TORTS - Actual Damages

8/19/2019 TORTS - Actual Damages

1/34

Damages (in general)1. Custodio v CA

There is a material distinction between damages and injury. Injury is theillegal invasion of a legal right damage is the loss! hurt! or harm whichresults from the injury and damages are the recom"ense or com"ensation

awarded for the damage su#ered. Thus! there can be damage without injuryin those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violationof a legal duty. These situations are often called damnum absque injuria.

In order that a "lainti# may maintain an action for the injuries of which hecom"lains! he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach ofduty which the defendant owed to the "lainti#$a concurrence of injury tothe "lainti# and legal res"onsibility by the "erson causing it. The underlyingbasis for the award of tort damages is the "remise that an individual wasinjured in contem"lation of law.

%. &ng v CA (1''')

Actual damages are such compensation or damages for aninjury that will put the injured party in the position in which he hadbeen before he was injured. They pertain to such injuries or lossesthat are actually sustained and susceptible of measurement. Exceptas provided by law or by stipulation, a party is entitled to adequatecompensation only for such pecuniary loss as he has duly proven.

To be recoverable, actual damages must be pleaded and provenin Court. n no instance may the trial judge award more than those sopleaded and proven. !amages cannot be presumed. The award thereof must be based on the evidence presented, not on the personal"nowledge of the court# and certainly not on $imsy, remote,speculative and nonsubstantial proof. Article %1'' of the Civil Codee"ressly mandates that *e+ce"t as "rovided by law or by sti"ulation! oneis entitled to an ade,uate com"ensation only for such "ecuniary losssu#ered by him as he has duly "roved.

ii. on moral damages- A "erson is entitled to the "hysical integrity of his or her body! and if that integrity is violated! damages are due andassessable. owever! "hysical injury! li/e loss or diminution of use of an armor a limb! is not a "ecuniary loss. Indeed! it is nor susce"tible of eactmonetary estimation. The usual "ractice is to award moral damages for"hysical injuries sustained. In the case at bar! it was su#iciently shownduring the trial that 0rancias right arm could not function in a normalmanner and that! as a result! she su#ered mental anguish and aniety. Thus!an increase in the amount of moral damages awarded! from 234!444 to


2/34

254!444! a""ears to be reasonable and justi6ed. 7enato also su#ered mentalaniety and anguish from the accident. Thus! he should be se"aratelyawarded 234!444 as moral damages. n some instances, the Courtawards the cost of medical procedures to restore the injured personto his or her former condition. %owever, this award necessitatesexpert testimony on the cost of possible restorative medical

procedure. &'() expenses for medical restoration * must beestablished by expert testimony. believe the ruling heredistinguishes between actual damages and moral damages. +oraldamages would be granted by the mere fact that a person sueredphysical injury, i.e. -! resulting in physical injury/# on the other hand, if one can prove actual pecuniary loss or expenses, i.e.restorative surgery, then he may be awarded actual damages.0

n the case at bar, petitioner failed to present evidence

regarding the feasibility or practicability and the cost of a restorativemedical operation on her arm. Thus! there is no basis to grant her 289!444for such e"ense.

iii. :nreali;ed income-The bare and unsubstantiated assertion of 0rancia that she usually

earned 2%44 a day from her mar/et stall is not the best evidence to "roveher claim of unreali;ed income for the eight


3/34

or involved in the em"loyment (>) the s/ill and e"eriencecalled for in the "erformance of the services (?) the"rofessional character and social standing of the attorney (9)the results secured! it being a recogni;ed rule that an attorneymay "ro"erly charge a much larger fee when it is contingentthan when it is not. (A@I7A=E%4 of his customers.

eld-i. 2ur"ose- The 123145E 46 T%E 7A8 ' A8A3!'9 ACT2A7 !A+A9E5 is tore"air the wrong that has been done! to com"ensate for the injury inFicted!and not to im"ose a "enalty. Actual damages are not de"endent on nor

graded by the intent with which the wrongful act is done. In other words!actual damages are compensatory only . They "roceed from a sense of natural justice! and are designed to re"air that of which one has beende"rived by the wrong of another.

The "arty claiming damages must establish by competent evidence theamount of such damages! and courts can not give judgment for agreater amount than those actually proven.

ii. =co"e- Actual damages include not only loss already suered! but lossof pro:ts which may not have been reali;ed. 2lagiari;ing from =anche;

7oman! he says that the indemnity com"rises! not only the value of theloss suered! but also that of the prospective prot that was notrealized! and the obligation of the debtor in 944! 6AT% is limited tosuch losses and damages as were foreseen or might have beenforeseen at the time the obligation was incurred and which are anecessary conse,uence of his failure of ful6llment. @osses and damagesunder such limitations and frustrated "ro6ts must! therefore! be proveddirectly by means of the evidence the law authori;es.


