Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

G.Q. GARMENTS v. ANGEL MIRANDA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 183872 2014-11-17	OWEN PROSPER A. MACKAY v. SPS. DANA CASWELL DEL CASTILLO, J.
One is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved.[37] "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."[38] The claimant must prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable.[39] In the case at bar, we give credence to the documents relied upon by the CA and the MTC in arriving at the rectification cost, i.e., a) Engr. Pulangco's handwritten receipt of P15,400.00, to which he had testified before the court that he had indeed received such amount and b) the Sales Invoice No. 2029 issued by Peter A. Eduria Enterprises reflecting the total cost of P53,805.00.00.
	GR No. 183198 2009-11-25	LUZ PALANCA TAN v. JAM TRANSIT NACHURA, J.
To warrant an award of actual or compensatory damages for repair to damage sustained, the best evidence should be the receipts or other documentary proofs of the actual amount expended.[30] However, considering that it was duly proven that the jitney was damaged and had to be repaired, as it was repaired, and that the cargo of eggs was indeed destroyed, but the actual amounts expended or lost were not proven, we deem it appropriate to award P250,000.00 by way of temperate damages. Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages may be recovered when pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty.[31] We, however, sustain the trial court's award of P1,327.00 as regards the medical expenses incurred by petitioner, the same being duly supported by receipts.[32]
	GR No. 163178 2009-01-30	HILARIO P. SORIANO v. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In the present case, petitioner claims that the form of injury he suffered from the act of Garcia in referring his case to the DOJ is the resultant delay in the resolution of his Complaint against Palad. However, other than such assertion, petitioner failed to adduce evidence of the actual loss or damage he suffered by reason of the delay. While it is not necessary that a specific amount of the damage be proven with absolute certainty, there must be some reasonable basis by which the court can measure it.[29] Here, petitioner utterly failed to support his bare allegation of undue injury.
	GR No. 142383 2003-08-29	ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION v. CANLUBANG SUGAR ESTATES CALLEJO, SR., J.
We do not agree. We take judicial notice[41] that the respondent already raised this same issue of forum shopping in CA-G.R. SP No. 61722, when the petitioner herein filed the said petition for certiorari instead of filing a motion for the nullification of the November 5, 2000 Order of the RTC in Civil Case No. 2247-95-C. When the CA granted the petition and denied the respondent's motion for reconsideration, the respondent filed its petition for review on certiorari with this Court.[42] The respondent alleged therein that its petition for certiorari with the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 61722, after filing its Very Urgent Motion for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin the RTC from granting the respondent's motion for a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 2247-95-C was merely noted by this Court in G.R. No. 142383. The petitioner should have filed a motion in this case for the issuance of a temporary restraining order to enjoin the RTC from granting the motion for reconsideration of the respondent in Civil Case No. 2247-95-C.
	GR No. 142383 2003-08-29	ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION v. CANLUBANG SUGAR ESTATES CALLEJO, SR., J.
On June 14, 2000, this Court issued a Resolution merely noting the urgent motion of the ATC for the issuance of a TRO. On July 24, 2000, the RTC issued an order denying the motion for a writ of execution filed by the CSE. Undaunted, the CSE filed a motion for reconsideration, and on November 6, 2000, the RTC issued an order reconsidering its July 24, 2000 Order and granted the CSE's motion for execution. A writ of execution was later issued. The writ was forthwith enforced by the ex-officio sheriff by garnishing the funds of the ATC with its depository banks. Alarmed, the ATC filed on November 20, 2000 a petition for certiorari with the CA for the nullification of the November 6, 2000 Order of the RTC in Civil Case No. 2247-95-C and the writ of execution issued by the said court with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order to enjoin the court from enforcing and implementing the writ of execution issued by it.[35] The CA issued a TRO staying the implementation of the writ of execution issued by the RTC. In its Comment on the petition with the CA, the CSE alleged that the ATC was guilty of forum shopping when it filed the said petition for certiorari.