Lawyerly

GR No. 193914

2014-11-26

SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. DMC-CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES

SERENO, C.J.

Thus, in Tan v. OMC Carriers, Inc.,[39] temperate damages were rightly awarded because plaintiff suffered a loss, although definitive proof of its amount cannot be presented as the photographs produced as evidence were deemed insufficient. Established in that case, however, was the fact that respondent's truck was responsible for the damage to petitioner's property and that petitioner suffered some form of pecuniary loss. In Canada v. All Commodities Marketing Corporation,[40] temperate damages were also awarded wherein respondent's goods did not reach the Pepsi Cola Plant at Muntinlupa City as a result of the negligence of petitioner in conducting its trucking and hauling services, even if the amount of the pecuniary loss had not been proven. In Philtranco Services Enterprises, Inc. v. Paras,[41] the respondent was likewise awarded temperate damages in an action for breach of contract of carriage, even if his medical expenses had not been established with certainty. In People v. Briones,[42] in which the accused was found guilty of murder, temperate damages were given even if the funeral expenses for the victim had not been sufficiently proven.

GR No. 192446

2014-11-19

SNOW MOUNTAIN DAIRY CORPORATION v. GMA VETERANS FORCE

PERALTA, J.

The RTC awarded P952,833.50 actual or compensatory damages representing the unserved portion of the contract. The CA affirmed such award saying that it represented that which respondent failed to receive as benefit which would have pertained to it had the service contract not been pre-terminated illegally by petitioner. Notably, the amount awarded was based on the contracted amount of P16,014.00 per security guard per month, multiplied by 7 security guards and multiplied by the unserved portion of the contract. However, the contracted amount of P16,014,00 per guard would not totally pertain to respondent as the same would cover the wage of the security guard and only the remaining portion of the contracted amount, i.e., after deducting the guard's salary, would go to respondent. In this case, respondent had not shown that the security guards were not assigned to another employer, and that it was compelled to pay the guards despite the pre-termination of the security agreement to be entitled to the amount of PI6,014.00 per month. Indeed, no evidence was presented by respondent establishing the actual amount of loss suffered by reason of the pre-termination. It is elementary that to recover damages, there must be pleading and proof of actual damages suffered.[22]

GR No. 195031

2014-03-26

INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES v. CELESTE M. CHUA

PEREZ, J.

This Court has, time and again, emphasized that actual damages cannot be presumed and courts, in making an award, must point out specific facts which could afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne.[39] An award of actual damages is "dependent upon competent proof of the damages suffered and the actual amount thereof. The award must be based on the evidence presented, not on the personal knowledge of the court; and certainly not on flimsy, remote, speculative and unsubstantial proof."[40]

GR No. 181096

2013-03-06

RENO R. GONZALES v. CAMARINES SUR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

SERENO, C.J.

Anent this contention, we rule in favor of petitioners. Prefatorily, even if this claim was raised only for the first time on appeal and, hence, generally not cognizable by this Court,[18] we have nevertheless given due course to newly raised questions that are closely related to or dependent on an assigned error.[19] As an illustrative case, we have resolved the issue of temperate damages in Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos,[20] albeit raised only in the petition for review on certiorari filed before this Court.

GR No. 183446

2012-11-13

REPUBLIC v. ESTATE OF HANS MENZI

PEREZ, J.

Having been made by their executor during the trial of the case on the merits, these declarations are binding, at least insofar as the Estate is concerned. Pursuant to Section 4, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case does not require proof. It may be made: (a) in the pleadings filed by the parties; (b) in the course of the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; or (c) in other stages of judicial proceedings, as in the pre-trial of the case.[50] When made in the same case in which it is offered,[51] "no evidence is needed to prove the same and it cannot be contradicted unless it is shown to have been made through palpable mistake or when no such admission was made."[52] The admission becomes conclusive on him, and all proofs submitted contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether an objection is interposed by the adverse party or not.[53] Absent any showing in the record that the above-quoted declarations were made by Montecillo through palpable mistake, the Republic correctly argues that they are binding upon the Estate which, for said reason, is precluded from claiming that the funds deposited under TDC Nos. 162828 and 162829 came from the 1984 sale of Bulletin shares to US Automotive.

