This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-04-13 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In fine, it is settled that the indemnity for loss of earning capacity is in the form of actual damages; as such, it must be proved by competent proof, "not merely by the self-serving testimony of the widow."[24] By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded in two instances: 1) the victim was self-employed and receiving less than the minimum wage under the current laws25 and no documentary evidence available in the decedent's line of business; and, 2) the deceased was employed as a daily wage worker and receiving less than the minimum wage.[26] Here, the award for loss of earning capacity lacks basis. For one, the widow of the deceased gave conflicting testimonies. At first, she testified that her husband "has a net income of P16,000.00 a year as farmer, sari-sari store owner, driver and operator of two tricycles and caretaker of Hacienda Bancod."[27] Next, she claimed that "before his death, her husband earns P50.00 a day as tricycle driver and P150.00 from their sari-sari store and had a net income of P4,000.00 a month. As a farmer her husband produces 270 cavans of palay a year with a price of P135.00 a cavan weighing 50 kilos."[28] Aside from giving inconsistent statements, the amounts mentioned were arbitrary and were not proved to be below the prescribed minimum wage. Plainly, this case does not fall under any of the exceptions exempting the submission of documentary proof. To reiterate, "[ajctual damages, to be recoverable, must not only be capable of proof, but must actually be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. Courts cannot simply rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork in determining the fact and amount of damages. 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."[29] In fine, the award of loss of earning capacity must be deleted for lack of basis. | |||||
|
2014-09-10 |
CARPIO, ACTING C.J. |
||||
| The review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to questions of law. This Court does not weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[13] The narrow ambit of review prescribed under this rule allows us to swiftly dispose of such appeals. This rule, of course, admits of exceptions applicable to those rare petitions whose peculiar factual milieu justifies relaxation of the Rules such as based on speculation or conjectures, or overlooked undisputed facts which, if duly considered, lead to a different conclusion.[14] | |||||
|
2013-07-03 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased is self-employed earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[37] (Citations and emphasis omitted.) | |||||