss of Earning Capacity; Award of compensation for loss of
earning capacity is not granted to the heirs of a college freshman where
there is no sufficient evidence on record to show that the victim would
eventually become a professional.Although respondents did not appeal
the CA Decision, they now pray in their Memorandum that this Court
reinstate the RTC award of P2,000,000.00 as compensatory damages
which was deleted by the CA. Respondents point out that the victim,
Reggie Nabua, was 18 years old and at the time of his death, a freshman
taking up Industrial Engineering. On this point, Metro Manila Transit
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 495 (1998), is instructive, to
wit: x x x Art. 2206 of the Civil Code provides that in addition to the
indemnity for death caused by a crime or quasi delict, the defendant
shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the
indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; . . . Compensation of
this nature is awarded not for loss of earnings but for loss of capacity to
earn money. Evidence must be presented that the victim, if not yet
employed at the time of death, was reasonably certain to complete
training for a specific profession. In People v. Teehankee, no award of
compensation for loss of earning capacity was granted to the heirs of a
college freshman because there was no sufficient evidence on record to
show that the victim would eventually become a professional pilot. But
compensation should be allowed for loss of earning capacity resulting
from the death of a minor who has not yet commenced employment or
training for a specific profession [OMC Carriers, Inc. vs. Nabua, 622 SCRA
624(2010)]
Civil Law; Damages; Loss of Earnings; The loss is not equivalent to the
entire earnings of the deceased but only that portion that he would have
used to support his dependents or heirs.Article 2205 of the New Civil
Code allows the recovery of damages for loss or impairment of earning
capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury. Such
damages covers the loss sustained by the dependents or heirs of the
deceased, consisting of the support they would have received from him
had he not died because of the negligent act of another. The loss is not
equivalent to the entire earnings of the deceased, but only that portion
that he would have used to support his dependents or heirs. Hence, we
deduct from his gross earnings the necessary expenses supposed to be
used by the deceased for his own needs.
attorneys fees, an adverse decision does not ipso facto justify the award
thereof to the winning party. All indications point to the fact that petitioner
honestly thought that they had a good cause of action, so that
notwithstanding the dismissal of their case, no attorneys fees can be
granted to private respondent. Considering that the latter claims to be the
owner of the motorcycle, petitioner was compelled to sue him. When the
former necessarily became a party defendant no attorneys fees and
litigation expenses can automatically be recovered even if he should win,
as it is not the fact of winning alone that entitles recovery of such items
but rather the attendance of special circumstancesthe enumerated
exceptions in Article 2208 of the New Civil Code. There being no bad faith
reflected in petitioners persistence in pursuing its case, other than an
erroneous conviction of the righteousness of its cause, attorneys fees
cannot be recovered as cost. [J Marketing Corp. vs. Sia, Jr., 285 SCRA
580(1998)]
some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the
nature of the case, be proved with certainty.
23. LBC express v Ado, 468 scra 216
Actions; Damages; One is entitled to actual or compensatory damages in
form of an adequate compensation for such preliminary losses suffered as
has been duly proved.One is entitled to actual or compensatory
damages in the form of an adequate compensation for such pecuniary
losses suffered as has been duly proved. In contracts, the damages for
which the obligor who acted in good faith shall be those that are the
natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation, and
which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the
time the obligation was constituted. In the case where the obligor acted in
bad faith, the obligor shall be responsible for all the damages which may
be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation.
Same; Same; Damages are not presumed but must be duly proved with
reasonable degree of certainty.It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that
actual or compensatory damages is not presumed, but must be duly
proved with reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on
speculation, conjecture or guesswork as to the fact and amount of
damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have suffered
and on evidence of the actual amount thereof. Indeed, the party alleging a
fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.
Same; Same; Quantum of Proof; Where there is preponderant evidence
that the respondents indeed suffered some pecuniary loss due to the loss
of the passport but failed to adduce preponderant evidence of the
passports value, they are entitled only to temperate damages.There is
preponderant evidence that the respondents indeed suffered some
pecuniary loss due to the loss of Eubertos passport. However, the
respondents failed to adduce preponderant evidence of the passports
value. Nevertheless, they are entitled to temperate damages of
P10,000.00 under Article 2224 of the New Civil Code which provides:
[t]emperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less
than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that
Same; Same; While the failure to deliver the respondents passport does
not per se amount to willful misconduct or bad faith, the evidence on
record shows that the petitioners indeed acted in bad faith and in wanton
disregard of their contractual obligation to the respondents.The rulings
of the trial and appellate courts that the respondent spouses are entitled
to moral damages are correct. While the failure to deliver Eubertos
passport does not per se amount to willful misconduct or bad faith, the
evidence on record shows that the petitioners indeed acted in bad faith
and in wanton disregard of their contractual obligation to the respondents.