4/34

The case at bar involves actual incapacity of the plainti for 2 months!and loss of the greater "ortion of his business. As to the damages resultingfrom the actual inca"acity of the "lainti# to attend to his business there isno ,uestion. They are! of course! to be allowed on the basis of his earningca"acity! which in this case! is 254 "er month. The di#icult ,uestion in the"resent case is to determine the damage which has resulted to his business

through his enforced absence.(GH- Atty. Lopez here dierentiated injury to person and injury tobusiness).

iii. Amount of damages for injury to his business

E7E+E'T5 T4 (E C4'5!E3E!hile certainty is an essential element of an award of damages! itneed not be a mathematical certainty . (GH- =ir said that fact of loss mustbe certain! but amount need not be.) As to the @BGT= T& H C&G=ID7D inestimating the damage done to "lainti#s business by reason of hisaccident! this same author! citing numerous authorities! has the following tosay- It is "ro"er to consider the business the plainti is engaged in! thenature and e!tent of such business! the importance of his personaloversight and superintendence in conducting it! and the conse"uentloss arising from his inability to prosecute it.

The business of the "resent "lainti# required his immediate supervisionof all the prots derived therefrom were wholly due to his owne!ertions. Gor are his damages con6ned to the actual time during which hewas "hysically inca"acitated for wor/! as is the case of a "erson wor/ing fora sti"ulated daily or monthly or yearly salary.

G7A@ 7:@- As to "ersons whose labor is thus com"ensated and whocom"letely recover from their injuries! the rule may be said to be that theirdamages are con6ned to the duration of their enforced absence from theiroccu"ation.

C2T (as in this case)- Hut the "resent plainti could not resume his wor" at the same pro:t he was ma"ing when the accident occurred.e had built u" an established business which included some %4 regularcustomers. These customers re"resented to him a regular income. Inaddition to this he made sales to other "eo"le who were not so regular intheir "urchases. Hut he could 6gure on ma/ing at least some sales eachmonth to others besides his regular customers.

Ta/en as a whole his average monthly income from his business was about254. As a result of the accident! he lost all but < of his regular customers and his receipts dwindled down to practically nothing.&ther agents had invaded his territory ! and u"on becoming "hysicallyable to attend to his business! he found that it would be necessary to startwith "ractically no regular trade! and either win bac/ his old customers fromhis com"etitors or else secure others. During this "rocess of re


5/34

the time of the accident and would continue to be so for some time. 4f course, if it could be mathematically determined how much less he will earn during this rebuilding process than he would have earned if the accident had not occurred, that would be the amount he would beentitled to in this action. Hut manifestly this ideal com"ensation cannotbe ascertained. The ,uestion therefore resolves itself into whether this

damage to his business can be so nearly ascertained as to justify a court inawarding any amount whatever.

Jhen it is shown that a plainti=s business is a going concern with afairly steady average "ro6t on the investment! it may be assumed thathad the interruption to the business through defendant#s wrongfulact not occurred! it would have continued producing this averageincome so long as is usual with things of that nature.

Jhen in addition to the "revious average income of the business it isfurther shown what the reduced receipts of the business areimmediately after the cause of the interruption has been removed!there can be no manner of doubt that a loss of pro:ts has resultedfrom the wrongful act of the defendant. (causation)

In the "resent case! we not only have the value of "lainti#s business to him just "rior to the accident! but we also have its value to him after theaccident. At the trial! he testi6ed that his wife had earned about $% pesosduring the 2 months that he was disabled. That this almost totaldestruction of his business was directly chargeable to defendants wrongfulact! there can be no manner of doubt and the mere fact that the loss cannot be ascertained with absolute accuracy ! is no reason for denyingplainti=s claim altogether .

Thus! in this case! he was awarded actual damages for (1) the medicale"enses! (%) damages to "erson ("144! or the lost income of "54 for twomonths) and (3) an amount for the damages to his business.

