Damages (in general) 1. Custodio v CA There is a material distinction between damages and injury. Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right damage is the loss! hurt! or harm which results from the injury and damages are the recom"ense or com"ensation awarded for the damage su#ered. Thus! there can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. duty. These situations are often called damnum absque injuria. In order that a "lainti# may maintain an action for the injuries of which he com"lains! he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed to the "lainti#$a concurrence of injury to the "lainti# and legal res"onsibility by the "erson causing it. The underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the "remise that an individual was injured in contem"lation of law. %. &ng v CA (1''')
Actual damages are such compensation or damages for an injury that will put the injured party in the position in which he had been been befor before e he was injured. injured. They pertain to such injuries or losses that are actually sustained and susceptible of measurement. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, a party is entitled to adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss as he has duly proven.
To be recoverable, actual damages must be pleaded and proven in Court. n no instance may the trial judge award more than those so pleaded and proven. !amages cannot be presumed. The award there of must be based on the evidence presented, not on the personal "now "n owle ledg dge e of the the cour court# t# an and d cert certai ainl nly y not not on $ims $imsy y, remo remote te,, speculati speculative ve and nonsubsta nonsubstantial ntial proof. proof. Article %1'' of the Civil Code e"ressly mandates that *e+ce"t as "rovided by law or by sti"ulation! one is enti entitl tled ed to an ade, ade,uat uate e com" com"en ensa sati tion on only only for for such such "ecun "ecunia iary ry loss loss su#ered by him as he has duly "roved.
ii. on moral damages- A damages- A "erson is entitled to the "hysical integrity of his his or her her body body!! and if that that inte integr grit ity y is viol violat ated ed!! dama damage ges s are are due due and assessable. owever! "hysical injury! li/e loss or diminution of use of an arm or a limb! is not a "ecuniary loss. Indeed! it is nor susce"tible of eact moneta monetary ry estima estimatio tion. n. The usual usual "racti "ractice ce is to award award moral moral damage damages s for "hysica "hysicall injuri injuries es sustai sustained ned.. In the case case at bar! bar! it was su#ici su#icient ently ly shown shown during the trial that 0rancias right arm could not function in a normal manner and that! as a result! she su#ered mental anguish and aniety. Thus! an increase in the amount of moral damages awarded! from 234!444 to
254!444! a""ears to be reasonable and justi6ed. 7enato also su#ered mental anie aniety ty and and angui anguish sh from from the the accid acciden ent. t. Thus Thus!! he shou should ld be se"a se"ara rate tely ly awar awarde ded d 234! 234!44 444 4 as mora morall dama damage ges. s. n some some inst instan ance ces, s, the the Cour Courtt awards the cost of medical procedures to restore the injured person to his or her former former condit condition. ion. %oweve %owever r, this this award award necess necessit itate ates s expe expert rt test testim imon ony y on the the cost cost of poss possib ible le rest restor orat ativ ive e medi medica call proc proced edur ure. e. &'() &'() expe expens nses es for for medi medica call rest restor orat atio ion n * mu must st be established by expert testimony. believe the ruling here distinguis distinguishes hes between between actual actual damages damages and moral damages. damages. +oral damages would be granted by the mere fact that a person suered physical injury, i.e. -! resulting in physical injury/# on the other hand ha nd,, if one one ca can n prov prove e ac actu tual al pecu pecuni niar ary y loss loss or expe expens nses es,, i.e. i.e. restorative surgery, surgery, then he may be awarded actual damages.0
n the the ca case se at bar bar, peti petiti tion oner er fail failed ed to pres presen entt evid eviden ence ce regar re gardi ding ng the th e feasibility or practicability practicability and the cost of a restorative medical operation on her arm. Thus! there is no basis to grant her 289!444 for such e"ense.
iii. :nreali;ed incomeThe bare and unsubstantiated assertion of 0rancia that she usually earned 2%44 a day from her mar/et stall is not the best evidence to "rove her claim of unreali;ed income for the eight
iv. iv. :nder :nder the Civil Code! an award award of attorn attorney eys s fees fees is an indemn indemnity ity for damages ordered ordered by a court to be "aid by the losing "arty "arty to the "revailing "revailing "arty! based on any of the cases authori;ed by law. It s "ayable not to the lawyer lawyer but to the client! client! unless unless the two have agreed agreed that the award award shall shall "ertain to the lawyer as additional com"ensation or as "art thereof. The Court has established a set standards in 6ing the amount of attorneys fees-
(1) The amount amount and charac character ter of the servic services es render rendered ed (%) labor! time and trouble involved (3) the nature and im"ortance of the the liti litiga gati tion on or busi busine ness ss in whic which h the the serv servic ices es were were render rendered ed (8) the res"on res"onsib sibili ility ty im"ose im"osed d (5) the amount amount of money or the value of the "ro"erty "ro"erty a#ected by the controversy controversy
254!444! a""ears to be reasonable and justi6ed. 7enato also su#ered mental anie aniety ty and and angui anguish sh from from the the accid acciden ent. t. Thus Thus!! he shou should ld be se"a se"ara rate tely ly awar awarde ded d 234! 234!44 444 4 as mora morall dama damage ges. s. n some some inst instan ance ces, s, the the Cour Courtt awards the cost of medical procedures to restore the injured person to his or her former former condit condition. ion. %oweve %owever r, this this award award necess necessit itate ates s expe expert rt test testim imon ony y on the the cost cost of poss possib ible le rest restor orat ativ ive e medi medica call proc proced edur ure. e. &'() &'() expe expens nses es for for medi medica call rest restor orat atio ion n * mu must st be established by expert testimony. believe the ruling here distinguis distinguishes hes between between actual actual damages damages and moral damages. damages. +oral damages would be granted by the mere fact that a person suered physical injury, i.e. -! resulting in physical injury/# on the other hand ha nd,, if one one ca can n prov prove e ac actu tual al pecu pecuni niar ary y loss loss or expe expens nses es,, i.e. i.e. restorative surgery, surgery, then he may be awarded actual damages.0
n the the ca case se at bar bar, peti petiti tion oner er fail failed ed to pres presen entt evid eviden ence ce regar re gardi ding ng the th e feasibility or practicability practicability and the cost of a restorative medical operation on her arm. Thus! there is no basis to grant her 289!444 for such e"ense.
