Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 179382 2013-01-14	SPS. BENJAMIN C. MAMARIL v. BOY SCOUT OF PHILIPPINES PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Similarly, the awards of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees were properly disallowed by the CA for lack of factual and legal bases. While the RTC granted these awards in the dispositive portion of its November 28, 2001 decision, it failed to provide sufficient justification therefor. [37]
	GR Nos. 191138-39 2011-10-19	MAGDALA MULTIPURPOSE v. KILUSANG MANGGAGAWA NG LGS VELASCO JR., J.
Indeed, the grant of damages and attorney's fees requires factual, legal and equitable justification; its basis cannot be left to speculation or conjecture.[23] Petitioners simply bank their claims on the Affidavit[24] of Julito Sioson. The claim for actual damages for losses of PhP 10,000 daily or PhP 260,000 a month, as averred by Sioson, cannot be sustained by a mere affidavit of the owner without being buttressed by other documentary evidence or unassailable substantiation. Even if attested to in an affidavit, the amount claimed for actual damages is merely speculative at most. To be recoverable, actual damages must not only be capable of proof, but must actually be proved with reasonable degree of certainty. The Court cannot simply rely on speculation, conjecture, or guesswork in determining the amount of damages.[25] Without any factual basis, it cannot be granted.