GH- 0acts to consider in ascertaining loss to business- 1) nature of business!%) su"ervision by "lainti# over it! 3) losses due to absence.

tensive discussion from Amjur-

a. The Civil Code re,uires that the defendant re"air the damage caused byhis fault or negligence. Go distinction is made therein between damage

caused maliciously and intentionally and damages caused through merenegligence in so far as the civil liability of the wrongdoer in concerned. Goris the defendant re,uired to do more than re"air the damage done! or! inother words! to "ut the "lainti# in the same "osition! so far as "ecuniarycom"ensation can do so! that he would have been in had the damage notbeen inFicted. In this res"ect there is a notable di#erence between the twosystems.


6/34

b. The damages recoverable of a manufacturer or dealer for the breach of warranty of machinery ! which he contracts to furnish! or "lace ino"eration for a /nown "ur"ose are not con6ned to the di#erence in value of the machinery as warranted and as it "roves to be! but includes suchconsequential damages as are the direct, immediate, and probableresult of the breach.

c. vidence needed- evidence of damages must rest u"on satisfactory "roof of the eistence in reality of the damages alleged to have been su#ered.(ut, while certainty is an essential element of an award of damages,it need not be a mathematical certainty .

d. As to the elements to be considered in estimating the damage doneto plainti=s business) it is "ro"er to consider the business the "lainti# isengaged in! the nature and extent of such business! the im"ortance of hispersonal oversight and su"erintendence in conducting it! and theconse,uent loss arising from his inability to "rosecure it. (H@&)

e. !istinguished a mere salary employee vs one with a business - As topersons whose labor is thus compensated and who completely recover from their injuries, the rule may be said to be that their damages are con:ned to the duration of their enforced absence fromtheir occupation. (ut the present plainti could not resume his wor" at the same pro:t he was ma"ing when the accident occurred.

Case at bar- The business of the "resent "lainti# re,uired his immediatesu"ervision. All the "ro6ts derived therefrom were wholly due to his owneertions. Gor are his damages con6ned to the actual time during which he

was "hysically inca"acitated for wor/! as is the case of a "erson wor/ing fora sti"ulated daily or monthly or yearly salary.

f. 0actors to consider-


7/34

g. 3ule on 1ro:ts) 1ro:ts are not excluded from recovery becausethey are pro:ts# but when excluded, it is on the ground that there areno criteria by which to estimate the amount with the certainty on which the adjudications of courts, and the :ndings of juries, shouldbe based. (i.e. for established businesses! one can do KtrendingL todetermine the future "ro6ts whereas if not established! then it would be

hard to loo/ for basis. Hut nonetheless! still "ossible).

f. &ther "roof to adduce- "lainti# may establish his re"utation! goodstanding as a "rofessionalE businessman- Moslin case < The "lainti#! inma/ing "roof of his damages! o#ered testimony to the e#ect that he was anattorney at law of ability and in good standing! and the etent and value of his "ractice! and that! in substance! the injury had rendered him inca"ableof "ursuing his "rofession. This was objected to as irrelevant! immaterialand incom"etent. Je thin/ this was com"etent.L

obel case < Jhen a regular and established business, the value of which may be ascertained, has been wrongfully interrupted, the truegeneral rule for compensating the party injured is to ascertain how much less valuable the business was by reason of the interruption,and allow that as damages.

g. stablished business v un


8/34

com"letion. It is not shown that they had any means or ca"italinvested in the business other than their tools. Geither of them had"rior thereto managed or carried on a similar business. Gor was itshown that they were ca"able of so managing this business as toma/e it earn a "ro6t. There was little of that class of business beingdone at the time! and little! if any! "ro6t derived therefrom. The

plaintis= business lac"ed duration, permanency, andrecognition. t was an adventure, as distinguished from anestablished business. ts pro:ts were speculative and remote,existing only in anticipation. The law! with all its vigor and energyin its e#ort to right or wrongs and damages for injuries sustained!may not enter into a domain of s"eculation or conjecture. In view of the character and condition of the "lainti#s business! the jury had notsu#icient evidence from which to ascertain "ro6ts.

%. 2G&C v CA

There are two kinds of actual or compensatory damages: One is the loss of what a person already possess and the other is the failure to receive as abenet that which would have pertained to him.

To enable an injured party to recover actual or compensatory damages, he isrequired to prove the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidenceavailable damages cannot be presumed and courts, in making an awardmust point out specic facts that could a!ord a basis for measuringwhatever compensatory or actual damages are borne.

"n the absence of proof on the actual damage su!ered, a party is entitled tonominal damages. #ominal damages are damages in name only and not in

fact.