iii. :nreali;ed incomeThe bare and unsubstantiated assertion of 0rancia that she usually earned 2%44 a day from her mar/et stall is not the best evidence to "rove her claim of unreali;ed income for the eight
iv. iv. :nder :nder the Civil Code! an award award of attorn attorney eys s fees fees is an indemn indemnity ity for damages ordered ordered by a court to be "aid by the losing "arty "arty to the "revailing "revailing "arty! based on any of the cases authori;ed by law. It s "ayable not to the lawyer lawyer but to the client! client! unless unless the two have agreed agreed that the award award shall shall "ertain to the lawyer as additional com"ensation or as "art thereof. The Court has established a set standards in 6ing the amount of attorneys fees-
(1) The amount amount and charac character ter of the servic services es render rendered ed (%) labor! time and trouble involved (3) the nature and im"ortance of the the liti litiga gati tion on or busi busine ness ss in whic which h the the serv servic ices es were were render rendered ed (8) the res"on res"onsib sibili ility ty im"ose im"osed d (5) the amount amount of money or the value of the "ro"erty "ro"erty a#ected by the controversy controversy
or involv involved ed in the em"loyme em"loyment nt (>) the s/ill s/ill and e"eri e"erienc ence e cal called for in the "erformance of the services (?) the "rofessional character and social standing of the attorney (9) the results secured! it being a recogni;ed rule that an attorney may "ro"erly charge a much larger fee when it is contingent than when it is not. (A@I7A=<27)
Counsels "erformance! however! does not justify the award of %5 attorneys fees. It is well
ACT:A@ DABA= 1. Algarra v =andejas 0acts0acts- @ucio Algarra sold "roducts of a distillery distillery on a 14 14 commission and made an average of 254 "er month. e had about twenty regular customers who! it seems! seems! "urchas "urchased ed in small small ,uanti ,uantitie ties! s! necess necessita itatin ting g regula regularr and fre,uent fre,uent deliveries. deliveries. e was injured. injured. e had to s"end for medical e"enses! sto""ed wor/ for % months! and an d also lost 1>E%4 of his customers. c ustomers. eld A8A3!'9 ACT2A7 ACT2A7 !A+A9E5 is to i. 2ur"ose 2ur"ose-- The 123145E 46 T%E 7A8 ' A8A3!'9 re"air the wrong that has been done! to com"ensate for the injury inFicted! and not to im"ose a "enalty. Actual damages are not de"endent on nor graded by the intent with which the wrongful act is done. In other words! actual damages are compensatory only . They "roceed from a sense of natur natural al just justic ice! e! and and are are desi design gned ed to re"a re"air ir that that of which which one one has been been de"rived by the wrong of another. The "arty claiming claiming damages damages must must establ establish ish by competent evidence the courts ts ca can n not not give give judg judgme ment nt for for a amou amount nt of such such dama damage ges! s! and and cour greater amount than those actually proven. proven . ii. =co"e- Actual damages include not only loss already suered already suered! but loss of pro:ts which pro:ts which may not have been reali;ed. 2lagiari;ing from =anche; 7oman! he says that the indemnity indemnity com"rises! com"rises! not only the value of the loss suered suered! bu also that that of the prospec prospectiv tive e prot prot that that was not but also realized! and and the obligation of the debtor in 944! 6AT% is limited to such su ch loss losses es an and d dama damage ges s as were were fore forese seen en or migh mightt ha have ve been been forese foreseen en at the the time time the obliga obligatio tion n was incurr incurred ed and which are a necessa necessary ry conse, conse,uen uence ce of his failur failure e of ful6ll ful6llmen ment. t. @osses @osses and damage damages s under under such such limita limitatio tions ns and frust frustrat rated ed "ro6ts "ro6ts must! must! theref therefore ore!! be proved directly by means of the evidence the law authori;es.
The case at bar involves actual incapacity of the plainti for 2 months ! and loss of the greater "ortion of his business. As to the damages resulting from the actual inca"acity of the "lainti# to attend to his business there is no ,uestion. They are! of course! to be allowed on the basis of his earning ca"acity! which in this case! is 254 "er month. The di#icult ,uestion in the "resent case is to determine the damage which has resulted to his business through his enforced absence. (GH- Atty. Lopez here dierentiated injury to person and injury to business). iii. Amount of damages for injury to his business E7E+E'T5 T4 (E C4'5!E3E! hile certainty is an essential element of an award of damages ! it need not be a mathematical certainty . (GH- =ir said that fact of loss must be certain! but amount need not be.) As to the @BGT= T& H C&G=ID7D in estimating the damage done to "lainti#s business by reason of his accident! this same author! citing numerous authorities! has the following to say- It is "ro"er to consider the business the plainti is engaged in ! the nature and e!tent of such business ! the importance of his personal oversight and superintendence in conducting it ! and the conse"uent loss arising from his inability to prosecute it .
The business of the "resent "lainti# required his immediate supervision of all the prots derived therefrom were wholly due to his own e!ertions. Gor are his damages con6ned to the actual time during which he was "hysically inca"acitated for wor/! as is the case of a "erson wor/ing for a sti"ulated daily or monthly or yearly salary. G7A@ 7:@- As to "ersons whose labor is thus com"ensated and who com"letely recover from their injuries! the rule may be said to be that their damages are con6ned to the duration of their enforced absence from their occu"ation. C2T (as in this case)- Hut the "resent plainti could not resume his wor" at the same pro:t he was ma"ing when the accident occurred. e had built u" an established business which included some %4 regular customers. These customers re"resented to him a regular income. In addition to this he made sales to other "eo"le who were not so regular in their "urchases. Hut he could 6gure on ma/ing at least some sales each month to others besides his regular customers. Ta/en as a whole his average monthly income from his business was about 254. As a result of the accident! he lost all but < of his regular customers and his receipts dwindled down to practically nothing . &ther agents had invaded his territory ! and u"on becoming "hysically able to attend to his business! he found that it would be necessary to start with "ractically no regular trade! and either win bac/ his old customers from his com"etitors or else secure others. During this "rocess of re
the time of the accident and would continue to be so for some time. 4f course, if it could be mathematically determined how much less he will earn during this rebuilding process than he would have earned if the accident had not occurred, that would be the amount he would be entitled to in this action. Hut manifestly this ideal com"ensation cannot be ascertained. The ,uestion therefore resolves itself into whether this damage to his business can be so nearly ascertained as to justify a court in awarding any amount whatever. Jhen it is shown that a plainti=s business is a going concern with a fairly steady average "ro6t on the investment! it may be assumed that had the interruption to the business through defendant#s wrongful act not occurred! it would have continued producing this average income so long as is usual with things of that nature. Jhen in addition to the "revious average income of the business it is further shown what the reduced receipts of the business are immediately after the cause of the interruption has been removed ! there can be no manner of doubt that a loss of pro:ts has resulted from the wrongful act of the defendant. (causation) In the "resent case! we not only have the value of "lainti#s business to him just "rior to the accident! but we also have its value to him after the accident. At the trial! he testi6ed that his wife had earned about $% pesos during the 2 months that he was disabled. That this almost total destruction of his business was directly chargeable to defendants wrongful act! there can be no manner of doubt and the mere fact that the loss can not be ascertained with absolute accuracy ! is no reason for denying plainti=s claim altogether . Thus! in this case! he was awarded actual damages for (1) the medical e"enses! (%) damages to "erson ("144! or the lost income of "54 for two months) and (3) an amount for the damages to his business. GH- 0acts to consider in ascertaining loss to business- 1) na ture of business! %) su"ervision by "lainti# over it! 3) losses due to absence. tensive discussion from Amjura. The Civil Code re,uires that the defendant re"air the damage caused by his fault or negligence. Go distinction is made therein between damage caused maliciously and intentionally and damages caused through mere negligence in so far as the civil liability of the wrongdoer in concerned. Gor is the defendant re,uired to do more than re"air the damage done! or! in other words! to "ut the "lainti# in the same "osition! so far as "ecuniary com"ensation can do so! that he would have been in had the damage not been inFicted. In this res"ect there is a notable di#erence between the two systems.
b. The damages recoverable of a manufacturer or dealer for the breach of warranty of machinery ! which he contracts to furnish! or "lace in o"eration for a /nown "ur"ose are not con6ned to the di#erence in value of the machinery as warranted and as it "roves to be! but includes such consequential damages as are the direct, immediate, and probable result of the breach. c. vidence needed- evidence of damages must rest u"on satisfactory "roof of the eistence in reality of the damages alleged to have been su#ered. (ut, while certainty is an essential element of an award of damages, it need not be a mathematical certainty . d. As to the elements to be considered in estimating the damage done to plainti=s business) it is "ro"er to consider the business the "lainti# is engaged in! the nature and extent of such business! the im"ortance of his personal oversight and su"erintendence in conducting it! and the conse,uent loss arising from his inability to "rosecure it. (H@&)
e. !istinguished a mere salary employee vs one with a business - As to persons whose labor is thus compensated and who completely recover from their injuries, the rule may be said to be that their damages are con:ned to the duration of their enforced absence from their occupation. (ut the present plainti could not resume his wor" at the same pro:t he was ma"ing when the accident occurred . Case at bar- The business of the "resent "lainti# re,uired his immediate su"ervision. All the "ro6ts derived therefrom were wholly due to his own eertions. Gor are his damages con6ned to the actual time during which he was "hysically inca"acitated for wor/! as is the case of a "erson wor/ing for a sti"ulated daily or monthly or yearly salary. f. 0actors to consider
g. 3ule on 1ro:ts) 1ro:ts are not excluded from recovery because they are pro:ts# but when excluded, it is on the ground that there are no criteria by which to estimate the amount with the certainty on which the adjudications of courts, and the :ndings of juries, should be based. (i.e. for established businesses! one can do KtrendingL to determine the future "ro6ts whereas if not established! then it would be hard to loo/ for basis. Hut nonetheless! still "ossible).
