This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-01-15 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| estimation, civil damages should be assessed once that integrity has been violated. The assessment is but an imperfect estimation of the true value of one's body. The usual practice is to award moral damages for the physical injuries sustained.[15] In Hanz's case, the undesirable outcome of the circumcision performed by the petitioner forced the young child to endure several other procedures on his penis in order to repair his damaged urethra. Surely, his physical and moral sufferings properly warranted the amount of P50,000.00 awarded as moral damages. Many years have gone by since Hanz suffered the injury. Interest of 6% per annum should then be imposed on the award as a sincere means of adjusting the value of the award to a level that is not only reasonable but just and commensurate. Unless we make the adjustment | |||||
|
2009-10-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We agree. Article 2199 of the Civil Code provides that "one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved." In Ong v. Court of Appeals,[21] we held that "(a)ctual 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 be recoverable, actual damages must not only be capable of proof, but must actually be proved with reasonable degree of certainty. We cannot simply rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork in determining the amount of damages. Thus, it was held that before actual damages can be awarded, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss, and credence can be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts.[22] | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As regards the issue of disallowed deductions from Hanjin's Net Cost to Complete, the CA, in its underlying decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 86641, included the amount of PhP 8,558,652.78 and PhP 1,257,417.30, being not properly receipted, as additional disallowed deductions to the CIAC's figure of PhP 84,166,970.47[46] or a total disallowable deduction of PhP 93,983,040.38.[47] We agree and thus affirm the CA's holding that when expenses or offered deductions are not properly documented, such deductions should not be allowed, such deductions being in the nature of actual damages. To be recoverable, actual damages must be pleaded and adequately proven in court. An award thereof cannot be predicated on flimsy, remote, speculative, and insubstantial proof.[48] Again, we see no reason to deviate from the CA's findings on the matter of how much Hanjin expended to complete the Project. | |||||
|
2005-10-25 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The respondent RTC Judge also cited the 1999 case of Ong vs. Court of Appeals,[7] where an action for damages due to a vehicular accident, with prayer for actual damages of P10,000.00 and moral damages of P1,000,000.00, was tried in a RTC. | |||||
|
2002-01-16 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| In awarding damages for tortuous injury, it becomes the sole design of the courts to provide for adequate compensation by putting the plaintiff in the same financial position he was in prior to the tort. It is a fundamental principle in the law on damages that a defendant cannot be held liable in damages for more than the actual loss which he has inflicted and that a plaintiff is entitled to no more than the just and adequate compensation for the injury suffered. His recovery is, in the absence of circumstances giving rise to an allowance of punitive damages, limited to a fair compensation for the harm done. The law will not put him in a position better than where he should be in had not the wrong happened.[12] | |||||