The respondents made numerous inquiries from the petitioners on the
whereabouts of Eubertos passport, and repeatedly made requests for its
return; the petitioners dilly-dallied and gave various excuses. The
petitioners told the respondents that the passport may have been
inadvertently transported to their other branches. Exasperated, the
respondents had to secure the services of counsel. Their demands for the
production of the passport (made through counsel) were ignored by the
petitioners. Worse still, the petitioners alleged in their answer to the
complaint that the van carrying Eubertos passport, while parked
somewhere along 14th Street, Port Area, South Harbor, Manila, was
forcibly opened by unidentified person/s who pilfered its contents,
probably including the said passport. [LBC Express, Inc. vs. Ado, 468 SCRA
216(2005)]
Same; Same; Same; Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or
negligence.Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or
negligence, it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and
conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty through some motive
or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud.
Same; Same; Same; The person claiming moral damages must prove the
existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always
presumes good faith; It must be shown that the proximate cause thereof
was the unlawful act or omission of the wrongdoer.Moral damages are
in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for
actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer.
The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad
faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good
faith. It is not enough that one merely suffered sleepless nights, mental
anguish, serious anxiety as the result of the actuation of the other party.
Invariably such action must be shown to have been willfully done in bad
faith or with ill motive. Mere allegations of besmirched reputation,
embarrassment and sleepless nights are insufficient to warrant an award
for moral damages. It must be shown that the proximate cause thereof
was the unlawful act or omission of the [private respondent] petitioners.
Same; Same; Same; Certain Conditions Required in Awarding Moral
Damages.An award of moral damages would require certain conditions
to be met, to wit: (1) first, there must be an injury, whether physical,
mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) second,
there must be culpable act or omission factually established; (3) third, the
wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the
injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) fourth, the award of damages is
predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.
Same; Same; To warrant the award of exemplary damages, the wrongful
act must he accompanied by bad faith and the guilty party acted in a
wanton, fraudulent, reckless or malevolent manner; Requirements of an
Award of Exemplary Damages.In the same fashion, to warrant the award
of exemplary damages, [t]he wrongful act must be accompanied by bad
faith, and an award of damages would be allowed only if the guilty party
recorder by the PVE crew who are all employees of respondent Solid
Distributors, Inc. indicates a malicious breach of contract and gross
negligence on the part of said respondent in the discharge of its
contractual obligations. Consequently, the petitioners who suffered mental
anguish and tortured feelings thereby, are entitled to an award of One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as moral damages.
Same; Same; Marriage; Wedding Ceremonies; In our society, the
importance of a wedding ceremony cannot be underestimated as it is the
matrix of the family and, therefore, an occasion worth reliving in the
succeeding years.In the case of Go v. Court of Appeals, we emphasized
that (i)n our society, the importance of a wedding ceremony cannot be
underestimated as it is the matrix of the family and, therefore, an
occasion worth reliving in the succeeding years. Further, we reiterate the
following pronouncements therein where we also awarded moral damages
on account of a malicious breach of contract similar to the case at bar, to
wit: Considering the sentimental value of the tapes and the fact that the
event therein recordeda wedding which in our culture is a significant
milestone to be cherished and rememberedcould no longer be
reenacted and was lost forever, the trial court was correct in awarding the
appellees moral damages albeit in the amount of P75,000.00 xxx in
compensation for the mental anguish, tortured feelings, sleepless nights
and humiliation that the appellees suffered and which under the
circumstances could be awarded as allowed under Articles 2217 and 2218
of the Civil Code. [Herbosa vs. Court of Appeals, 374 SCRA 578(2002)]
28. Manuel v people, 476 scra 461
Same; Same; Same; Same; Damages; Requisites; Moral damages may be
awarded in favor of the offended party only in criminal cases enumerated
in Article 2219, paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Civil Code and
analogous cases.Moral damages include physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings,
moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of
pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the
proximate result of the defendants wrongful act or omission. An award for
moral damages requires the confluence of the following conditions: first,
controversy, of the professional standing of the attorney for plaintiffsappellants, and of the extent of the services rendered by him, shows that
the amount provided for in the written agreement is reasonable.
