Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
DAMAGES
A. CONCEPT/KINDS OF DAMAGES (ARTICLE
2197)
Spouses Ong vs CA and Inland Trailways
Inc and Philtranco (1999)
Facts:
Petitioners were on board a bus owned by
Inland Trailways and driven by Calvin Coronel.
The Inland bus was bumped from behind by a
bus owned by Philtranco and driven by Apolinar
Miralles. As a result, petitioners sustained
injuries. Hence, petitioners sued Inland and
Philtranco for damages.
In their Complaint, they alleged that they
suffered injuries, preventing Francia from
operating asari-sari store at Las Pias, Metro
Manila, where she derived a daily income of
P200; and Renato from continuing his work as
an overseas contract worker (pipe welder) with
a monthly salary of $690. Stating that they
incurred P10,000 as medical and miscellaneous
expenses, they also claimed moral damages of
P500,000 each, exemplary and corrective
damages of P500,000 each, and compensatory
damages of P500,000 each plus 35 percent
thereof as attorneys fees.
The RTC absolved Inland from liability,
holding that Philtrancos negligence was the
proximate cause of the damage. On appeal, the
CA held that Philtrancos liability could not be
predicated upon the Police Report which had
not been formally offered in evidence. The
report was merely annexed to the answer of
Inland, and petitioner did not adopt or offer it
as evidence. Consequently, it had no probative
value and, thus, Philtranco should be absolved
from liability. Instead, the appellate court found
that petitioners sufficiently established a claim
against Inland based on culpa contractual.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA was correct in
holding that Philtranco cannot be liable for
damages on the basis of a police report that
was not offered in evidence.
Held:
Yes. Petitioners aver that there was grave
abuse of discretion when the amount of actual
damages awarded was reduced from P10,000
to P3,977, even if the original amount did not
even include the medical expenses that Francia
continued to incur; and when the award of
P48,000 as unrealized income was deleted
despite her testimony which was given
credence by the trial court. The Court
disagrees. Granting arguendo that there was
an agreement to submit the case for decision
based on the pleadings, this does not
necessarily imply that petitioners are entitled
to the award of damages. The fundamental
principle of the law on damages is that one
Dichoso vs CA (1990)
Held:
Facts:
Issue:
Whether or not
damages was proper.
the
award
of
moral
DBP vs CA (1998)
Facts:
Private respondent Lydia Cuba is a grantee
of a fishpond lease agreement from the
Government. She mortgaged the fishpond as
security of a loan she obtained from DBP.
Eventually, Lydia defaulted. But without
foreclosure proceedings, DBP appropriated the
leasehold rights over the fishpond and
thereafter executed a conditional sale of the
same leasehold rights in favour of Lydia
whereby she would pay regular amortizations.
However, Lydia again defaulted. Thereafter,
DBP sold the lease rights via public auction to
another person. Hence, Lydia filed a complaint
for the declaration of the sale for being
violative of Art. 2088 of the Civil Code (pactum
commissorium).
The trial court ruled in favour of Lydia and
awarded in her favour P1,067,500 as actual
damages consisting of P550,000 which
represented the value of the alleged lost
articles of Lydia and P517,500 which
represented the value of the 230,000 pieces of
bangus allegedly stocked in 1979 when DBP
first ejected Lydia from the fishpond and the
Issue:
Held:
Held:
No. Curiously, in her complaint dated 17
May 1985, CUBA included losses of property as
among the damages resulting from DBPs takeover of the fishpond. Yet, it was only in
September 1985 when her son and a caretaker
went to the fishpond and the adjoining house
that she came to know of the alleged loss of
several articles. Such claim for losses of
property, having been made before knowledge
of the alleged actual loss, was therefore
speculative. The alleged loss could have been a
mere afterthought or subterfuge to justify her
claim for actual damages. With regard to the
award of P517,000 representing the value of
the alleged 230,000 pieces of bangus which
died when DBP took possession of the fishpond
in March 1979, the same was not called for.
Such loss was not duly proved; besides, the
claim therefor was delayed unreasonably. From
1979 until after the filing of her complaint in
court in May 1985, CUBA did not bring to the
attention of DBP the alleged loss.