f. &ther "roof to adduce- "lainti# may establish his re"utation! good standing as a "rofessionalE businessman- Moslin case < The "lainti#! in ma/ing "roof of his damages! o#ered testimony to the e#ect that he was an attorney at law of ability and in good standing! and the etent and value of his "ractice! and that! in substance! the injury had rendered him inca"able of "ursuing his "rofession. This was objected to as irrelevant! immaterial and incom"etent. Je thin/ this was com"etent.L obel case < Jhen a regular and established business, the value of which may be ascertained, has been wrongfully interrupted, the true general rule for compensating the party injured is to ascertain how much less valuable the business was by reason of the interruption, and allow that as damages . g. stablished business v un
In the "resent case the "lainti#s had only been in business a short time $ not so long that it can be said that they had an established business. they had contracted three jobs of "lumbing! had 6nished two! and lost money on both not! however! because of any misconduct or wrongful acts on the "art of the defendants or either of them. They carried no stoc/ in trade! and their manner of doing business was to secure a contract and then "urchase the material necessary for its
com"letion. It is not shown that they had any means or ca"ital invested in the business other than their tools. Geither of them had "rior thereto managed or carried on a similar business. Gor was it shown that they were ca"able of so managing this business as to ma/e it earn a "ro6t. There was little of that class of business being done at the time! and little! if any! "ro6t derived therefrom . The plaintis= business lac"ed duration, permanency, and recognition. t was an adventure, as distinguished from an established business. ts pro:ts were speculative and remote, existing only in anticipation. The law! with all its vigor and energy in its e#ort to right or wrongs and damages for injuries sustained! may not enter into a domain of s"eculation or conjecture. In view of the character and condition of the "lainti#s business! the jury had not su#icient evidence from which to ascertain "ro6ts. %. 2G&C v CA There are two kinds of actual or compensatory damages: One is the loss of what a person already possess and the other is the failure to receive as a benet that which would have pertained to him. To enable an injured party to recover actual or compensatory damages, he is required to prove the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence available damages cannot be presumed and courts, in making an award must point out specic facts that could a!ord a basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne. "n the absence of proof on the actual damage su!ered, a party is entitled to nominal damages. #ominal damages are damages in name only and not in fact.
GH- Atty. @o"e; said that to be entitled to damages! one must "rove 1) fact of loss and %) amount 3. 2eo"le v Bamarungcas Anent the award of actual damages! the victimNs widow testi6ed that the family s"ent a total of 2>>!'48.44 relative to the wa/e and burial of the victim. owever! the claim for said amount is su""orted merely by a list of e"enses "ersonally "re"ared by the widow instead of o#icial recei"ts. To be entitled to an award of actual damages! Kit is necessary to "rove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty! "remised u"on com"etent "roof and on the best evidence obtainable .L KA list of e"enses cannot re"lace recei"ts when the latter should ha ve been issued as a matter of course in business transactions.L (GH- &7 not always re,uired. &nly when they are issued in the ordinary course of business! since! in that case! any other "roof is not the Kbest "roofL).
Thus the Court deletes the lower courtsN award of actual damages. Gonetheless! since entitlement of the same is shown under the facts of the case! tem"erate damages in the amount of 2%5!444.44 should be awarded in lieu of actual damages to the heirs of the victim "ursuant to Article %%%8 of the Civil Code which "rovides that tem"erate damages Kmay be recovered when the court 6nds that "ecuniary loss has been su#ered but its amount cannot! from the nature of the case! be "roved with certainty.L 8. 2eo"le v Arrelano i. Jhile the heirs of the victim did not e"ressly claim an amount re"resenting the deceasedNs loss of earning ca"acity nor "resent evidence thereon! such failure does not necessarily "revent recovery of damages considering that there is su#icient basis on record u"on which the court may determine a reasonable and fair estimate of such damages. Ii. The amount of loss of earning ca"acity is based mainly on two factors. These are (1) the number of years of which the damages shall be com"uted and (%) the rate at which the losses sustained by the res"ondent should be 6ed. 0actor number one in this ruling shall be com"uted by using the formula based on the American "ectancy Table of Bortality or %E3 *94 < age of the victim at the time of death+ O life e"ectancy in terms of years. 0actor number two is arrived at by multi"lying the life e"ectancy by the earnings of the deceased. As has been settled! the com"utation of the rate of loss of earnings should be based on the net earnings. In this case! Andres Pentura was eighteen years of age at the time of his death with a life e"ectance of 81 years. The undis"uted claim of the victimNs mother was that Andres was Kem"loyedL as a laborer at the Pictory 7ice Bill at the rate of 2144.44 a day! which was! li/ewise! admitted by the defense. The crime was committed on a 5unday after the victim and his co>wor"ers had :nished their wor" for the day . The victim should! therefore! be presumed to have wor"ed everyday including 5undays or rest days, special days and regular holidays . As such! under the K1''' andboo/ on Jor/ersN =tatutory Bonetary Hene6tsL outlining the minimum legal re,uirements concerning wor/ersN monetary and nonmonetary! the victim is deemed to have wor/ed a total of 3'1.54 days a year with total wages in the amount of 23'!154.44 "er annum (2144Eday for 3'1.54 days 0. 4ne half of this amount would be considered as his necessary living expenses. III. @i/ewise! civil indemnity in the amount of 254!444.44 is automatically granted to the heirs of the victim without need of any evidenc e other than the fact of the commission of the crime.
The heirs of the victim should also be awarded actual damages in the total amount of 213!444.44 as the defense admitted that the victimNs family incurred funeral e"enses of 2>!444.44 and medical e"enses of 2?!444.44. 4rdinarily, receipts should support claims of actual damages. %owever, since the defense did not contest that claim, it should be granted. 5. Adrian Jilson v TB Actual damages "uts the claimant in the "osition in which he had been before he was injured. The award thereof must be based on the evidence "resented! not on the "ersonal /nowledge of the court and certainly not on Fimsy! remote! s"eculative and nonsubstantial "roof. :nder the Civil Code! one is entitled to an ade,uate com"ensation only for such "ecuniary loss su#ered by him as he has duly "roved. >. Q arments v Biranda i. actual damages include all the natural and "robable conse,uences of the act or omission com"lained of! classi6ed as one (1) for the loss of what a "erson already "ossesses (daRo emergente) and the other! (%) for the failure to receive! as a bene6t! that which would have "ertained to him (lucro cesante) ii. The claimants are not! however! mandated to "rove damages in any s"eci6c or certain amount in order to recover damages for a substantial amount. 8hen the existence of a loss is established, absolute certainty as to its amount is not required. The amount of the damages should be determined with reasonable certainty ?. Mustiva v ustilo Doctrine- Go need to allege claim for damages in "leadings if it is "ut in issue in the course of the trial. Is the award of actual damages "ro"erS Jhile the "rayer by the res"ondents in their KAnswerL mentions only eem"lary damages! moral damages and attorneyNs fees! therein also is a "lea for Ksuch further relief as this onorable Court may deem just and e,uitable.L This "rayer may include Kactual damagesL! if and when they are "roved. It is to be observed that in the course of the trial! defendants introduced evidence of actual damages yet "etitioners failed to object to such "resentation. Conse,uently! the unalleged but "roved matter of actual damages may be considered by the court. The trial judge mentioned such damages. And the Court of A""eals! without going into s"eci6cs! a""roved the award! and declared e"licitly that the evidence sustained it. Je a#irm the a""ellate courtNs assessment of actual damages. 9. De uia v The Banila lectric
Although in case li/e this the defendant must answer for the conse,uences of the negligence of its em"loyee! the court has the "ower to moderate liability according to the circumstances of the case. An em"loyer who has in fact dis"layed due diligence in choosing and instructing his servants is entitled to be considered a debtor in good faith! within the meaning of article 114? of the same Code. Construing these two "rovisions together! a""lying them to the facts of this case! it results that the defendants liability is limited to such damages as might! at the time of the accident! have been reasonably foreseen as a "robable conse,uence of the "hysical injuries inFicted u"on the "lainti# and which were in fact a necessary result of those injuries. There is nothing novel in this "ro"osition! since both the civil and the common law are agreed u"on the "oint that the damages ordinarily recoverable for the breach of a contractual obligation! against a "erson who has acted in good faith! are such as can reasonably be foreseen at the time the obligation is contracted. '. @im v. CA 0acts- &wner and o"erator of a jee"ney without a certi6cate of "ublic convenience (/abit system) 6gured in an accident with a truc/ owned by lim. eld- 1) The thrust of the law in enjoining the kabit system is not so much as to "enali;e the "arties but to identify the "erson u"on whom res"onsibility may be 6ed in case of an accident with the end view of "rotecting the riding "ublic. The "olicy! therefore! loses its force if the "ublic at large is not deceived! much less involved. %) Damages its limits- It is a fundamental "rinci"le in the law on damages that a defendant cannot be held liable in damages for more than the actual loss which he has in&icted and that a plainti is entitled to no more than the just and ade"uate compensation for the injury suered. The law will not "ut him in a "osition better than where he should be in had not the wrong ha""ened. 3) Damages its etent- 'etitioners are at best reminded that indemni:cation for damages comprehends not only the value of the loss suered but also that of the pro:ts which the obligee failed to obtain. In other words! indemni6cation for damages is not limited to damnum emergens or actual loss but etends to lucrum cessans or the amount of "ro6t lost. Case at bar- ad on;alesN jee"ney not met an accident! it could reasonably be e!pected that it would have continued earning from the business in which it was engaged. The award therefore of 1?@,BBB.BB as compensatory damages is not beyond reason nor speculative as it is based on a reasonable estimate of the total damage suered by 9on;ales ! i.e. damage wrought u"on his jee"ney and the income lost from his trans"ortation business. 8) @egal interest on unli,uidated damages when im"osed- owever! we are constrained to depart from the conclusion of the lower courts that
upon the award of compensatory damages legal interest should be imposed beginning 22 (uly $* ! i.e.! the date of the accident.