GH- Atty. @o"e; said that to be entitled to damages! one must "rove 1) fact of loss and %) amount

3. 2eo"le v Bamarungcas

Anent the award of actual damages! the victimNs widow testi6ed that thefamily s"ent a total of 2>>!'48.44 relative to the wa/e and burial of the

victim. owever! the claim for said amount is su""orted merely by a list of e"enses "ersonally "re"ared by the widow instead of o#icial recei"ts. To beentitled to an award of actual damages! Kit is necessary to "rove the actualamount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty! "remised u"oncom"etent "roof and on the best evidence obtainable .L KA list of e"enses cannot re"lace recei"ts when the latter should have been issued asa matter of course in business transactions.L (GH- &7 not always re,uired.&nly when they are issued in the ordinary course of business! since! in thatcase! any other "roof is not the Kbest "roofL).


9/34

Thus the Court deletes the lower courtsN award of actual damages.Gonetheless! since entitlement of the same is shown under the facts of thecase! tem"erate damages in the amount of 2%5!444.44 should be awarded inlieu of actual damages to the heirs of the victim "ursuant to Article %%%8 of the Civil Code which "rovides that tem"erate damages Kmay be recoveredwhen the court 6nds that "ecuniary loss has been su#ered but its amount

cannot! from the nature of the case! be "roved with certainty.L

8. 2eo"le v Arrelano

i. Jhile the heirs of the victim did not e"ressly claim an amountre"resenting the deceasedNs loss of earning ca"acity nor "resent evidencethereon! such failure does not necessarily "revent recovery of damagesconsidering that there is su#icient basis on record u"on which the court maydetermine a reasonable and fair estimate of such damages.

Ii. The amount of loss of earning ca"acity is based mainly on two factors.

These are (1) the number of years of which the damages shall be com"utedand (%) the rate at which the losses sustained by the res"ondent should be6ed.

0actor number one in this ruling shall be com"uted by using the formulabased on the American "ectancy Table of Bortality or %E3 *94 < age ofthe victim at the time of death+ O life e"ectancy in terms of years.

0actor number two is arrived at by multi"lying the life e"ectancy by theearnings of the deceased. As has been settled! the com"utation of the rate of loss of earnings should be based on the net earnings.

In this case! Andres Pentura was eighteen years of age at the time of hisdeath with a life e"ectance of 81 years. The undis"uted claim of the

victimNs mother was that Andres was Kem"loyedL as a laborer at the Pictory7ice Bill at the rate of 2144.44 a day! which was! li/ewise! admitted by thedefense. The crime was committed on a 5unday after the victim andhis co>wor"ers had :nished their wor" for the day . The victim should!therefore! be presumed to have wor"ed everyday including 5undays orrest days, special days and regular holidays . As such! under the K1'''andboo/ on Jor/ersN =tatutory Bonetary Hene6tsL outlining the minimumlegal re,uirements concerning wor/ersN monetary and nonmonetary! the

victim is deemed to have wor/ed a total of 3'1.54 days a year with totalwages in the amount of 23'!154.44 "er annum (2144Eday for 3'1.54 days0.4ne half of this amount would be considered as his necessary livingexpenses.

III. @i/ewise! civil indemnity in the amount of 254!444.44 is automaticallygranted to the heirs of the victim without need of any evidence other thanthe fact of the commission of the crime.


10/34

The heirs of the victim should also be awarded actual damages in the totalamount of 213!444.44 as the defense admitted that the victimNs familyincurred funeral e"enses of 2>!444.44 and medical e"enses of 2?!444.44.4rdinarily, receipts should support claims of actual damages.%owever, since the defense did not contest that claim, it should begranted.

5. Adrian Jilson v TB

Actual damages "uts the claimant in the "osition in which he had beenbefore he was injured. The award thereof must be based on the evidence"resented! not on the "ersonal /nowledge of the court and certainly not onFimsy! remote! s"eculative and nonsubstantial "roof. :nder the Civil Code!one is entitled to an ade,uate com"ensation only for such "ecuniary losssu#ered by him as he has duly "roved.

>. Q arments v Biranda

i. actual damages include all the natural and "robable conse,uences of theact or omission com"lained of! classi6ed as one (1) for the loss of what a"erson already "ossesses (daRo emergente) and the other! (%) for the failureto receive! as a bene6t! that which would have "ertained to him (lucrocesante)

ii. The claimants are not! however! mandated to "rove damages in anys"eci6c or certain amount in order to recover damages for a substantialamount. 8hen the existence of a loss is established, absolutecertainty as to its amount is not required. The amount of thedamages should be determined with reasonable certainty

?. Mustiva v ustilo

Doctrine- Go need to allege claim for damages in "leadings if it is "ut inissue in the course of the trial.

