Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FILIPINAS SYSTEMS v. MRT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 184215 2011-02-09	OCEANEERING CONTRACTORS v. NESTOR N. BARRETTO PEREZ, J.
In finding Oceaneering's petition impressed with partial merit, uppermost in our mind is the fact that actual or compensatory damages are those damages which the injured party is entitled to recover for the wrong done and injuries received when none were intended.[40] Pertaining as they do to such injuries or losses that are actually sustained and susceptible of measurement,[41] they are intended to put the injured party in the position in which he was before he was injured.[42] Insofar as actual or compensatory damages are concerned, Article 2199 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides as follows: "Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages."
	GR No. 176868 2010-07-26	SOLAR HARVEST v. DAVAO CORRUGATED CARTON CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
The existence of a breach of contract is a factual matter not usually reviewed in a petition for review under Rule 45.[20] The Court, in petitions for review, limits its inquiry only to questions of law. After all, it is not a trier of facts, and findings of fact made by the trial court, especially when reiterated by the CA, must be given great respect if not considered as final.[21] In dealing with this petition, we will not veer away from this doctrine and will thus sustain the factual findings of the CA, which we find to be adequately supported by the evidence on record.
	GR No. 168074 2008-09-26	EMPIRE EAST LAND HOLDINGS v. CAPITOL INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION GROUPS NACHURA, J.
It is undisputed that the only piece of evidence presented by respondent in support of its claim for additional overhead cost was its own computation of the said expenses. It failed to adduce actual receipts, invoices, contracts and similar documents. To be sure, respondent's claim for overhead cost may be classified as a claim for actual damages. Actual damages are those damages which the injured party is entitled to recover for the wrong done and injuries received when none were intended. They indicate such losses as are actually sustained and are susceptible of measurement. As such, they must be proven with a reasonable degree of certainty.[35]
	GR No. 168074 2008-09-26	EMPIRE EAST LAND HOLDINGS v. CAPITOL INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION GROUPS NACHURA, J.
This is not the first time that a contractor's claim for additional overhead costs was denied because of insufficiency or absence of evidence to support the same. In Filipinas (Pre Fab Bldg.) Systems, Inc. v. MRT Development Corporation,[36] we denied FSI's claim because only "summaries," and not actual receipts, were presented during the hearing. Similarly, in the instant case, respondent, by presenting only its own computation to substantiate its claim, is not entitled even to the reduced amount of P1,397,642.70 which is 10% of its original claim. Instead, we altogether deny its prayer for additional overhead costs.
	GR No. 168074 2008-09-26	EMPIRE EAST LAND HOLDINGS v. CAPITOL INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION GROUPS NACHURA, J.
It is well established that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, 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.[55] To be sure, findings of fact of lower courts are deemed conclusive and binding upon the Supreme Court, save only in clear exceptional cases.[56]