:"on the "rovisions of Art. %%13! interest Kcannot be recovered upon unli"uidated claims or damages ! ece"t when the demand can be established with reasonable certainty.L It is aiomatic that if the suit were for damages! unli,uidated and not /nown until de6nitely ascertained! assessed and determined by the courts after "roof! interest at the rate of si "ercent (>) "er annum should be from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the ,uanti6cation of damages may be deemed to be reasonably ascertained). In this case! the matter was not a liquidated obligation as the assessment of the damage on the vehicle was heavily debated upon by the parties with on;ales demand for 2%3>!444.44 being refuted by @im who argue that they could have the vehicle re"aired easily for 2%4!444.44. In 6ne! the amount due on;ales was not a li,uidated account that was already demandable and "ayable. 5) Doctrine of avoidable conse,uences- &ne last word. Je have observed that 9on;ales left his passenger jeepney by the roadside at the mercy of the elements. Article %%43 ehorts "arties su#ering from loss or injury to eercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in "uestion. &ne who is injured then by the wrongful or negligent act of another should e!ercise reasonable care and diligence to minimize the resulting damage . owever! we sadly note that in the "resent case 7im failed to oer in evidence the estimated amount of the damage caused by 9on;ales unconcern towards the damaged vehicle . It is the burden of "etitionersU 14. Talisay =ilay v on;ales A court may rule and render judgment on the basis of the evidence before it! even though the relevant "leading had not been "reviously amended! so long as no sur"rise or "rejudice is thereby caused to the adverse "arty. 2ut a little di#erently! so long as the basic re,uirements of fair "lay had been met! as where litigants were given full o""ortunity to su""ort their res"ective contentions and to object to or refute each others evidence! the court may validly treat the "leadings as if they had been amended to conform to the evidence and "roceed to adjudicate on the basis of all the evidence before it. Je conclude that the Court of A""eals erred when it failed to treat the amended and su""lemental com"laint of T=BC and T=ICA as if such com"laint had in fact been amended to conform to the evidence! and when it limited the damages due to T=BC and T=ICA to the amount "rayed for in their original com"laint. 11. Coleman v otel de 0rance
olding as we do that the defendant cor"oration without just cause or ecuse discharged the "lainti# in Fagrant violation of its c ontract of em"loyment with her! we agree with the trial judge that "lainti# is entitled to recover not merely compensation for services rendered before the breach of the contract by her em"loyer! but the full amount which she might have earned under the contract less such compensation as she actually obtained or might have obtained in some other employment during the term of the contract which had not yet expired at the date of the breach ! the burden of "roof as to the amount by which the "rima facie damage may thus be reduced being u"on the defendant 1%. Daywalt v Cor"oracion =uit against defendant who was found to have encroached on the land of "lainti#. eldGotwithstanding this circumstance! the damages assessed are su#icient to com"ensate the "lainti# for the use and occu"ation of the land during the whole time it was used. There is evidence in the record strongly tending to show that the wrongful use of the land by the defendant was not continuous throughout the year but was con:ned mostly to the season when the forage obtainable on the land of the defendant cor"oration was not su#icient to maintain its cattle! for which reason it became necessary to allow them to go over to "asture on the land in ,uestion and it is not clear that the whole of the land was used for pasturage at any time. Damages based on tortious interference1) The liability for damages of the original obligor must be determined in the action to enforce the original contract (s"eci6c "erformance). If not! it may not be recovered in another action. The court saida. KIndemni6cation for damages resulting from the breach of a contract is a right inse"arably anneed to every action for the ful6llment of the obligation and it is clear that if damages are not sought or recovered in the action to enforce "erformance they cannot be recovered in an inde"endent action.L C2T- if you are collecting from the interferer who was not "arty to the original action! to witb. KAs to Teodorica ndencia! therefore! it should be considered that the right of action to recover damages for the breach of the contract in ,uestion was ehausted in the "rior suit. owever! her attorneys have not seen 6t to inter"ose the defense of res judicata in her behalf and as the defendant cor"oration was not a "arty to that action! and such defense could not in any event be of any avail to it! we "roceed to consider the ,uestion of the liability of Teodorica ndencia for damages without reference
to this "oint.L %) 7ule- The stranger cannot become more etensively liable in damages for the non"erformance of the contract than the "arty in whose behalf he intermeddles. a. In this case! Teodora was the one directly liableE obligor! thus! to determine the liability of the interferer (cor"oration)! the court studied the damages attributable to the original obligor. 3) 7ule on unlawful detention of "ro"ertya. Gow! what is the measure of damages for the wrongful detention of real "ro"erty by the vender after the time has come for him to "lace the "urchaser in "ossessionS The damages ordinarily and normally recoverable against a vendor for failure to deliver land which he has contracted to deliver is the value of the use and occu"ation of the land for the time during which it is wrongfully withheld. The rule that the measure of damages for the wrongful detention of land is normally to be found in the value of use and occu"ation is! we believe! one of the things that may be considered certain in the law almost as well settled! indeed! as the rule that the measure of damages for the wrongful detention of money is to be found in the interest. 8) &rdinary vs. ="ecial damages < The damages recoverable in case of the breach of a contract are two sorts! namely! (1) the ordinary! natural! and in a sense necessary damage and (%) s"ecial damages. a. 4rdinary damages is found in all breaches of contract where there are no special circumstances to distinguish the case specially from other contracts. The consideration "aid for an un"erformed "romise is an instance of this sort of damage. In all such cases the damages recoverable are such as naturally and generally would result from such a breach, according to the usual course of things . In cases involving only ordinary damage no discussion is ever indulged as to whether that damage was contem"lated or not. This is conclusively "resumed from the immediateness and inevitableness of the damage! and the recovery of such damage follows as a necessary legal conse,uence of the breach. &rdinary damage is assumed as a matter of law to be within the contem"lation of the "arties. b. 5pecial damage! on the other hand! is such as follows less directly from the breach than ordinary damage. It is only found in case where some external condition, apart from the actual terms to the contract exists or intervenes ! as it were! to give a turn to a#airs and to increase damage in a way that the "romisor! without actual notice of that eternal condition! could not reasonably be e"ected to foresee. (efore such damage can be recovered the plainti must show that the particular condition which made the damage a possible and li"ely consequence of the breach was "nown to the defendant at the time the contract was made .
