Lawyerly

GR No. 195145

2016-02-10

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. SPS. SULPICIO AND PATRICIA RAMOS

BRION, J.

In Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos,[20] we explained that in order to recover actual damages, there must be pleading and proof of the damages suffered, viz.:Actual 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. (emphasis supplied)

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. 190521

2011-01-12

LETICIA TAN v. OMC CARRIERS

BRION, J.

We begin by discussing the petitioners' claim for actual damages arising from the damage inflicted on petitioner Leticia Tan's house and tailoring shop, taking into account the sewing machines and various household appliances affected. Our basic law tells us that to recover damages there must be pleading and proof of actual damages suffered.[20] As we explained in Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos:[21]

GR No. 166869

2010-02-16

PHILIPPINE HAWK CORPORATION v. VIVIAN TAN LEE

PERALTA, J.

The rule is settled that the findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record.[24] The Court has carefully reviewed the records of this case, and found no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court, thus: The Court agree[s] with the bus driver Margarito that the motorcycle was moving ahead of the bus towards the right side from the left side of the road, but disagrees with him that it crossed the path of the bus while the bus was running on the right side of the highway.

GR No. 165679

2009-10-05

ENGR. APOLINARIO DUEÑAS v. ALICE GUCE-AFRICA

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]

GR No. 170813

2008-04-16

B.F. METAL v. SPS. ROLANDO M. LOMOTAN AND LINAFLOR LOMOTAN AND RICO UMUYON

TINGA, J,

In People v. Gopio,[12] the Court allowed the reimbursement of only the laboratory fee that was duly receipted as "the rest of the documents, which the prosecution presented to prove the actual expenses incurred by the victim, were merely a doctor's prescription and a handwritten list of food expenses."[13] In Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos,[14] the Court particularly disallowed the award of actual damages, considering that the actual damages suffered by private respondents therein were based only on a job estimate and a photo showing the damage to the truck and no competent proof on the specific amounts of actual damages suffered was presented.

GR No. 148737

2004-06-16

ERNESTO PLEYTO v. MARIA D. LOMBOY

QUISUMBING, J.

THE COURT OF APPEALS DISREGARDED THE DOCTRINE LAID DOWN IN VILLA REY TRANSIT, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. L-25499, FEBRUARY 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 511, WHEN IT ARBITRARILY PEGGED THE MONTHLY LIVING EXPENSES AT 50% OF GROSS EARNINGS.[8] At the outset, it appears that petitioners call for this Court to review the factual findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals. Petitioners assail the appellate court's affirmance of the finding by the trial court that Pleyto was negligent. The issue of negligence is factual and, in quasi-delicts, crucial in the award of damages.[9] But it is well established that under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, only questions of law, not of fact, may be raised before the Supreme Court. It must be stressed that this Court is not a trier of facts, and it is not its function to re-examine and weigh anew the respective evidence of the parties.[10] Factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record.[11] In the present petition, no compelling reason is shown by petitioners whatsoever for this Court to reverse those findings. Our examination of the records shows that the evidence clearly supports the following findings of the appellate court:The negligence and fault of appellant driver is manifest. He overtook the tricycle despite the oncoming car only fifty (50) meters away from him. Defendant-appellant's claim that he was driving at a mere 30 to 35 kilometers per hour does not deserve credence as it would have been easy to stop or properly maneuver the bus at this speed. The speed of the bus, the drizzle that made the road slippery, and the proximity of the car coming from the opposite direction were duly established by the evidence. The speed at which the bus traveled, inappropriate in the light of the aforementioned circumstances, is evident from the fact despite the application of the brakes, the bus still bumped the tricycle, and then proceeded to collide with the incoming car with such force that the car was pushed beyond the edge of the road to the ricefield (Paragraph 8, Affidavit of Rolly Orpilla marked Exh. "D" and Traffic Report marked Exh. "E", Folder of Exhibits)….[12] Indeed, petitioner Pleyto violated traffic rules and regulations when he overtook the tricycle despite the presence of an oncoming car in the other lane. Article 2185 of the Civil Code lays down the presumption that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. As found by both the Court of Appeals and the trial court, petitioners failed to present any convincing proof rebutting such presumption.

GR No. 156034

2003-10-01

DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES v. C & A CONSTRUCTION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

So also, petitioner cannot disclaim liability on the basis of respondent's failure to allege in its complaint that the former did not exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. In Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos,[31] it was held that it is not necessary to state that petitioner was negligent in the supervision or selection of its employees, inasmuch as its negligence is presumed by operation of law. Allegations of negligence against the employee and that of an employer-employee relation in the complaint are enough to make out a case of quasi-delict under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.[32]

GR No. 120874

2003-07-31

TUGADE v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Under Art. 2180, Panelco as employer of Areola is primarily and solidarily liable for the quasi-delict committed by the latter. It is presumed to be negligent in the selection and supervision of its employees by operation of law and may be relieved of responsibility for the negligent acts of its driver, who at the time was acting within the scope of his assigned task, only if it can show that it observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.[37]

GR No. 120874

2003-07-31

TUGADE v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Actual damages to be recoverable, must actually be proved and supported by receipts. In this case, the petitioners failed to present any receipt to prove the expenses they incurred. Nonetheless, temperate damages may still be given to the heirs of the victim under Art. 2224 of the Civil Code.[43] Based on prevailing jurisprudence, the amount of P25,000.00 as temperate damages is in order.[44]

