Filipinas Broadcasting vs.

Ago Medical Center

GRN 141994 January 17, 2005
Carpio, J.:
FACTS:
Rima & Alegre were host of FBNI radio program Expose. Respondent Ago was the
owner of the Medical & Educational center, subject of the radio program Expose.
AMEC claimed that the broadcasts were defamatory and owner Ago and school
AMEC claimed for damages. The complaint further alleged that AMEC is a reputable
learning institution. With the supposed expose, FBNI, Rima and Alegre transmitted
malicious imputations and as such, destroyed plaintiffs reputation. FBNI was
included as defendant for allegedly failing to exercise due diligence in the selection
and supervision of its employees. The trial court found Rimas statements to be
within the bounds of freedom of speech and ruled that the broadcast was libelous. It
ordered the defendants Alegre and FBNI to pay AMEC 300k for moral damages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not AMEC is entitled to moral damages.
RULING:
A juridical person is generally not entitled to moral damages because, unlike a
natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or such sentiments as
wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish or moral shock. Nevertheless,
AMECs claim, or moral damages fall under item 7 of Art 2219 of the NCC.
This provision expressly authorizes the recovery of moral damages in cases of libel,
slander or any other form of defamation. Art 2219 (7) does not qualify whether the
plaintiff is a natural or juridical person. Therefore, a juridical person such as a
corporation can validly complain for libel or any other form of defamation and claim
for moral damages. Moreover, where the broadcast is libelous per se, the law
implied damages. In such a case, evidence of an honest mistake or the want of
character or reputation of the party libeled goes only in mitigation of damages. In
this case, the broadcasts are libelous per se. thus, AMEC is entitled to moral
damages. However, we find the award P500,000 moral damages unreasonable. The
record shows that even though the broadcasts were libelous, per se, AMEC has not
suffered any substantial or material damage to its reputation. Therefore, we reduce
the award of moral damages to P150k.
v JOIN TORT FEASORS are all the persons who command, instigate, promote,
encourage, advice countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort,
as who approve of it after it is done, for its benefit.

Leticia Tan, Myrna Medina, Marilou Spooner, Rosalinda Tan, and Mary Jane
Tan, et al. v. OMC Carriers Inc and Bonifacio Arambala (2011)Brion,
J.Petitioners: House owner Respondents: Truck owner + driver

At around 6:15am, Respondent Arambala was driving a truck with a trailer, owned
by OMC. Driver noticed that the trucklost its brakes and told his companion to jump
out. Both of them did.

The truck rammed into the house/tailoring shop of Petitioner Leticia Tan and
husband Celedonio Tan. The husband,standing at the doorway, was instantly killed.

Petitioners then filed a complaint for damages with the RTC against the owner of the
truck + trailer, OMC, and Arambala,the driver.

Petitioner argument:
o

Collision was due to OMCs gross negligence in

not properly maintaining the truck;
o
And to the driver
s recklessness when he abandoned the moving truck

Petitioners want:
o
OMC + driver held solidarily liable for the actual damages (i.e., damage to property,
funeral expenses of thehusband, and his loss of earning capacity)

o
Moral, exemplary, and atty fees

Responedent defense:
o
Fortuitous event - slippery condition of the road caused by spilled motor oil

RTC found OMC + driver solidarily liable to damages based on vicarious liability.
o
Relied on res ipsa loquitur

unusual for a truck to suddenly lose brakes

o
Truck rammed into house raises presumption of negligence which both failed to
refute
o
Fortuitous defense not well taken

driver did not slow down or take any precautionary measure to prevent theskidding;
defective brake could have been discovered if there was a more rigid inspection

RTC awarded damages: for the death, loss of earning capacity, actual damages,
moral, exemplary, atty fee.

CA affirmed but reduced award of actual damages, relying on official receipts which
supports the claim, deleted loss of earning capacity, reduced exemplary, deleted
atty fees bec no discussion of legal basis.

On petition for certiorari to CA, petitioners argue:

o
Want compensation for the damage to the house, tailoring shop, sewing machines,
etc. Since the damage refer to the value of the destroyed property and not the cost
of repairing, the value cannot be evidenced by receipts
o
Want actual damages for loss of earning capacity. Since he was a self-employed
tailor, no documentaryevidence is available.
o
Entitled to exemplary damages because RTC & CA found gross negligence and there
was bad faith when OMCand the driver made up the oil spill story.
o
Entitled to atty fees bec they are entitled to exemplary damages.

