Lawyerly

GR No. 195145

2016-02-10

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. SPS. SULPICIO AND PATRICIA RAMOS

BRION, J.

Third, exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages. The award of exemplary damages is allowed by law as a warning to the public and as a deterrent against the repetition of socially deleterious actions.[26]

GR No. 206291

2016-01-18

PEOPLE v. ZALDY SALAHUDDIN

PERALTA, J.

However, the Court is constrained to disallow the award of P4,398,000.00 as compensation for loss of earning capacity for insufficiency of evidence. The rule is that documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate a claim for loss of earning capacity.[50] 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 and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case, 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.[51] None of such exceptions was shown to obtain in this case.

GR No. 202708

2015-04-13

PEOPLE v. VICTORIANO VILLAR

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.

GR No. 193169

2015-04-06

ROGELIO ROQUE v. PEOPLE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The RTC and the CA correctly held that actual damages cannot be awarded to Reynaldo due to the absence of receipts to prove the medical expenses he incurred from the incident. "Nonetheless, absent competent proof on the actual damages suffered, a party still has the option of claiming temperate damages, which may be allowed in cases where, from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss."[19] Since it was undisputed that Reynaldo was hospitalized due to the gunshot wounds inflicted by petitioner, albeit as observed by the RTC there was no evidence offered as to the expenses he incurred by reason thereof, Reynaldo is entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00. Aside from this, he is also entitled to moral damages of P25,000.00. These awards of damages are in accordance with settled jurisprudence.[20] An interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum must also be imposed on the awarded damages to commence from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.[21]

GR No. 193914

2014-11-26

SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. DMC-CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES

SERENO, C.J.

Jurisprudence has consistently held that "[t]o justify an award of actual damages x x x credence can be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts."[32] We take this to mean by credible evidence. Otherwise, the law mandates that other forms of damages must be awarded, to wit: Art. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages, may be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of each case.

GR No. 193914

2014-11-26

SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. DMC-CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES

SERENO, C.J.

Thus, in Tan v. OMC Carriers, Inc.,[39] temperate damages were rightly awarded because plaintiff suffered a loss, although definitive proof of its amount cannot be presented as the photographs produced as evidence were deemed insufficient. Established in that case, however, was the fact that respondent's truck was responsible for the damage to petitioner's property and that petitioner suffered some form of pecuniary loss. In Canada v. All Commodities Marketing Corporation,[40] temperate damages were also awarded wherein respondent's goods did not reach the Pepsi Cola Plant at Muntinlupa City as a result of the negligence of petitioner in conducting its trucking and hauling services, even if the amount of the pecuniary loss had not been proven. In Philtranco Services Enterprises, Inc. v. Paras,[41] the respondent was likewise awarded temperate damages in an action for breach of contract of carriage, even if his medical expenses had not been established with certainty. In People v. Briones,[42] in which the accused was found guilty of murder, temperate damages were given even if the funeral expenses for the victim had not been sufficiently proven.

GR No. 178145

2014-07-07

REYNALDO S. MARIANO v. PEOPLE

BERSAMIN, J.

Actual damages, to be recoverable, must not only be capable of proof, but must actually be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. This is because the courts cannot 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 loss suffered, which should be based on the amounts actually expended by the victim,[16] or other competent proof. Here, the receipts presented by the Prosecution proved the expenses actually incurred amounting to P108,402.75, but such aggregate was reduced by the victim's earlier receipt of P50,000.00 from the petitioner in the form of financial assistance. Hence, the victim should recover only the unpaid portion of P58,402.75.

GR No. 174665

2013-09-18

PHILIPPINE RECLAMATION AUTHORITY v. ROMAGO

ABAD, J.

In keeping with this Court's ruling in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[43] the Court deems it proper to impose legal interest of 6% per annum on the amount finally adjudged, reckoned from October 22, 2004, the date the CIAC rendered judgment until the same is wholly satisfied.[44]

GR No. 206236

2013-07-15

GILFREDO BACOLOD v. PEOPLE

BERSAMIN, J.

The unfair omission should be rectified. In the records was testimony given by Architect Gabriel F. Abear to the effect that the Spouses Cogtas would need to spend P869,590.00 to restore their burned dwelling to its condition before the crime. In the absence of a showing that such amount had been actually expended in a manner capable of substantiation by any document or receipt, Abear's valuation remained a mere estimate, and could not be the measure of an award for actual damages. This is because, as reiterated in Tan v. OMC Carriers, Inc.:[9]

GR No. 181096

2013-03-06

RENO R. GONZALES v. CAMARINES SUR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

SERENO, C.J.

