This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-02-22 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The Court also finds nothing improper in the deletion by the CA of the award of actual damages in favor of DPCC. Actual or compensatory damages means the adequate compensation for pecuniary loss suffered and for profits the obligee failed to obtain. To be entitled to actual or compensatory damages, it is basic that there must be pleading and proof of actual damages suffered.[56] Equally vital to the fact that the amount of loss must be capable of proof, such loss must also be actually proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or the best evidence obtainable.[57] The burden of proof of the damage suffered is, consequently, imposed on the party claiming it[58] who, in turn, should present the best evidence available in support of his claim. It could include sales and delivery receipts, cash and check vouchers and other pieces of documentary evidence of the same nature pertaining to the items he is seeking to recover. In the absence of corroborative evidence, it has been held that self-serving statements of account are not sufficient basis for an award of actual damages.[59] Moreover, a claim for actual damages cannot be predicated on flimsy, remote, speculative, and insubstantial proof.[60] Thus, courts are required to state the factual bases of the award.[61] | |||||
|
2011-02-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Conformably with the foregoing provision, the rule is long and well settled that there must be pleading and proof of actual damages suffered for the same to be recovered.[43] In addition to the fact that the amount of loss must be capable of proof, it must also be actually proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or the best evidence obtainable.[44] The burden of proof of the damage suffered is, consequently, imposed on the party claiming the same[45] who should adduce the best evidence available in support thereof, like sales and delivery receipts, cash and check vouchers and other pieces of documentary evidence of the same nature. In the absence of corroborative evidence, it has been held that self-serving statements of account are not sufficient basis for an award of actual damages.[46] Corollary to the principle that a claim for actual damages cannot be predicated on flimsy, remote, speculative, and insubstantial proof,[47] courts are, likewise, required to state the factual bases of the award.[48] | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It bears noting that both the trial and appellate courts did not specify what kind of damages was being awarded apart from civil indemnity.[35] In awarding damages, the trial court should state the factual bases of the award of these damages.[36] Thus, in rape cases, damages may refer to moral and exemplary, and these must be specified as these have different bases.[37] | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| "Good faith connotes an honest intention to abstain from taking unconscientious advantage of another. Accordingly, in University of the East v. Jader we said that "[g]ood faith connotes an honest intention to abstain from taking undue advantage of another, even though the forms and technicalities of law, together with the absence of all information or belief of facts, would render the transaction unconscientious."[42] Bad faith, on the other hand, is a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest, ill will or for an ulterior purpose.[43] As both concepts are states of mind, they may be deduced from the attendant circumstances and, more particularly, from the acts and statements of the person whose state of mind is the subject of inquiry. | |||||
|
2009-01-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| However, we believe that the award of damages and attorney's fees in favor of Capulong, as against DBP, should be deleted because there is no direct causal connection between the failure of DBP to require ADC to comply with the HLURB requirements pursuant to PD 957 and the injury sustained by Capulong owing to ADC's failure to inform him of the prior mortgage with DBP and of the foreclosure of the mortgage. More importantly, it is noticeable that the decisions of the HLURB Arbiter, the HLURB Board of Commissioners, the Office of the President and the CA did not discuss the basis for the award of moral and liquidated damages and attorney's fees as against DBP. It is a settled rule that the factual bases of the award for damages and attorney's fees should be set forth in an order or a decision, failing which, no grant of damages can be sustained.[12] | |||||