SC denied the petition in a resolution.

6 months later, SC issued another resolution reinstating the petition on the basis of
an MR.Issue: Is award of damages proper?Held: Yes.Ratio:
Temperate damages: When recoverable

Temperate damages in lieu of actual damages

o
To award actual damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of
loss, credence can be givenonly to claims which are duly supported by receipts.
o

Absent competent proof on actual damages

suffered, a party can claim temperate damages.

o
Temperate damages may be allowed in cases where from the
nature of the case
,
definite proof of pecuniaryloss

cannot be adduced
although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party
suffered some pecuniaryloss
.
o
Article 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but
less than compensatorydamages, may be recovered when the court finds that some
pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amountcan not, from the nature of the
case, be proved with certainty.

In this case:
o
Petitioners did not submit any receipt to prove the monetary value of the damge
caused = no award of actualdamages
o
Photos shown as evidence show the damages to the house/shop/machines which is
undeniably caused by the
drivers negligence, but not enough to establish am
ount with certainty
o
P200k is found to be a fair and sufficient award by way of temperate damages

Temperate damages in lieu of loss of earning capacity

o
As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to claim for loss of earning
capacity.
o
Exception: damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the
absence of documentaryevidence when:

d2015member (1) The deceased is

self-employed and earning less than the min wage under current labor laws
, in whichcase, judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of
work, no documentary evidence isavailable; or (2) The deceased is
employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under
currentlabor laws
.

Prior to death, husband earned P156k/year or P13k/month.

At the time of his death, the daily min wage was P145 or P3,770.00/month, provided
the wage earner had only one restday per week.

Even if SC takes judicial notice that a small tailoring shop normally does not issue
receipts, husband
s alleged monthly
income of P13k exceeded the monthly min wage.

Exemption provided does not apply.


BUT petitioners-children were minors when petition was filed and relied mainly on
the
ir fathers
income for their support.

Based on these and taking into account the unrebutted earnings, SC says the
petitioners are entitled to temperatedamages of P300k [or estimated gross income
for 2 years] to compensate for loss of the earning capacity

Oceaneering Contractors v. Barretto, doing business as NNB Lighterage

(2011)Perez, J.

Berretto is the owner of the barge Antonieta and is doing business under the
name of NNB Lighterage.

The barge Antonieta was

last licensed and permitted to engage in coastwise trading for a period of one year
expiring on Aug 21, 1998.

(Nov 27, 1997) Barretto and petitioner Oceaneering entered into a Time Charter
Agreement.
o
In this agreement, Oceaneering hired the barge for a renewable period of 30 days to
transport constructionmaterials from Manila to Negros Oriental.

This agreement was brokered by freelance ship broker Velasco.

In accordance with the agreement, Oceaneering hired stevedores who loaded the
barge with pipe piles, steel bollards,and
other construction materials in the presence of and under the direct supervision of
the broker Velasco and Barrettos
Bargemen.

In addition to the polythene ropes with which they were lashed, the cargoes were
secured by steel stanchions whichOceaneering caused to be welded on the port
(left) and starboard (right) sides of the barge.

The barge eventually left Manila for Negros Oriental, towed by the tug-boat "Ayalit"
which was likewise chartered byOceaneering from a certain Lea Mer Industries, Inc.

However 2 days later

, Barrettos Bargeman, La Chica, executed a Marine Protest,

reporting circumstances under whichthe barge reportedly capsized in the vicinity of

Cape Santiago, Batangas.

Barretto apprised Oceaneering that the mishap was caused by the incompetence
and negligence of the personnel inloading the cargo and that it was going to
proceed with the salvage, refloating and repair of the barge.

Oceaneering says: the barge tilted because of the water which seeped through a
hole

(March 12, 1998) Oceaneering then demands from Barretto the return of the unused
portion of the payment as well as theexpenses it purportedly incurred in salvaging
the construction materials.


However, Barretto says he is witholding the unused charter payment because he is
likewise seeking reimbursement of theexpenses in salvaging, and repairing the
barge.