Notwithstanding the wording of the Civil Code cited above, we have already settled in jurisprudence[21] that even if the pecuniary loss suffered by the claimant is capable of proof, an award of temperate damages is not precluded. The grant of temperate damages is drawn from equity to provide relief to those definitely injured. Therefore, it may be allowed so long as the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss.[22]

GR No. 174089

2012-01-25

ORIX METRO LEASING v. MANGALINAO Y DIZON

DEL CASTILLO, J.

While the net income had not been sufficiently established, the Court recognizes the fact that the Mangalinao heirs had suffered loss deserving of compensation. What the CA awarded is in actuality a form of temperate damages. Such form of damages under Article 2224[56] of the Civil Code is given in the absence of competent proof on the actual damages suffered.[57] "In the past, we awarded temperate damages in lieu of actual damages for loss of earning capacity where earning capacity is plainly established but no evidence was presented to support the allegation of the injured party's actual income."[58] In this case, Roberto Mangalinao, the breadwinner of the family, was a businessman engaged in buying and selling palay and agricultural supplies that required high capital in its operations and was only 37 at the time of his death. Moreover, the Pathfinder which the Mangalinaos own, became a total wreck. Under the circumstances, we find the award of P500,000.00 as temperate damages as reasonable.[59]

GR No. 174089

2012-01-25

ORIX METRO LEASING v. MANGALINAO Y DIZON

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Moral damages,[60] it must be stressed, are not intended to enrich plaintiff at the expense of the defendant. They are awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions, or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he/she had undergone due to the other party's culpable action and must, perforce, be proportional to the suffering inflicted.[61] While the children did not testify before the court, undoubtedly, they suffered the pain and ordeal of losing both their parents and sibling and hence, the award of moral damages is justified. However, the amount must be reduced to P500,000.00.[62]

GR No. 174089

2012-01-25

ORIX METRO LEASING v. MANGALINAO Y DIZON

DEL CASTILLO, J.

"In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence."[63] It is given by way of example or correction for the public good.[64] Before the court may consider such award, the plaintiff must show his entitlement first to moral, temperate, or compensatory damages,[65] which the respondents have. In the case at bench, the reckless driving of the two trucks involved caused the death of the victims. However, we shall reduce the amount of exemplary damages to P200,000.00.[66]