In view, however, of DBPs act of
appropriating CUBAs leasehold rights which
was contrary to law and public policy, as well
as its false representation to the then Ministry
of Agriculture and Natural Resources that it had
foreclosed the mortgage, an award of moral
damages in the amount of P50,000 is in order
conformably with Article 2219(10), in relation
to Article 21, of the Civil Code. Exemplary or
corrective damages in the amount of P25,000
should likewise be awarded by way of example
or correction for the public good. There being
an award of exemplary damages, attorneys
fees are also recoverable.
PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation
vs CA (1998)
Facts:
A vessel owned by private respondent
Maria Efigenia Fishing Corporation was
navigating the waters near Fortune Island in
Nasugbu, Batangas on its way to Navotas when
it collided with a vessel which at the time was
owned by the Luzon Stevedoring Corporation
(but whose interest in the vessel was
transferred to petitioner PNOC Shipping and
Transport Corporation). Investigation revealed
that the vessel owned by Luzon Stevedoring
was at fault. Hence, respondent sued petitioner
for damages. The trial court ruled in favour of
petitioner and awarded the sum of P6,438,048
representing the value of the fishing boat. The
CA upheld the trial courts decision.
Issue:
Mercantile
Insurance
Company
Insurer (plaintiff in this case)
Eastern Shipping
Company
Lines
Shipping
Facts:
Two fiber drums of riboflavin were shipped
from Japan via a vessel owned by Eastern
Shipping Lines. The shipment was insured by
Mercantile Insurance Company. Upon arrival of
the shipment in Manila, it was discharged unto
the custody of Metro Port, which excepted to
one drum said to be in bar order, which
damage was unknown to the Insurer. Later on,
Allied Brokerage received the shipment, one
drum opened and without seal. It then
delivered the shipment to the consignees
warehouse, which excepted to one drum which
contained spillages, while the rest of the
contents was adulterated/fake. As a result of
the losses, Insurer paid the consignee in
accordance with its insurance policy. Exercising
its right of subrogation, the Insurer sued
Eastern Shipping Lines, Metro Port Service and
Allied Brokerage Corporation for damages.
The trial court (upheld by the CA) ruled in
favour of the Insurer and adjudged defendants
jointly and severally liable to pay:
The amount of P19,032.95, with the
present legal interest of 12% per annum
from October 1, 1982, the date of filing of
this complaints, until fully paid (the liability
of defendant Eastern Shipping, Inc. shall
not exceed US$500 per case or the CIF
value of the loss, whichever is lesser, while
the liability of defendant Metro Port
Service, Inc. shall be to the extent of the
actual invoice value of each package, crate
box or container in no case to exceed
P5,000.00 each, pursuant to Section 6.01
of the Management Contract);
Issues:
petitioners
alleged
negligence
in
the
maintenance of its school building, or included
the ordinary wear and tear of the house itself,
is an essential question that remains
indeterminable.
Magbanua vs Junsay (2007)
Facts:
Rosemarie Magbanua who worked as a
housemaid for Pilar Junsay was charged with
the latter for robbery. It was alleged that
Rosemarie robbed Pilar of her jewelries. The
RTC eventually dismissed the criminal case not
only for insufficiency of evidence but also for
failure to establish a prima facie case against
her. Later on, Rosemarie filed a civil case for
malicious prosecution against Pilar and asked
for moral damages. The RTC and CA dismissed
the case.
Issue: Whether or not Rosemaries complaint
for malicious prosecution will prosper.
Held: No. For a malicious prosecution suit to
prosper, the plaintiff must prove the following:
(1) the prosecution did occur, and the
defendant was himself the prosecutor or that
he instigated its commencement; (2) the
criminal action finally ended with an acquittal;
(3) in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted
without
probable
cause;
and
(4)
the
prosecution was impelled by legal malice -- an
improper or a sinister motive.