5) Explanation) Je recogni;e the "ossibility that more etensive damages (s"ecial damages) may be recovered where! at the time of the creation of the contractual obligation! the vendor! or lessor! is aware of the use to which the "urchaser or lessee desires to "ut the "ro"erty which is the subject of the contract , and the contract is made with the eyes of the vendor or lessor open to the possibility of the damage which may result to the other "arty from his own failure to give "ossession. Case at bar) The case before us is not of this character! inasmuch as at the time when the rights of the "arties under the contract were determined! nothing was /nown to any of them about the =an 0rancisco ca"italist who would be willing to bac/ the "roject. >) Tip on how the buyer may protect his interest) The etent of the liability for the breach of a contract must be determined in the light of the situation in eistence at the time the contract is made and the damages ordinarily recoverable are in all events limited to such as might be reasonably foreseen in the light of the facts then /nown to the contracting "arties. 8here the purchaser desires to protect himself, in the contingency of the failure of the vendor promptly to give possession, from the possibility of incurring other damages than such as are incident to the normal value of the use and occupation, he should cause to be inserted in the contract a clause providing for stipulated amount to be paid upon failure of the vendor to give possession# and no case has been called to our attention where! in the absence of such a sti"ulation! damages have been held to be recoverable by the "urchaser in ecess of the normal value of use and occu"ation. D0 T:=! #$- To bring damages which would ordinarily be treated as remote within the category of recoverable special damages, it is necessary that the condition should be made the subject of contract in such sense as to become an express or implied term of the engagement. +) Case at bar! held- damages laid under the second cause of action in the com"laint could not be recovered from her! :rst, because the damages in ,uestion are s"ecial damages which were not within contem"lation of the "arties when the contract was made! and secondly, because said damages are too remote to be the subject of recovery. This conclusion is also necessarily fatal to the right of the "lainti# to recover such damages from the defendant cor"oration! for! as already suggested! by advising Teodorica not to "erform the contract! said cor"oration could in no event render itself more etensively liable than the "rinci"al in the contract.
@. Cariaga v 7T( 6acts) Cariaga was a:=T med student who was rode an @TH bus. The @TH bus was negligent! causing the bus to collide with an B77 train. The victim became a veggie. 2arents sued @TH for H of V and B77 for QD. Claimed
actual damages in behalf of their child! and also se"arately for themselves! and also moral damages. eldi. B77 "roved not liable for QD. ii. @TH liable for H of V. Hut! a. Actual damages in behalf of victim Wes b. Actual damages for the "arents Go c. Boral damages Go !iscussion on !amages) i. Actual damages in behalf of victim
The court awarded actual damages based on the medical e"enses and also the future income he might receive (value of which testi6ed to by an e"ert witness who is a doctor). :"on this "remise it claims that only the actual damages su#ered by dgardo Cariaga consisting of medical! hos"ital and other e"enses in the total sum of 21?!?1'.?5 are within this category . 8e are of the opinion, however, that the income which Edgardo Cariaga could earn if he should :nish the medical course and pass the corresponding board examinations must be deemed to be within the same category because they could have reasonably been foreseen by the parties at the time he boarded the bus 'o. @@ owned and operated by the 7T( . As regards the income that he could "ossibly earn as a medical "ractitioner! it a""ears that! according to Dr. Amado Doria! a witness for the @TH! the amount of 2344.44 could easily be e"ected as the minimum monthly income (Query- Jhat if they 6led a QD case versus @THS Jill @TH be liable for the future income he could have earned as a doctor even if no reasonably foreseenS) ii. Boral damages disallowed 2redicated on the fact that the suit against @TH was for breach of contract of carriage. Boral damages! if ever! could be awarded! only in QD suits. iii. Actual damages for "arents < disallowed The claim made by said s"ouses for actual and com"ensatory damages is li/ewise without merits. As held by the trial court! in so far as the 7T( is concerned, the present action is based upon a breach of contract of carriage to which said spouses were not a party, and neither can they premise their claim upon the negligence or quasi>delict of the 7T( for the simple reason that they were not themselves injured as a
result of the collision between the @TH bus and train owned by the Banila 7ailroad Com"any. <. 4+C Carriers nc v. 'abua
A 6rst year I student died due to a collision. 2arents sued for damages. The damages awarded were ,uestioned as followsi. 7TC awarded >4/ for death indemnity. The court modi6ed this as only 54/ is the amount established in juris"rudence as the "ro"er amount. ii. AttorneyNs fees- @Cs awarded attorneys fees but did not state reason therefor. The =C held- The CA did not e"lain why it was still awarding attorneyNs fees to res"ondents! therefore! such an award must be deleted. iii. =C u"held the award of moral damages- It must be stressed that moral damages are not intended to enrich a "lainti# at the e"ense of the defendant. They are awarded to allow the "lainti# to obtain means! diversion or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral su#ering heEshe has undergone due to the defendantNs cul"able action and must! "erforce! be "ro"ortional to the su#ering inFicted. Thus! given the circumstances of the case at bar! an award of 254!444.44 as moral damages is "ro"er. iv. ACT:A@ DABA= a. +ust be substantiated by receipts) 0or one to be entitled to actual damages! it is necessary to "rove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty! "remised u"on com"etent "roof and the best evidence obtainable by the injured "arty. Actual damages are such com"ensation or damages for an injury that will "ut the injured "arty in the "osition in which he had been before he was injured. They "ertain to such injuries or losses that are actually sustained and susce"tible of measurement. To justify an award of actual damages! there must be com"etent "roof of the actual amount of loss. Credence can be given only to claims which are duly su""orted by recei"ts. Hased on the foregoing! the 7TC erred when it awarded the amount of 2114!444.44 as actual damages! as the said amount was not duly substantiated with recei"ts. ence! the amount of actual damages that can only be recovered is 25'!1?3.54. b. 4n proof of future income> ere the =C a#irmed the deletion of the %mio award for loss of earning ca"acity. The =C said ) Com"ensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of earnings but for loss of ca"acity 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 speci:c profession. Court cited % casesi. where damages awarded > In shar" contrast with the situation obtaining in 2eo"le v. Teehan/ee! where the
"rosecution merely "resented evidence to show the fact of the victimNs graduation from high school and the fact of his enrollment in a Fying school! the s"ouses 7osales did not content themselves with sim"ly establishing @i;a 7osalieNs enrollment at :2 Integrated =chool. They "resented evidence to show that @i;a 7osalie was a good student! "romising artist! and obedient child. =he consistently "erformed well in her studies since grade school. ii. where damages not awarded> In 2eo"le v. Teehan/ee! no award of com"ensation for loss of earning ca"acity was granted to the heirs of a college freshman because there was no su#icient evidence on record to show that the victim would eventually become a "rofessional "ilot. Hut com"ensation should be allowed for loss of earning ca"acity resulting from the death of a minor who has not yet commenced em"loyment or training for a s"eci6c "rofession if su#icient evidence is "resented to establish the amount thereof c. Thus- In the case at bar! res"ondents only testi6ed to the fact that the victim! 7eggie Gabua! was a freshman ta/ing u" Industrial ngineering at the Technological Institute of the 2hili""ines in Cubao. 2nli"e in +etro Transit where evidence of good academic record, extracurricular activities, and varied interests were presented in court, herein respondents oered no such evidence. ence! the CA was correct when it deleted the award of com"ensatory damages amounting to 2%!444!444.44! as the same is without any basis. F. Continental Cement v Asea
0acts- 2lainti# entered into a contract with defendant to re"air his e,ui"ment. Hut the defendant not only incurred delay! but failed to re"air entirely. Gow! "lainti# is claiming for actual damages and conse,uential damages (losses! e"enses by reason of the delay! for the duration that the defendant incurred delay). eldi. &n the non
of the Civil Code! the "enalty clause ta/es the "lace of indemnity for damages and the "ayment of interests in case of non