	GR No. 195145 2016-02-10	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. SPS. SULPICIO AND PATRICIA RAMOS BRION, J.
Third, exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages. The award of exemplary damages is allowed by law as a warning to the public and as a deterrent against the repetition of socially deleterious actions.[26]
	GR No. 206291 2016-01-18	PEOPLE v. ZALDY SALAHUDDIN PERALTA, J.
However, the Court is constrained to disallow the award of P4,398,000.00 as compensation for loss of earning capacity for insufficiency of evidence. The rule is that documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate a claim for loss of earning capacity.[50] 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 and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case, 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.[51] None of such exceptions was shown to obtain in this case.
	GR No. 202708 2015-04-13	PEOPLE v. VICTORIANO VILLAR 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.
	GR No. 193169 2015-04-06	ROGELIO ROQUE v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
The RTC and the CA correctly held that actual damages cannot be awarded to Reynaldo due to the absence of receipts to prove the medical expenses he incurred from the incident. "Nonetheless, absent competent proof on the actual damages suffered, a party still has the option of claiming temperate damages, which may be allowed in cases where, from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss."[19] Since it was undisputed that Reynaldo was hospitalized due to the gunshot wounds inflicted by petitioner, albeit as observed by the RTC there was no evidence offered as to the expenses he incurred by reason thereof, Reynaldo is entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00. Aside from this, he is also entitled to moral damages of P25,000.00. These awards of damages are in accordance with settled jurisprudence.[20] An interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum must also be imposed on the awarded damages to commence from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.[21]
	GR No. 193914 2014-11-26	SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. DMC-CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES SERENO, C.J.
Jurisprudence has consistently held that "[t]o justify an award of actual damages x x x credence can be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts."[32] We take this to mean by credible evidence. Otherwise, the law mandates that other forms of damages must be awarded, to wit: Art. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages, may be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of each case.
	GR No. 193914 2014-11-26	SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. DMC-CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES SERENO, C.J.
Thus, in Tan v. OMC Carriers, Inc.,[39] temperate damages were rightly awarded because plaintiff suffered a loss, although definitive proof of its amount cannot be presented as the photographs produced as evidence were deemed insufficient. Established in that case, however, was the fact that respondent's truck was responsible for the damage to petitioner's property and that petitioner suffered some form of pecuniary loss. In Canada v. All Commodities Marketing Corporation,[40] temperate damages were also awarded wherein respondent's goods did not reach the Pepsi Cola Plant at Muntinlupa City as a result of the negligence of petitioner in conducting its trucking and hauling services, even if the amount of the pecuniary loss had not been proven. In Philtranco Services Enterprises, Inc. v. Paras,[41] the respondent was likewise awarded temperate damages in an action for breach of contract of carriage, even if his medical expenses had not been established with certainty. In People v. Briones,[42] in which the accused was found guilty of murder, temperate damages were given even if the funeral expenses for the victim had not been sufficiently proven.
	GR No. 178145 2014-07-07	REYNALDO S. MARIANO v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
Actual damages, to be recoverable, must not only be capable of proof, but must actually be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. This is because the courts cannot 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 loss suffered, which should be based on the amounts actually expended by the victim,[16] or other competent proof. Here, the receipts presented by the Prosecution proved the expenses actually incurred amounting to P108,402.75, but such aggregate was reduced by the victim's earlier receipt of P50,000.00 from the petitioner in the form of financial assistance. Hence, the victim should recover only the unpaid portion of P58,402.75.
	GR No. 174665 2013-09-18	PHILIPPINE RECLAMATION AUTHORITY v. ROMAGO ABAD, J.
In keeping with this Court's ruling in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[43] the Court deems it proper to impose legal interest of 6% per annum on the amount finally adjudged, reckoned from October 22, 2004, the date the CIAC rendered judgment until the same is wholly satisfied.[44]
	GR No. 206236 2013-07-15	GILFREDO BACOLOD v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
The unfair omission should be rectified. In the records was testimony given by Architect Gabriel F. Abear to the effect that the Spouses Cogtas would need to spend P869,590.00 to restore their burned dwelling to its condition before the crime. In the absence of a showing that such amount had been actually expended in a manner capable of substantiation by any document or receipt, Abear's valuation remained a mere estimate, and could not be the measure of an award for actual damages. This is because, as reiterated in Tan v. OMC Carriers, Inc.:[9]
	GR No. 181096 2013-03-06	RENO R. GONZALES v. CAMARINES SUR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE SERENO, C.J.
Notwithstanding the wording of the Civil Code cited above, we have already settled in jurisprudence[21] that even if the pecuniary loss suffered by the claimant is capable of proof, an award of temperate damages is not precluded. The grant of temperate damages is drawn from equity to provide relief to those definitely injured. Therefore, it may be allowed so long as the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss.[22]
	GR No. 174089 2012-01-25	ORIX METRO LEASING v. MANGALINAO Y DIZON DEL CASTILLO, J.
While the net income had not been sufficiently established, the Court recognizes the fact that the Mangalinao heirs had suffered loss deserving of compensation. What the CA awarded is in actuality a form of temperate damages. Such form of damages under Article 2224[56] of the Civil Code is given in the absence of competent proof on the actual damages suffered.[57] "In the past, we awarded temperate damages in lieu of actual damages for loss of earning capacity where earning capacity is plainly established but no evidence was presented to support the allegation of the injured party's actual income."[58] In this case, Roberto Mangalinao, the breadwinner of the family, was a businessman engaged in buying and selling palay and agricultural supplies that required high capital in its operations and was only 37 at the time of his death. Moreover, the Pathfinder which the Mangalinaos own, became a total wreck. Under the circumstances, we find the award of P500,000.00 as temperate damages as reasonable.[59]
	GR No. 174089 2012-01-25	ORIX METRO LEASING v. MANGALINAO Y DIZON DEL CASTILLO, J.
Moral damages,[60] it must be stressed, are not intended to enrich plaintiff at the expense of the defendant. They are awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions, or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he/she had undergone due to the other party's culpable action and must, perforce, be proportional to the suffering inflicted.[61] While the children did not testify before the court, undoubtedly, they suffered the pain and ordeal of losing both their parents and sibling and hence, the award of moral damages is justified. However, the amount must be reduced to P500,000.00.[62]
	GR No. 174089 2012-01-25	ORIX METRO LEASING v. MANGALINAO Y DIZON DEL CASTILLO, J.
"In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence."[63] It is given by way of example or correction for the public good.[64] Before the court may consider such award, the plaintiff must show his entitlement first to moral, temperate, or compensatory damages,[65] which the respondents have. In the case at bench, the reckless driving of the two trucks involved caused the death of the victims. However, we shall reduce the amount of exemplary damages to P200,000.00.[66]

LETICIA TAN v. OMC CARRIERS