GR No. 183987

2012-07-25

ASIATRUST DEVELOPMENT BANK v. CARMELO H. TUBLE

SERENO, J.

On top of these claims, the bank raises a new item - the car's rental fee - to be included in the redemption price. In dealing with this argument raised for the first time on certiorari, this Court dismisses the contention based on the well-entrenched prohibition on raising new issues, especially factual ones, on appeal.[16]

GR No. 185346

2012-06-27

BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS v. MIGUELITO M. LAZARO

SERENO, J.

Prefatorily, Lazaro's claims for one-day salary differential, which was raised only before the CA, merits instant dismissal. This ruling is supported by basic considerations of due process, which prohibits the raising of issues for the first time on appeal.[43] Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court will not be considered by the reviewing court.[44] To consider them would be unfair to the adverse party, who would have no opportunity to present contrary evidence as it could have done had it been aware of the new theory at the time of the hearing before the trial court.[45]

GR Nos. 180631-33

2012-02-22

PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION v. CENTRAL COLLEGES OF PHILIPPINES

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]

GR No. 184215

2011-02-09

OCEANEERING CONTRACTORS v. NESTOR N. BARRETTO

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]

GR No. 190521

2011-01-12

LETICIA TAN v. OMC CARRIERS

BRION, J.

We begin by discussing the petitioners' claim for actual damages arising from the damage inflicted on petitioner Leticia Tan's house and tailoring shop, taking into account the sewing machines and various household appliances affected. Our basic law tells us that to recover damages there must be pleading and proof of actual damages suffered.[20] As we explained in Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos:[21]