Applying the rule to the case at bar, we
affirm the findings of the RTC and the Court of
Appeals that there was no proof of a sinister
design on the part of the respondents to vex or
humiliate petitioner Rosemarie by instituting
the criminal case against her and her coaccused. Respondent Pilar who was robbed of
her valuable belongings can only be expected
to bring the matter to the authorities. There
can be no evil motive that should be attributed
to one, who, as victim of a crime institutes the
necessary legal proceedings. At the risk of
redundancy, we stress that the proscription
against the imposition of penalty on the right
to litigate must not be violated. Mere filing of a
suit does not render a person liable for
malicious
prosecution
should
he
be
unsuccessful, for the law could not have meant
to impose a penalty on the right to litigate.
There was no other explanation or motive as to
why respondents would institute baseless
prosecution of petitioner Rosemarie. No
Corporation
vs
Facts:
Isagani Villanueva requested a new
checkbook from Citytrust Banking Corporation
(the Bank). He filled up a checkbook requisition
slip but could not remember his account
number. The customer service representative
assured him that theyll take care of it. Later
on, Villanueva made transactions with Kingly
Commodities Inc. He delivered checks to Kingly
Commodities but they were dishonored for two
times. It was discovered that the problem was
that the account number assigned to his new
checkbook was the account number of another
depositor having the same name and surname
but with a different middle initial.
Hence, Villanueva, sued the Bank for
damages, asking for actual and moral damages
plus attorneys fees. The RTC ruled in favor of
the Bank, holding that Villanuevas negligence
of not stating his account number was the
proximate cause of the damage. The CA
reversed.
Issue: Whether or not Villanueva is entitled to
actual and moral damages and attorneys fees.
Held: No. The issue of whether VILLANUEVA
suffered actual or compensatory damages in
the form of loss of profits is factual. Both the
Court of Appeals and the trial court have
ascertained that VILLANUEVA was unable to
prove his demand for compensatory damages
arising from loss. His evidence thereon was
found inadequate, uncorroborated, speculative,
hearsay and not the best evidence. Basic is the
jurisprudential principle that in determining
actual damages, the court cannot rely on mere
assertions,
speculations,
conjectures
or
guesswork but must depend on competent
proof and on the best obtainable evidence of
the actual amount of the loss. Actual damages
cannot be presumed but must be duly proved
with reasonable certainty.
Further, it is clear from the records that the
BANK was able to remedy the caveat of Kingly
Commodities to VILLANUEVA that his trading
DAMAGES
(ARTICLES
Facts:
Spouses Salvador secured loans from Ever
Pawnshop owned by Enrico Villanueva. The
loans were secured by jewelry items. Long
story short, the spouses defaulted in their loan,
and the jewelries must be sold. But the
problem was that the spouses were not notified
of the public auction, and that the notice
appeared in the Classified Ads Section of the
Manila Bulletin on the date of the auction itself.
Hence, the spouses sued Ever and Enrico for
damages. The RTC awarded moral damages
among others. The CA affirmed.
Issue: Whether or not the award of moral
damages was proper.
Held: No. The conditions required in awarding
moral damages are: (1) there must be an
injury,
whether
physical,
mental
or
psychological, clearly sustained by the
Network
Inc
vs
Facts:
Expos is a radio documentary program
hosted by Carmelo Mel Rima and Hermogenes
Alegre aired over DZRC-AM which is owned by
petitioner FBNI. One day, Rima and Alegre
exposed various dark issues against Ago
Medical and Educational Center-Bicol Christian
College
of
Medicine
(AMEC)
and
its
administrators. Claiming that the broadcasts
were defamatory, the colleges administrators
filed a civil complaint for libel against FBNI and
the broadcasters. The RTC ruled in favor of the
college and awarded it P300,000 for moral
damages. This was affirmed by the CA.
Issue: Whether or not the award of moral
damages is proper.
Held: Yes. As a rule, juridical persons are not
entitled to moral damages because, unlike a
Damages
A. Concept/Kinds of Damages (Article 2197)
Spouses Ong v. CA 301 SCRA 387
B. General Principles of Recovery
Air France v. CA 171 SCRA 399
Dichoso v. CA 192 SCRA 169
PAL v. Miano 242 SCRA 235
DBP v. CA 284 SCRA 14
C. Actual Damages (Articles 2199-2203; 2207; 2209)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.