This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-01-14 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Actual damages are compensation for an injury that will put the injured party in the position where it was before the injury. They pertain to such injuries or losses that are actually sustained and susceptible of measurement. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, a party is entitled to adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss as is duly proven. Basic is the rule that to recover actual damages, not only must the amount of loss 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.[43] | |||||
|
2011-02-02 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| To be entitled to moral damages, ICA needed to prove that it had a good reputation and that AMA's action besmirched the same.[11] Such proof is wanting in this case. As for Dr. Campos, he has amply proved that he suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety, and social humiliation following AMA's unfounded accusation that he fraudulently misled AMA regarding the structural condition of ICA's building. However, due to his untimely demise before the finality of this case, his claim for moral damages does not survive and is not transmissible to his substitutes, for being extremely personal to him.[12] | |||||
|
2008-06-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| This Court had the occasion to apply the foregoing rule in Manila Electric Company v. Macro Textile Mills Corp.,[33] Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Opeña,[34] and Manila Electric Company v. T.E.A.M. Electronics Corporation, et al.[35] Although there were allegations of tampering with the consumers' electric meters, this Court did not hesitate to apply the Ridjo doctrine in imputing negligence on the part of the public utility and in totally barring it from collecting its claim of differential billing. | |||||