	GR No. 193914 2014-11-26	SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. DMC-CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES SERENO, C.J.
Thus, in Tan v. OMC Carriers, Inc.,[39] temperate damages were rightly awarded because plaintiff suffered a loss, although definitive proof of its amount cannot be presented as the photographs produced as evidence were deemed insufficient. Established in that case, however, was the fact that respondent's truck was responsible for the damage to petitioner's property and that petitioner suffered some form of pecuniary loss. In Canada v. All Commodities Marketing Corporation,[40] temperate damages were also awarded wherein respondent's goods did not reach the Pepsi Cola Plant at Muntinlupa City as a result of the negligence of petitioner in conducting its trucking and hauling services, even if the amount of the pecuniary loss had not been proven. In Philtranco Services Enterprises, Inc. v. Paras,[41] the respondent was likewise awarded temperate damages in an action for breach of contract of carriage, even if his medical expenses had not been established with certainty. In People v. Briones,[42] in which the accused was found guilty of murder, temperate damages were given even if the funeral expenses for the victim had not been sufficiently proven.
	GR No. 192446 2014-11-19	SNOW MOUNTAIN DAIRY CORPORATION v. GMA VETERANS FORCE PERALTA, J.
The RTC awarded P952,833.50 actual or compensatory damages representing the unserved portion of the contract. The CA affirmed such award saying that it represented that which respondent failed to receive as benefit which would have pertained to it had the service contract not been pre-terminated illegally by petitioner. Notably, the amount awarded was based on the contracted amount of P16,014.00 per security guard per month, multiplied by 7 security guards and multiplied by the unserved portion of the contract. However, the contracted amount of P16,014,00 per guard would not totally pertain to respondent as the same would cover the wage of the security guard and only the remaining portion of the contracted amount, i.e., after deducting the guard's salary, would go to respondent. In this case, respondent had not shown that the security guards were not assigned to another employer, and that it was compelled to pay the guards despite the pre-termination of the security agreement to be entitled to the amount of PI6,014.00 per month. Indeed, no evidence was presented by respondent establishing the actual amount of loss suffered by reason of the pre-termination. It is elementary that to recover damages, there must be pleading and proof of actual damages suffered.[22]
	GR No. 195031 2014-03-26	INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES v. CELESTE M. CHUA PEREZ, J.
This Court has, time and again, emphasized that actual damages cannot be presumed and courts, in making an award, must point out specific facts which could afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne.[39] An award of actual damages is "dependent upon competent proof of the damages suffered and the actual amount thereof. The award must be based on the evidence presented, not on the personal knowledge of the court; and certainly not on flimsy, remote, speculative and unsubstantial proof."[40]
	GR No. 181096 2013-03-06	RENO R. GONZALES v. CAMARINES SUR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE SERENO, C.J.
Anent this contention, we rule in favor of petitioners. Prefatorily, even if this claim was raised only for the first time on appeal and, hence, generally not cognizable by this Court,[18] we have nevertheless given due course to newly raised questions that are closely related to or dependent on an assigned error.[19] As an illustrative case, we have resolved the issue of temperate damages in Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos,[20] albeit raised only in the petition for review on certiorari filed before this Court.
	GR No. 183446 2012-11-13	REPUBLIC v. ESTATE OF HANS MENZI PEREZ, J.
Having been made by their executor during the trial of the case on the merits, these declarations are binding, at least insofar as the Estate is concerned. Pursuant to Section 4, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case does not require proof. It may be made: (a) in the pleadings filed by the parties; (b) in the course of the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; or (c) in other stages of judicial proceedings, as in the pre-trial of the case.[50] When made in the same case in which it is offered,[51] "no evidence is needed to prove the same and it cannot be contradicted unless it is shown to have been made through palpable mistake or when no such admission was made."[52] The admission becomes conclusive on him, and all proofs submitted contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether an objection is interposed by the adverse party or not.[53] Absent any showing in the record that the above-quoted declarations were made by Montecillo through palpable mistake, the Republic correctly argues that they are binding upon the Estate which, for said reason, is precluded from claiming that the funds deposited under TDC Nos. 162828 and 162829 came from the 1984 sale of Bulletin shares to US Automotive.
	GR No. 183987 2012-07-25	ASIATRUST DEVELOPMENT BANK v. CARMELO H. TUBLE SERENO, J.
On top of these claims, the bank raises a new item - the car's rental fee - to be included in the redemption price. In dealing with this argument raised for the first time on certiorari, this Court dismisses the contention based on the well-entrenched prohibition on raising new issues, especially factual ones, on appeal.[16]
	GR No. 185346 2012-06-27	BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS v. MIGUELITO M. LAZARO SERENO, J.
Prefatorily, Lazaro's claims for one-day salary differential, which was raised only before the CA, merits instant dismissal. This ruling is supported by basic considerations of due process, which prohibits the raising of issues for the first time on appeal.[43] Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court will not be considered by the reviewing court.[44] To consider them would be unfair to the adverse party, who would have no opportunity to present contrary evidence as it could have done had it been aware of the new theory at the time of the hearing before the trial court.[45]
	GR Nos. 180631-33 2012-02-22	PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION v. CENTRAL COLLEGES OF PHILIPPINES 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]
	GR No. 184215 2011-02-09	OCEANEERING CONTRACTORS v. NESTOR N. BARRETTO 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]
	GR No. 190521 2011-01-12	LETICIA TAN v. OMC CARRIERS BRION, J.
We begin by discussing the petitioners' claim for actual damages arising from the damage inflicted on petitioner Leticia Tan's house and tailoring shop, taking into account the sewing machines and various household appliances affected. Our basic law tells us that to recover damages there must be pleading and proof of actual damages suffered.[20] As we explained in Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos:[21]

ERNESTO CANADA v. ALL COMMODITIES MARKETING CORPORATION