	GR No. 195145 2016-02-10	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. SPS. SULPICIO AND PATRICIA RAMOS BRION, J.
In Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos,[20] we explained that in order to recover actual damages, there must be pleading and proof of the damages suffered, viz.:Actual 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. (emphasis supplied)
	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. 190521 2011-01-12	LETICIA TAN v. OMC CARRIERS BRION, J.
We begin by discussing the petitioners' claim for actual damages arising from the damage inflicted on petitioner Leticia Tan's house and tailoring shop, taking into account the sewing machines and various household appliances affected. Our basic law tells us that to recover damages there must be pleading and proof of actual damages suffered.[20] As we explained in Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos:[21]
	GR No. 166869 2010-02-16	PHILIPPINE HAWK CORPORATION v. VIVIAN TAN LEE PERALTA, J.
The rule is settled that the findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record.[24] The Court has carefully reviewed the records of this case, and found no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court, thus: The Court agree[s] with the bus driver Margarito that the motorcycle was moving ahead of the bus towards the right side from the left side of the road, but disagrees with him that it crossed the path of the bus while the bus was running on the right side of the highway.
	GR No. 165679 2009-10-05	ENGR. APOLINARIO DUEÑAS v. ALICE GUCE-AFRICA 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]
	GR No. 170813 2008-04-16	B.F. METAL v. SPS. ROLANDO M. LOMOTAN AND LINAFLOR LOMOTAN AND RICO UMUYON TINGA, J,
In People v. Gopio,[12] the Court allowed the reimbursement of only the laboratory fee that was duly receipted as "the rest of the documents, which the prosecution presented to prove the actual expenses incurred by the victim, were merely a doctor's prescription and a handwritten list of food expenses."[13] In Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos,[14] the Court particularly disallowed the award of actual damages, considering that the actual damages suffered by private respondents therein were based only on a job estimate and a photo showing the damage to the truck and no competent proof on the specific amounts of actual damages suffered was presented.
	GR No. 148737 2004-06-16	ERNESTO PLEYTO v. MARIA D. LOMBOY QUISUMBING, J.
THE COURT OF APPEALS DISREGARDED THE DOCTRINE LAID DOWN IN VILLA REY TRANSIT, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. L-25499, FEBRUARY 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 511, WHEN IT ARBITRARILY PEGGED THE MONTHLY LIVING EXPENSES AT 50% OF GROSS EARNINGS.[8] At the outset, it appears that petitioners call for this Court to review the factual findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals. Petitioners assail the appellate court's affirmance of the finding by the trial court that Pleyto was negligent. The issue of negligence is factual and, in quasi-delicts, crucial in the award of damages.[9] But it is well established that under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, only questions of law, not of fact, may be raised before the Supreme Court. It must be stressed that this Court is not a trier of facts, and it is not its function to re-examine and weigh anew the respective evidence of the parties.[10] Factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record.[11] In the present petition, no compelling reason is shown by petitioners whatsoever for this Court to reverse those findings. Our examination of the records shows that the evidence clearly supports the following findings of the appellate court:The negligence and fault of appellant driver is manifest. He overtook the tricycle despite the oncoming car only fifty (50) meters away from him. Defendant-appellant's claim that he was driving at a mere 30 to 35 kilometers per hour does not deserve credence as it would have been easy to stop or properly maneuver the bus at this speed. The speed of the bus, the drizzle that made the road slippery, and the proximity of the car coming from the opposite direction were duly established by the evidence. The speed at which the bus traveled, inappropriate in the light of the aforementioned circumstances, is evident from the fact despite the application of the brakes, the bus still bumped the tricycle, and then proceeded to collide with the incoming car with such force that the car was pushed beyond the edge of the road to the ricefield (Paragraph 8, Affidavit of Rolly Orpilla marked Exh. "D" and Traffic Report marked Exh. "E", Folder of Exhibits)….[12] Indeed, petitioner Pleyto violated traffic rules and regulations when he overtook the tricycle despite the presence of an oncoming car in the other lane. Article 2185 of the Civil Code lays down the presumption that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. As found by both the Court of Appeals and the trial court, petitioners failed to present any convincing proof rebutting such presumption.
	GR No. 156034 2003-10-01	DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES v. C & A CONSTRUCTION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
So also, petitioner cannot disclaim liability on the basis of respondent's failure to allege in its complaint that the former did not exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. In Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos,[31] it was held that it is not necessary to state that petitioner was negligent in the supervision or selection of its employees, inasmuch as its negligence is presumed by operation of law. Allegations of negligence against the employee and that of an employer-employee relation in the complaint are enough to make out a case of quasi-delict under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.[32]
	GR No. 120874 2003-07-31	TUGADE v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Under Art. 2180, Panelco as employer of Areola is primarily and solidarily liable for the quasi-delict committed by the latter. It is presumed to be negligent in the selection and supervision of its employees by operation of law and may be relieved of responsibility for the negligent acts of its driver, who at the time was acting within the scope of his assigned task, only if it can show that it observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.[37]
	GR No. 120874 2003-07-31	TUGADE v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Actual damages to be recoverable, must actually be proved and supported by receipts. In this case, the petitioners failed to present any receipt to prove the expenses they incurred. Nonetheless, temperate damages may still be given to the heirs of the victim under Art. 2224 of the Civil Code.[43] Based on prevailing jurisprudence, the amount of P25,000.00 as temperate damages is in order.[44]

VIRON TRANSPORTATION CO. v. ALBERTO DELOS SANTOS Y NATIVIDAD