Same; Factors considered in fixing damages.In the case at bar the
damages were determined by considering the official, political, social and
financial standing of the offended parties on one hand and the business
and financial position of the offender on the other (Dominding vs. Ng, 55
O.G. 10). [Lopez, et al. vs. Pan American World Airways, 16 SCRA
431(1966)]
fees but were awarded P2 million; they did not ask for nominal damages
but were awarded P200,000.00. It is as if the lower court went on a
rampage, and why it acted that way is beyond all tests of reason. In fact
the excessiveness of the total award invites the suspicion that it was the
result of prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial court. The
presiding judge of the lower court is enjoined to hearken to the Supreme
Courts admonition in Singson vs. CA (282 SCRA 149 [1997]), where it
said: The well-entrenched principle is that the grant of moral damages
depends upon the discretion of the court based on the circumstances of
each case. This discretion is limited by the principle that the amount
awarded should not be palpably and scandalously excessive as to indicate
that it was the result of prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial
court. . . . and in Alitalia Airways vs. CA (187 SCRA 763 [1990]), where it
was held: Nonetheless, we agree with the injunction expressed by the
Court of Appeals that passengers must not prey on international airlines
for damage awards, like trophies in a safari. After all neither the social
standing nor prestige of the passenger should determine the extent to
which he would suffer because of a wrong done, since the dignity
affronted in the individual is a quality inherent in him and not conferred by
these social indicators. [Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Vasquez, 399
SCRA 207(2003)]
v. Carrascoso (18 SCRA 155 [1966]), the misconduct on the part of the
carriers employees toward a passenger gives the latter an action for
damages against the carrier.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Rule with respect to recovery of moral
damages in a damage suit predicated upon a breach of contract of
carriage.In the same case, however, the Court ruled that [W]ith respect
to moral damages, the rule is that the same are recoverable in a damage
suit predicated upon a breach of contract of carriage only where (1) the
mishap results in the death of a passenger and (2) it is proved that the
carrier was guilty of fraud and bad faith, even if death does not result.
(Ibid, at p. 13) As the appellate court found the petitioner guilty of bad
faith in letting the respondent sign a quitclaim without her knowledge or
understanding and contrary to what she was planning to do, the reduced
award of moral and exemplary damages is proper and legal. [Sabena
Belgian World Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, 171 SCRA 620(1989)]
pain and suffering or mental anguish resulting from a wrong (25 C.J.S.
815).
Same; Same; Alleged embarrassment by customers due to alleged
negligence of a hotel waiter, not the mental anguish contemplated in Art
2217 of the Civil Code which allows recovery of moral damages.We hold
that the embarrassment to which Mrs. Sea was exposed by the
incident is not the mental anguish contemplated in article 2217 for which
moral damages can be recovered.
Same; Same; Exemplary or corrective damages, not recoverable, absent
gross negligence; Case at bar.In this case, it would not be just and
proper to include moral damages in the corporations vicarious liability as
employer. The award of P5,000 as exemplary or corrective damages
cannot also be sustained because there was no gross negligence in this
case. [Bagumbayan Corp. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 132 SCRA
441(1984)]
could not be outrightly awarded. The same holds true with respect to the
award of exemplary damages where it must be shown that the party acted
in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner. Furthermore, this specie
of damages is allowed only in addition to moral damages such that no
exemplary damages can be awarded unless the claimant first establishes
his clear right to moral damages. [Mahinay vs. Velasquez, Jr., 419 SCRA
118(2004)]
after it is done, if done for their benefit; The corporation which operates
the radio station, and who is the employer of the radio hosts, is solidarily
liable to pay for damages arising from libelous broadcasts.The basis of
the present action is a tort. Joint tort feasors are jointly and severally
liable for the tort which they commit. Joint tort feasors are all the persons
who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance,
cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it
after it is done, if done for their benefit. Thus, AMEC correctly anchored its
cause of action against FBNI on Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code.
As operator of DZRC-AM and employer of Rima and Alegre, FBNI is
solidarily liable to pay for damages arising from the libelous broadcasts.
As stated by the Court of Appeals, recovery for defamatory statements
published by radio or television may be had from the owner of the station,
a licensee, the operator of the station, or a person who procures, or
participates in, the making of the defamatory statements. An employer
and employee are solidarily liable for a defamatory statement by the
employee within the course and scope of his or her employment, at least
when the employer authorizes or ratifies the defamation. In this case,
Rima and Alegre were clearly performing their official duties as hosts of
FBNIs radio program Expos when they aired the broadcasts. FBNI neither
alleged nor proved that Rima and Alegre went beyond the scope of their
work at that time. There was likewise no showing that FBNI did not
authorize and ratify the defamatory broadcasts.
Same; Same; The radio operators alleged constant reminder to its
broadcasters to observe truth, fairness and objectivity and to refrain from
using libelous and indecent language is not enough to prove due
diligence in the supervision of its broadcasters.There is insufficient
evidence on record that FBNI exercised due diligence in the selection and
supervision of its employees, particularly Rima and Alegre. FBNI merely
showed that it exercised diligence in the selection of its broadcasters
without introducing any evidence to prove that it observed the same
diligence in the supervision of Rima and Alegre. FBNI did not show how it
exercised diligence in supervising its broadcasters. FBNIs alleged
constant reminder to its broadcasters to observe truth, fairness and
objectivity and to refrain from using libelous and indecent language is not