Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. ATTY. PABLITO M. CASTILLO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 195031 2014-03-26	INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES v. CELESTE M. CHUA PEREZ, J.
Article 2199 of the Civil Code states that "[e]xcept 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."[37] "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."[38]
	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. 195031 2014-03-26	INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES v. CELESTE M. CHUA PEREZ, J.
In the absence of competent proof on the amount of actual damages suffered, a party is entitled to receive temperate damages.[44] Article 2224 of the New Civil Code provides that: "Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty." The amount thereof is usually left to the sound discretion of the courts but the same should be reasonable, bearing in mind that temperate damages should be "more than nominal but less than compensatory."[45] Considering the concomitant circumstances prevailing in this case, temperate damages in the amount of P350,000.00 is deemed equitable.
	GR No. 195031 2014-03-26	INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES v. CELESTE M. CHUA PEREZ, J.
An award of attorney's fees has always been the exception rather than the rule and there must be some compelling legal reason to bring the case within the exception and justify the award.[51] In this case, none of the exceptions applies. "Attorney's fees are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit. The policy of the Court is that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate."[52] "Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still, attorney's fees may not be awarded where no sufficient showing of bad faith could be reflected in a party's persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause."[53]