Is the award of actual damages "ro"erS Jhile the "rayer by theres"ondents in their KAnswerL mentions only eem"lary damages! moraldamages and attorneyNs fees! therein also is a "lea for Ksuch further relief as this onorable Court may deem just and e,uitable.L This "rayer mayinclude Kactual damagesL! if and when they are "roved. It is to be observedthat in the course of the trial! defendants introduced evidence of actualdamages yet "etitioners failed to object to such "resentation. Conse,uently!the unalleged but "roved matter of actual damages may be considered bythe court. The trial judge mentioned such damages. And the Court of

A""eals! without going into s"eci6cs! a""roved the award! and declarede"licitly that the evidence sustained it. Je a#irm the a""ellate courtNsassessment of actual damages.

9. De uia v The Banila lectric


11/34

Although in case li/e this the defendant must answer for the conse,uencesof the negligence of its em"loyee! the court has the "ower to moderateliability according to the circumstances of the case. An em"loyer who has infact dis"layed due diligence in choosing and instructing his servants isentitled to be considered a debtor in good faith! within the meaning ofarticle 114? of the same Code. Construing these two "rovisions together!

a""lying them to the facts of this case! it results that the defendants liabilityis limited to such damages as might! at the time of the accident! have beenreasonably foreseen as a "robable conse,uence of the "hysical injuriesinFicted u"on the "lainti# and which were in fact a necessary result of thoseinjuries. There is nothing novel in this "ro"osition! since both the civil andthe common law are agreed u"on the "oint that the damages ordinarilyrecoverable for the breach of a contractual obligation! against a "erson whohas acted in good faith! are such as can reasonably be foreseen at the timethe obligation is contracted.

'. @im v. CA

0acts- &wner and o"erator of a jee"ney without a certi6cate of "ublicconvenience (/abit system) 6gured in an accident with a truc/ owned by lim.

eld- 1) The thrust of the law in enjoining the kabit system is not so much asto "enali;e the "arties but to identify the "erson u"on whom res"onsibilitymay be 6ed in case of an accident with the end view of "rotecting theriding "ublic. The "olicy! therefore! loses its force if the "ublic at large is notdeceived! much less involved.%) Damages its limits- It is a fundamental "rinci"le in the law on damagesthat a defendant cannot be held liable in damages for more than theactual loss which he has in&icted and that a plainti is entitled to nomore than the just and ade"uate compensation for the injury suered. The law will not "ut him in a "osition better than where he shouldbe in had not the wrong ha""ened.

3) Damages its etent- 'etitioners are at best reminded thatindemni:cation for damages comprehends not only the value of theloss suered but also that of the pro:ts which the obligee failed toobtain. In other words! indemni6cation for damages is not limited todamnum emergens or actual loss but etends to lucrum cessans or theamount of "ro6t lost.

Case at bar- ad on;alesN jee"ney not met an accident! it couldreasonably be e!pected that it would have continued earning fromthe business in which it was engaged. The award therefore of1?@,BBB.BB as compensatory damages is not beyond reason norspeculative as it is based on a reasonable estimate of the totaldamage suered by 9on;ales! i.e. damage wrought u"on his jee"ney andthe income lost from his trans"ortation business.

8) @egal interest on unli,uidated damages when im"osed- owever! we areconstrained to depart from the conclusion of the lower courts that


12/34

upon the award of compensatory damages legal interest should beimposed beginning 22 (uly $*! i.e.! the date of the accident.

:"on the "rovisions of Art. %%13! interest Kcannot be recovered uponunli"uidated claims or damages! ece"t when the demand can beestablished with reasonable certainty.L It is aiomatic that if the suit were

for damages! unli,uidated and not /nown until de6nitely ascertained!assessed and determined by the courts after "roof! interest at the rate of si"ercent (>) "er annum should be from the date the judgment of the courtis made (at which time the ,uanti6cation of damages may be deemed to bereasonably ascertained).

In this case! the matter was not a liquidated obligation as theassessment of the damage on the vehicle was heavily debated uponby the parties with on;ales demand for 2%3>!444.44 being refuted by @imwho argue that they could have the vehicle re"aired easily for 2%4!444.44.In 6ne! the amount due on;ales was not a li,uidated account that wasalready demandable and "ayable.