to the contrary! the "enalty in the amount of 2'9?.%5 "er day of delay covers all other damages (i.e. "roduction loss! labor cost! and rental of the crane) claimed by "etitioner. iii. &n conse,uential damages < Conse,uential damages! such as loss of "ro6ts on account of delay or failure of delivery! may be recovered only if such damages were reasonably foreseen or have been brought within the contem"lation of the "arties as the "robable result of a breach at the time of or "rior to contracting res"ondent AHH! at the time it agreed to re"air "etitionerNs Viln Drive Botor! could not have reasonably foreseen that it would be made liable for production loss, labor cost and rental of the crane in case it fails to repair the motor or incurs delay in delivering the same, especially since the motor under repair was a spare motor. 1>. Bendo;a v 2A@ 0acts- ere! "lainti# wanted to show a movie in his theater to maimi;e his "ro6ts in an u"coming 6esta. e ordered co"ies of a 6lm from Banila! and the 6lm was to be brought to his "lace via 2A@. Hut 2A@ failed to dro" the items o# at the air"ort. Thus! for a few days! "lainti# lost "ro6ts. e is now claiming for the "ro6ts which he should have gained. eld- Denied. @iability for damages due to delay both under the GCC and Code of Commerce only cover ordinary damages. To be liable for s"ecial damages! he should notify the carrier of the 1) nature of the items to be delivered! %) "ur"ose and 3) desire to rush. i. ven a""lying the "rovisions of the Code of Commerce! as already stated! the "ertinent "rovisions regarding damages only treats of ordinary damages or damages in general! not s"ecial damages. ii. Hut before defendant could be held to s"ecial damages! such as the "resent alleged loss of "ro6ts on account of delay or failure of delivery! it must have a""eared that he had notice at the time of delivery to him of the "articular circumstances attending the shi"ment! and which "robably would lead to such s"ecial loss if he defaulted. &r! as the rule has been stated in another form! in order to im"ose on the defaulting "arty further liability than for damages naturally and directly! i.e.! in the ordinary course of things! arising from a breach of contract! such unusual or etraordinary damages must have been brought within the contem"lation of the "arties as the "robable result of a breach at the time of or "rior to contracting. 9enerally, notice then of any special circumstances which will show that the damages to be anticipated from a breach would be enhanced has been held suicient for this eect. iii. Jhat he should have done- 1) either ordered the 6lms earlier! or %) entered into a s"ecial contract with the carrier. 1?. Pilla 7ey Transit v CA
ow to com"ute for loss of earning ca"acity i. The determination of such amount de"ends! mainly u"on T84 &?0 6ACT435! namely- (1) the number of years on the basis of which the damages shall be computed and (%) the rate at which the losses sustained by said respondents should be !ed. ii. 0irst factor- life e"ectancy. a. 0ormula (%E3 *94<34+ O life e"ectancy) b. Thus! life e"ectancy is! not only relevant! but! also! an important element in !ing the amount recoverable by private respondents herein . Although it is not the sole element determinative of said amount! no cogent reason has been given to warrant its disregard and the ado"tion! in the case at bar! of a "urely arbitrary standard! such as a four year rule. iii. =econd factor- earning ca"acity a. 2etitioner im"ugns the decision a""ealed from u"on the ground that the damages awarded therein will have to be "aid now, whereas most of those sought to be indemni6ed will be su#ered years later. %eld: A lthough payment of the award in the case at bar will have to ta"e place upon the :nality of the decision therein! the liability of petitioner herein had been !ed at the rate only of '2,$+-.** a year ! which is the annual salary of 1olicronio uintos, Gr. at the time of his death! as a young Ktraining assistantL b. Je are mainly concerned with the determination of the losses or damages sustained by the private respondents, as dependents and intestate heirs of the deceased ! and that said damages consist! not of the full amount of his earnings! but of the support they received or would have received from him had he not died in consequence of the negligence of petitioners agent . In 6ing the amount of that su""ort! Je must rec/on with the Knecessary e"enses of his own livingL! which should be deducted from his earnings. c. Thus! it has been consistently held that EA3''9 CA1ACTH ! as an element of damages to ones estate for his death by wrongful act is necessarily his net earning capacity or his capacity to acquire money ! &less the necessary e'pense for his own living =tated otherwise! the amount recoverable is not loss of the entire earning! but rather the loss of that portion of the earnings which the bene:ciary would have received. n other words, only net earnings, not gross earning, are to be considered t hat is! the total of the earnings less e"enses necessary in the creation of such earnings or income and less living and other incidental e"enses.
19. Cru; v =un olidays =am"le com"utation of Actual DamagesCivil Code holds the common carrier in breach of its contract of carriage that results in the death of a "assenger liable to "ay the following- (1) indemnity for death! (%) indemnity for loss of earning ca"acity and (3) moral damages. 2etitioners are entitled to indemnity for the death of 7u elito which is 6ed at 254!444. As for damages representing unearned income, the formula for its computation is) 7ife expectancy is determined in accordance with the formula) ? I @ x JKB L age of deceased at the time of deathM
i. The :rst factor, i.e.! life e"ectancy! is com"uted by a""lying the formula (%E3 *94 $ age at death+) ii. The second factor is com"uted by multi"lying the life e"ectancy by the net earnings of the deceased! i.e.! the total earnings less e"enses necessary in the creation of such earnings or income and less living and other incidental e"enses. The loss is not equivalent to the entire earnings of the deceased, but only such portion as he would have used to support his dependents or heirs . ence! to be deducted from his gross earnings are the necessary e"enses su""osed to be used by the deceased for his own needs. iii. In com"uting the third factor * necessary living expense) when there is no showing that the living expenses constituted the smaller percentage of the gross income, the living expenses are :xed at half of the gross income. A""lying the above guidelines! the Court determines 7uelitos life e"ectancy as follows@ife e"ectancy O %E3 *94 < age of deceased at the time of death+ O %E3 *94 < %9+ O%E3 *5%+ @ife e"ectancy O 35
Documentary evidence shows that 7uelito was earning a basic monthly salary of X'44 which! when converted to 2hili""ine "eso a""lying the annual average echange rate of X1 O 288 in %444!amounts to 23'!>44. 7uelitoNs net earning ca"acity is thus com"uted as followsGet arning Ca"acity O life e"ectancy (gross annual income < reasonable and necessary living e"enses). O 35 (28?5!%44 < 2%3?!>44) O 35 (2%3?!>44) Get arning Ca"acity O 29!31>!444 nterest Computation
0inally! astern =hi""ing @ines! Inc. v. Court of A""eals teaches that when an obligation! regardless of its source! i.e.! law! contracts! ,uasi' of the Civil Code. %. Jhen an obligation! not constituting a loan or forbearance of money! is breached! an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be im"osed at the discretion of the court at the rate of > "er annum. Go interest! however! shall be adjudged on unli,uidated claims or damages ece"t when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly! where the demand is established with reasonable certainty! the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or etrajudicially (Art. 11>'! Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made! the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the ,uanti6cation of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the com"utation of legal interest shall! in any case! be on the amount 6nally adjudged. 3. Jhen the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes 6nal and eecutory! the rate of legal interest! whether the case falls under "aragra"h 1 or "aragra"h %! above! shall be 1% "er annum from such 6nality until its satisfaction! this interim "eriod being deemed to be by then an e,uivalent to a forbearance of credit. (em"hasis su""lied). =ince the amounts "ayable by res"ondent have been determined with certainty only in the "resent "etition! the interest due shall be com"uted
u"on the 6nality of this decision at the rate of 1% "er annum until satisfaction! in accordance with "aragra"h number 3 of the immediately cited guideline in aster =hi""ing @ines! Inc. 1'. De Caliston v CA The "ension of the decedent being a sure income that was cut short by her death for which Dalmacio was res"onsible! the surviving heir of the former is entitled to the award of 214!444.44 which is just e,uivalent to the "ension the decedent would have received for one year if she did not die. The 25!444.44 "aid to the herein "etitioner by the insurer of the "assenger bus which 6gured in the accident may be deemed to have come from the bus owner who "rocured the insurance. =ince the civil liability (e
iii. In the absence of documentary evidence! it is reasonable to "eg necessary e"enses for the lease and o"eration of the gasoline station at KB percent of the gross income, and peg living expenses at FB percent of the net income (gross income less necessary e"enses). %%. =ime v CA (1''4) 2lainti# here is a cor"oration who is a de"ositor of a ban/. The ban/ negligently dishonored the chec/s drawn by the "lainti#. Thus! the "lainti#Ns re"utation was damaged. It sued not for actual damages! but for moral damages etc. eld Actual damages The fact is that the "etitionerNs credit line was canceled and its orders were not acted u"on "ending recei"t of actual "ayment by the su""liers. Its business declined. Its re"utation was tarnished. Its standing was reduced in the business community. All this was due to the fault of the res"ondent ban/ which was undeniably remiss in its duty to the "etitioner. Article %%45 of the Civil Code "rovides that actual or com"ensatory damages may be received K(%) for injury to the "lainti#Ns business standing or commercial credit.L. There is no ,uestion that the "etitioner did sustain actual injury as a result of the dishonored chec/s and that the eistence of the loss having been established Kabsolute certainty as to its amount is not re,uired.L =uch injury should bolster all the more the demand of the "etitioner for moral damages and justi6es the eamination by this Court of the validity and reasonableness of the said claim. Boral damagesIts claim of moral damages in the amount of 21!444!444 is nothing short of "re"osterous. Its business certainly is not that big! or its name that "restigious! to sustain such an etravagant "retense. +oreover, a corporation is not as a rule entitled to moral damages because, not being a natural person, it cannot experience physical suering or such sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish and moral shoc". The only exception to this rule is where the corporation has a good reputation that is debased, resulting in its social humiliation. 2etitioner did su#er injury because of the "rivate res"ondentNs negligence that caused the dishonor of the chec/s issued by it. The immediate conse,uence was that its "restige was im"aired because of the bouncing chec/s and con6dence in it as a reliable debtor was diminished . em"lary damages =ince ban/s are a#ected with "ublic interest! the court here im"osed
