Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

IGNACIO BARZAGA v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 175554 2008-12-23	EDSEL LIGA v. ALLEGRO RESOURCES CORP. TINGA, J.
On the last issue regarding damages, Liga also ends up at the shorter end. Law and jurisprudence support the award of attorney's fees and costs of suit in favor of Allegro. The award of damages and attorney's fees is left to the sound discretion of the court, and if such discretion is well exercised, as in this case, it will not be disturbed on appeal.[34] Attorney's fees and costs of litigation are awarded in instances where "the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable claim."[35] Having delivered possession over the leased property to Liga, Allegro had already performed its obligation under the lease agreement. Liga should have exercised fairness and good judgment in dealing with Allegro by religiously paying the agreed monthly rental of P40,000.00.
	GR No. 151821 2004-04-14	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. ALS MANAGEMENT PANGANIBAN, J.
We agree with petitioner. While respondent may have suffered pecuniary losses for completion work done, it failed to establish with reasonable certainty the actual amount spent. The award of actual damages cannot be based on the allegation of a witness without any tangible document, such as receipts or other documentary proofs to support such claim.[69] In determining actual damages, courts cannot rely on mere assertions, speculations, conjectures or guesswork, but must depend on competent proof and on the best obtainable evidence of the actual amount of loss.[70]
	GR No. 159352 2004-04-14	PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT BANK v. CA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
In the instant case, the actual damages were proven through the sole testimony of Themistocles Ruguero, the vice president for administration of Panacor. In his testimony, the witness affirmed that Panacor incurred losses, specifically, in terms of training and seminars, leasehold acquisition, procurement of vehicles and office equipment without, however, adducing receipts to substantiate the same. The documentary evidence marked as exhibit "W", which was an ordinary private writing allegedly itemizing the capital expenditures and losses from the failed operation of Panacor, was not testified to by any witness to ascertain the veracity of its contents. Although the lower court fixed the sum of P4,520,000.00 as the total expenditures incurred by Panacor, it failed to show how and in what manner the same were substantiated by the claimant with reasonable certainty. Hence, the claim for actual damages should be admitted with extreme caution since it is only based on bare assertion without support from independent evidence. Premiere's failure to prove actual expenditure consequently conduces to a failure of its claim. In determining actual damages, the court cannot rely on mere assertions, speculations, conjectures or guesswork but must depend on competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable regarding the actual amount of loss.[20]
	GR No. 147349 2004-02-13	MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. ALA INDUSTRIES CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
The failure to pay on the date stipulated was clearly a violation of the Agreement. Within thirty days from receipt of the judicial Order approving it on December 20, 1997 payment should have been made, but was not. Thus, nonfulfillment of the terms of the compromise justified execution.[24] It is the height of absurdity for petitioner to attribute to a fortuitous event its delayed payment. Petitioner's explanation is clearly "a gratuitous assertion that borders on callousness."[25] The Christmas season cannot be cited as an act of God that would excuse a delay in the processing of claims by a government entity that is subject to routine accounting and auditing rules.
	GR No. 149465 2003-12-08	DARIA GONZALES VDA. DE TOLEDO v. ANTONIO TOLEDO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
With respect to the damages awarded, the trial court correctly held that there is no convincing proof to support petitioner's allegation that she incurred P3,000.00 as actual damages. In determining actual damages, the court cannot rely on mere assertions, speculations, conjectures or guesswork but must depend on competent evidence and on the best evidence obtainable regarding the actual loss.[28] Likewise, the trial court soundly exercised its discretion when it awarded moral damages in the amount of P20,000.00, based on the circumstances of the case at bar.[29] However, there is no factual basis for the award of exemplary damages. Petitioner failed to establish that the Bank colluded with the Toledo spouses and the Sumulong spouses in depriving her of the parcel of land in question.