Barretto commenced a suit for damages against Oceaneering (arguing that the
incident was because of the incompetenceand negligence of O
ceaneeringscrew in loading the construction materials)

Oceaneering answers that:

the accident was caused by the negligence of Barrettos employees and the
dilapidated hull of
the barge which made it unseaworthy.
o
Oceaneering then filed for counterclaims for the value of its cargo and for salvaging
expenses

In support of
Barrettos
complaint, he took the witness stand to prove the seaworthiness of the barge and
the alleged
negligent loading of the cargo by Oceaneerings employees.
He also presented witnesses:
o
Barretto II, VP for Operations of NBB Lighterage, who testified on the effort exerted
to salvage the barge;
o

Broker Velasco, who testified on his participation in the execution of the Time
Charter Agreement as well as thecircumstances before and after the sinking of the
barge

By defense, Oceaneering presented testimonies of

o
Engr. Oracion, the
Operations Manager, to prove the value of the cargo and the salvage
o
Escano, member of Accounting Staff, to prove its claim for attorney
s fees and
litigation expenses

To disprove the rough sea and the negligence of its employees, Oceaneering gave
the testimonies of:
o
Barba, a Senior Weather Specialist at PAGASA
o
Cmdr. Catapang, OIC of the Hydrographic Division at the National Mapping Resource
Information Authority(NAMRIA)
o
Engr. Gigante, a freelance marine surveyor and licensed naval architect.

Recalled as a rebuttal witness, Barretto II says that the hull of the barge was not
damaged and that the sinking of thebarge was because of the improper loading of
Oceanee
rings construction materials

RTC dismissed both the complaint and countercomplaint for lack of merit.

CA partially granted Oceaneering

s appeal

On appeal to SC, Oceaneering says the CA erred:

o
When CA held that there were no valid documents showing the real value of the
materials lost and thoseactually recovered
o

In denying Oceaneerings counterclaims for actual damages for the value of the
materials it lost due to the
sinking of the Barge and the expenses it incurred for the salvage
o

In awarding its counterclaim for attys fees in a reduced amount.

Oceaneering also
argues that, having determined Barrettos liability for presumed negligence as a
common carrier, the
CA erred in disallowing its counterclaims for the value of the construction materials
which were lost as a consequence of the sinking of the bargeIssue: Should
Oceaneering be awarded actual damages?Held: Yes.Ratio:
Oceaneering
s arguments:

Aside from the testimony of its Operations Manager

, Oceaneering calls attention
to the same witness inventory which
pegged the value of said construction materials at P4,055,700.00, as well as the
various sales receipts, order slips, cashvouchers and invoices which were formally
offered before and admitted in evidence by the RTC.

d2015member

Considering that it was able to salvage only nine steel pipes amounting to
P351,000.00, Oceaneering insists that it shouldbe indemnified the sum of
P3,703,700.00 for the value of the lost cargo, with legal interest at 12% per annum,
from thedate of demand

Also, Oceaneering maintains that Barretto should be held liable to refund the
P306,000.00 it paid as consideration for theTime Charter Agreement and to pay the
P125,000.00 it incurred by way of salvaging expenses as well as its claim for
attorneys fees
in the sum of P750,000.00.(Actual/compensatory damages)
SCs discussion on the principles on damages:

(Definition) Actual or compensatory damages are those damages which the injured
party is entitled to recover for thewrong done and injuries received when none were
intended.

(Purpose) Pertaining as they do to injuries or losses that are actually sustained and
susceptible of measurement, they areintended to put the injured party in the
position in which he was before he was injured


Insofar as actual or compensatory damages are concerned, NCC 2199 provides as
follows:"Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate
compensation only for such pecuniary losssuffered by him as he has duly proved.
Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages."(Pleading
and proof required of actual damage)

Conformably with the provision, the rule is well settled that there must be pleading
and proof of actual damages sufferedfor the same to be recovered. It must also be
actually proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised uponcompetent
proof or the best evidence obtainable.

The burden of proof of the damage suffered is, consequently, imposed on the party
claiming the damages who shouldadduce the best evidence available in support
thereof, like sales and delivery receipts, cash and check vouchers andother 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 basisfor an award of actual damages.

Corollary to the principle that a claim for actual damages cannot be predicated on
flimsy, remote, speculative, andinsubstantial proof,47 courts are, likewise, required
to state the factual bases of the award.