eem"lary damages as well. %3. G2C v CA KAnd such actual or com"ensatory damages must be established by clear evidence. In justifying its award of damages in the amount of 2 544!444.44 for alleged injury to JI@BAs business standing or commercial credit! the a""ellate court merely too/ as good JI@BAs bare assertion that its credit standing in the community were *sic+ com"letely shattered! its entire business destroyed and its mortgages lost but cites no evidence whatsoever to su""ort the same. Bore im"ortantly! these damages have no legal basis in view of our 6nding that JI@BA has no cause of action against G2C. As G2C submits in its brief! 87+A9 has no business reputation or commercial credi t standing in the community (in its decision! the Court of A""eals did not even mention or discuss the business re"utation or standing of JI@BA)L JI@BA enumerated a litany of 38 civil and % criminal cases for estafa 6led against it and its controlling stoc/holder Gatividad B. 0ajardo by third "arties! see/ing to justify the "resent action for damages against G2C allegedly because it could not as a result "ay its loans to ban/s and ful6ll its obligations to their subdivision buyers. =u#ice it to state that G2C has nothing whatever to do with such suits and certainly cannot be held in any way liable for JI@BAs (a""arently /nown to its creditors also as 7ABAJI@) failure to live u" to their contractual underta/ings with them. (GH- Di#erences with =ime case (1) moral damages claimed in sime! but here actual damages! (%) sime! it was really the fault of the defendant! while in here! it was not the fault of the defendant) %8. Tanay 7ecreation Center v. 0austo (,uery- overturns =imeS) 0acts- Piolation of lessor of right of 6rst refusal. eldi. The rule is that actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed, but must be proved with reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on speculations, conjectures, or guesswor" as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have been suered by the injured party and on the best obtainable evidence of the actual amount thereof. t must point out speci:c facts, which could aord a basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne. 7CDCNs accountant! Berle Cru;! stated that based on the cor"orationNs 6nancial statement for the years 1''4 and 1''1! they derived the amount of 21%4!444.44 as annual income from rent. 0rom said 6nancial statement! it is safe to "resume that T7CDC generated a monthly income of 214!444.44 a month (21%4!444.44 annual income divided by 1% months). At best therefore! whatever actual damages that "etitioner su#ered from the
coc/"itNs closure for a "eriod of two months can be reasonably summed u" only to 2%4!444.44. ii. An award of damages for loss of goodwill or reputation falls under actual or compensatory damages as provided in Article ??BF of the Civil Code! to wit Art. %%45. Damages may be recovered-(1) 0or loss or im"airment of earning ca"acity in cases of tem"orary or "ermanent "ersonal injury (%) 0or injury to the "lainti#Ns business standing or commercial credit. ven if it is not recoverable as com"ensatory damages! it may still be awarded in the conce"t of tem"erate or moderate damages. In arriving at a reasonable level of tem"erate damages to be awarded! trial courts are guided by the ruling that. . . There are cases where from the nature of the case! de6nite "roof of "ecuniary loss cannot be o#ered! although the court is convinced that there has been such loss. 0or instance! injury to ones commercial credit or to the goodwill of a business 6rm is often hard to show certainty in terms of moneyU iii. The award of moral damages cannot be granted in favor of a cor"oration because! being an arti6cial "erson and having eistence only in legal contem"lation! it has no feelings! no emotions! no senses. It cannot! therefore! e"erience "hysical su#ering and mental anguish! which can be e"erienced only by one having a nervous system. 2etitioner being a cor"oration! the claim for moral damages must be denied. %5. BBTC v CA 0acts- igh school :2 student died because she was hit by a s"eeding bus along Vati". eldi. indemnity for death Art. %%4> "rovides for the "ayment of indemnity for death caused by a crime or ,uasi
iii. Boral damages :nder Art. %%4>! the Ks"ouse! legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.L The reason for the grant of moral damages has been e"lained thusThe award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration ! within the limits of the "ossible! of the s"iritual status ,uo ante and therefore! it must be "ro"ortionate to the su#ering inFicted. The intensity of the "ain e"erienced by the relatives of the victim is "ro"ortionate to the intensity of a#ection for him and bears no relation whatsoever with the wealth or means of the oender. In (eople v. Teehankee, )r.! this Court awarded 1 million as moral damages to the heirs of a 1?delict. iv. Com"ensation for loss of earning ca"acity Art. %%4> of the Civil Code "rovides 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 "aid to the heirs of the latter. Com"ensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of earnings but for loss of ca"acity 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 speci:c profession. The s"ouses 7osales did not content themselves with simply establishing 7i;a 3osalies enrollment at 21 ntegrated 5chool. They "resented evidence to show that @i;a 7osalie was a good student! "romising artist! and obedient child. =he consistently "erformed well in her studies since grade school. A survey ta/en in 1'98 when @i;a 7osalie was 1% years old showed that she had good study habits and attitudes. Cleofe Chi! guidance counselor of the :niversity of the 2hili""ines Integrated =chool! described @i;a 7osalie as "ersonable! well5 O 13!54513!545 E 1% O 1!1%5.8% (e,uivalent monthly rate)
1!1%5.8% 13 ( representing @ income)
th
month pay ) O 18!>34.8> (gross annual
18!>34.8> 54 O ?!315.%3 (net annual income) ?!315.%3 88 (life e"ectancy) O 3%1!9?4.1% (net earning ca "acity)
%>. 2eo"le v Heduya Boral damages are mandatory in cases of murder and homicide without need of allegation and "roof other than the death of the victim. Consistent with this rule! we award the amount of 254!444.44 as moral damages in accordance with "revailing juris"rudence.L (so if as/ed- TE0! A@@ moral damages must be "roved. 0alse) %?. 2eo"le v Anticamara i. murder 2?5!444.44 as civil indemnity! 2?5!444.44 as moral damages! 234!444.44 as eem"lary damages! and other "roved actual damages. In 2eo"le v. Quiachon! even if the "enalty of death is not to be im"osed because of the "rohibition in 7.A. '38>! the civil indemnity of 1DF,BBB.BB is "ro"er! because it is not de"endent on the actual im"osition of the death "enalty but on the fact that ,ualifying circumstances warranting the im"osition of the death "enalty attended the commission of the o#ense. Anent moral damages! the same are mandatory in cases of murder ! without need of allegation and "roof other than the death of the victim. owever! consistent with recent juris"rudence on heinous crimes where the im"osable "enalty is death but reduced to reclusion "er"etua "ursuant to 7.A. Go.'38>! the award of moral damages should be increased from 254!444.44 to 2?5!444.44. The award of exemplary damages is in order! because of the "resence of the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident "remeditation in the commission of the crime. The Court awards the amount of 234!444.44! as eem"lary damages! in line with current juris"rudence on the matter. ii. ra"e 2?5!444.44 as civil indemnity! 2?5!444.44 as moral damages and 234!444.44 as eem"lary damage In addition! AAA is entitled to moral damages "ursuant to Article %%1' of the Civil Code!?1 without the necessity of additional "leadings or "roof other than the fact of ra"e. Boral damages is granted in recognition of the
victimNs injury necessarily resulting from the odious crime of ra"e. =uch award is se"arate and distinct from the civil indemnity. owever! the amount of 2144!444.44 awarded as moral damages is reduced to 2?5!444.44! in line with current juris"rudence. iii. /idna""ing 254!444.44 as civil indemnity and 254!444.44 as moral damages. %9. 2eo"le v 7arugal (%413 case) 0acts Pictim! while riding his bi/e! was suddenly stabbed by the accused. e didnNt suddenly die. e was able to go home and tell his bros who /illed him (dying declaration). e died ? days later. =C ruled that ,ualifying circumstance of treachery was "resent. Thus! he is guilty of murder. DamagesS eldi. Damages allowable if death due to a crime Anent the award of damages! when death occurs due to a crime! the following may be recovered- (1) civil indemnity e delicto for the death of the victim (%) actual or com"ensatory damages (3) moral damages (8) eem"lary damages (5) attorneyNs fees and e"enses of litigation and (>) interest! in "ro"er cases. (ICA BA) ii. There is no distinction between ordinary and ,ualifying circumstance insofar as damages are concerned Jithal! the ordinary or ,ualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be of conse,uence to the criminal! rather than to the civil! liability of the o#ender. n :ne, relative to the civil aspect of the case, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the oended party to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article %%34 of the Civil Code.L
iii. Amount of civil liability e delicto and eem"lary damages under current juris"rudenceJe! however! increase the award of eem"lary damages to 234!444.44 and the award for mandatory civil indemnity to 2?5!444.44 to conform to recent juris"rudence. iv. Boral damages to be awarded when death is caused by crime even with the absence of "roof.
8e sustain the 3TCs award for moral damages in the amount of 1FB,BBB.BB even in the absence of proof of mental and emotional suering of the victims heirs. As borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victims family.
%'. 2adilla Bachine sho" v Mavilgas Illegal dismissal case. eld0inally, there is no merit in petitioners claim that attorneys fees may not be awarded to the respondent since his case was being handled pro bono by the :.2. &#ice of @egal Aid! which "rovides free legal assistance to indigent litigants. In this jurisdiction! there are two conce"ts of attorneyNs fees. In the ordinary sense! attorneyNs fees re"resent the reasonable com"ensation "aid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter. &n the other hand! in its extraordinary concept, attorneys fees may be awarded by the court as indemnity for damages to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing party, and not counsel. In its etraordinary sense! attorneyNs fees as "art of damages is awarded only in the instances s"eci6ed in Article %%49 of the Civil Code! among which are the following which obtain in the instant case(?) In actions for the recovery of wages of household hel"ers! laborers and s/illed wor/ers (9) In actions for indemnity under wor/mens com"ensation and em"loyers liability laws (11) In any other case where the court deems it just and e,uitable that attorneys fees and e"enses of litigation should be recovered.
34. David v Bisamis 0acts- Contract of sale of e,ui"ment. A contract of sale was "erfected! and the items were already delivered. =ince the vendee was not able to "ay at the sti"ulated date! the "arties agreed to etend the term but with a %8 interest rate. eldi. =ti"ulated interest rate will be decreased if unconscionable.
That being said! the Court now comes to DavidNs "rayer that B&@CI be made to "ay the total sum of 25!8?%!?%%.%? "lus the sti"ulated interest at %8 "er annum from the 6ling of the com"laint. Although the Court agrees that B&@CI should "ay interest! the sti"ulated rate is! however! unconscionable and should be e,uitably reduced. Accordingly! the ecessive interest of %8 "er annum sti"ulated in the sales invoice should be reduced to 1% "er annum. ii. Attorneys fees Indeed! David was com"elled to 6le an action against B&@CI but this reason alone will not warrant an award of attorneyNs fees. It is settled that the award of attorneyNs fees is the ece"tion rather than the rule. (Also discussed ordinary and etraordinary attorneyNs fees) iii. AttorneyNs fees will be awarded for cases outside the enumeration under Art. %%49 of GCC only whena. If sti"ulated. b. In the absence of sti"ulation! a winning "arty may be awarded attorneyNs fees only in case "lainti#Ns action or defendantNs stand is so untenable as to amount to gross and evident bad faith. B&@CINs case cannot be similarly classi6ed. 31. @acson v 7eyes 0acts- @awyer! as administrator and lawyer of heirs! 6led a "etition for "robate of a will. Go o""ositors. ranted. e then 6led a motion for attorneyNs fees. eldThe rule (7&C) is therefore clear that an administrator or eecutor may be allowed fees for the necessary e"enses he has incurred as such! but he may not recover attorneyNs fees from the estate. Compensation is :xed by the rule but such compensation is in the nature of executors or administrators commissions, and never as attorneys fees. A greater sum other than that established by the rule may be allowed Nin any special case, where the estate is large, and the settlement has been attended with great diiculty, and has required a high degree of capacity on the part of the executor or administrator. N It is left to the sound discretion of the court. Accordingly! to the etent that the trial court set aside the sum of 2>5!444.44 as and for Br. =er,uinaNs attorneyNs fees! to o"erate as a Klien on the subject "ro"erties!L the trial judge must be said to have gravely abused its discretion. Je have held that a lawyer of an administrator or eecutor may not charge the estate for his fees! but rather! his client. Butatis mutandis! where the
administrator is himself the counsel for the heirs! it is the latter who must "ay therefor . n that connection, attorneys fees are in the nature of actual damages, which must be duly proved . They are also subject to certain standards! to wit(1) they must be reasonable! that is to say! they must have a bearing on the im"ortance of the subject matter in controversy(%) the extent of the services rendered and(3) the professional standing of the lawyer. In all cases! they must be addressed in a full
moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may even consider the question of whether exemplary damages should be awarded. n other words, no exemplary damages may be awarded without the plaintis right to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages having :rst been established .
33. Huan v Camaganacan AttorneyNs feesi. 7ule- The tet of the decision should state the reason why attorneysN fees are being awarded! otherwise! the award is disallowed. ii. The very o"ening "aragra"h of Article %%49 reveals that the award of attorneys fees remains exceptional in our law. The 9E'E3A7 327E being still that it is not sound public policy to place a penalty on the right to litigate nor should counsel fees be awarded every time a party wins a lawsuit . iii. In the "resent case! for the award of 2%!>94.44 in actual damages the a""ealed decisions awards no less than 2%!444.44 in counsel fees! which is hardly reasonable. ence! the exercise of judicial discretion in the award of attorneys fees under Article ??BK &0 of the Civil Code demands a factual, legal, or equitable justi:cation upon the basis of which the court exercises its discretion . Jithout such justi6cation! the award is a conclusion without a "remise! as basis being im"ro"erly left to s"eculation and conjecture. 38. Pillanueva v =alvador i. Boral damagesJhile "roof of "ecuniary loss is unnecessary to justify an award of moral damages! the amount of indemnity being left to the sound discretion of the court! it is! nevertheless! essential that the claimant satisfactorily "roves the eistence of the factual basis of the damages and its causal connection to defendantNs wrongful act or omission. This is so because moral damages! albeit inca"able of "ecuniary estimation! are designed to com"ensate the claimant for actual injury su#ered and not to im"ose a "enalty on the wrongdoer. There is thus merit on "etitionersN assertion that "roof of moral su#ering must "recede a moral damage award. The conditions required in awarding moral damages are) &0 there must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant# &?0 there must be a culpable act or omission factually established# &@0 the wrongful act or omission of the defendant must be the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant# and &<0 the award of damages is predicated on any of