5) Doctrine of avoidable conse,uences- &ne last word. Je have observedthat 9on;ales left his passenger jeepney by the roadside at the mercyof the elements. Article %%43 ehorts "arties su#ering from loss or injuryto eercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize thedamages resulting from the act or omission in "uestion. &ne who isinjured then by the wrongful or negligent act of another should e!ercisereasonable care and diligence to minimize the resulting damage.

owever! we sadly note that in the "resent case 7im failed to oer inevidence the estimated amount of the damage caused by 9on;alesunconcern towards the damaged vehicle. It is the burden of "etitionersU

14. Talisay =ilay v on;ales

A court may rule and render judgment on the basis of the evidence before it!even though the relevant "leading had not been "reviously amended! so longas no sur"rise or "rejudice is thereby caused to the adverse "arty. 2ut alittle di#erently! so long as the basic re,uirements of fair "lay had been met!as where litigants were given full o""ortunity to su""ort their res"ectivecontentions and to object to or refute each others evidence! the court may

validly treat the "leadings as if they had been amended to conform to theevidence and "roceed to adjudicate on the basis of all the evidence before it.

Je conclude that the Court of A""eals erred when it failed to treat theamended and su""lemental com"laint of T=BC and T=ICA as if suchcom"laint had in fact been amended to conform to the evidence! and when itlimited the damages due to T=BC and T=ICA to the amount "rayed for intheir original com"laint.

11. Coleman v otel de 0rance


13/34

olding as we do that the defendant cor"oration without just cause orecuse discharged the "lainti# in Fagrant violation of its contract ofem"loyment with her! we agree with the trial judge that "lainti# is entitledto recover not merely compensation for services rendered before thebreach of the contract by her em"loyer! but the full amount which she

might have earned under the contract less such compensation as sheactually obtained or might have obtained in some other employmentduring the term of the contract which had not yet expired at the dateof the breach! the burden of "roof as to the amount by which the "rimafacie damage may thus be reduced being u"on the defendant

1%. Daywalt v Cor"oracion

=uit against defendant who was found to have encroached on the land of"lainti#. eld-

Gotwithstanding this circumstance! the damages assessed are su#icient tocom"ensate the "lainti# for the use and occu"ation of the land during thewhole time it was used. There is evidence in the record strongly tending toshow that the wrongful use of the land by the defendant was notcontinuous throughout the year but was con:ned mostly to theseason when the forage obtainable on the land of the defendant cor"orationwas not su#icient to maintain its cattle! for which reason it becamenecessary to allow them to go over to "asture on the land in ,uestion and itis not clear that the whole of the land was used for pasturage at anytime.

Damages based on tortious interference-

1) The liability for damages of the original obligor must be determined inthe action to enforce the original contract (s"eci6c "erformance). Ifnot! it may not be recovered in another action. The court said-

a. KIndemni6cation for damages resulting from the breach of acontract is a right inse"arably anneed to every action for theful6llment of the obligation and it is clear that if damages arenot sought or recovered in the action to enforce "erformancethey cannot be recovered in an inde"endent action.L

C2T- if you are collecting from the interferer who was not "arty tothe original action! to wit-

b. KAs to Teodorica ndencia! therefore! it should be consideredthat the right of action to recover damages for the breach of thecontract in ,uestion was ehausted in the "rior suit. owever!her attorneys have not seen 6t to inter"ose the defense of res

judicata in her behalf and as the defendant cor"oration was nota "arty to that action! and such defense could not in any eventbe of any avail to it! we "roceed to consider the ,uestion of theliability of Teodorica ndencia for damages without reference


14/34

to this "oint.L

%) 7ule- The stranger cannot become more etensively liable in damagesfor the non"erformance of the contract than the "arty in whose behalf he intermeddles.

a. In this case! Teodora was the one directly liableE obligor! thus!

to determine the liability of the interferer (cor"oration)! thecourt studied the damages attributable to the original obligor.

3) 7ule on unlawful detention of "ro"erty-a. Gow! what is the measure of damages for the wrongful

detention of real "ro"erty by the vender after the time hascome for him to "lace the "urchaser in "ossessionS Thedamages ordinarily and normally recoverable against a vendorfor failure to deliver land which he has contracted to deliver isthe value of the use and occu"ation of the land for the timeduring which it is wrongfully withheld. The rule that themeasure of damages for the wrongful detention of land isnormally to be found in the value of use and occu"ation is! we

believe! one of the things that may be considered certain in thelaw almost as well settled! indeed! as the rule that the measureof damages for the wrongful detention of money is to be foundin the interest.

8) &rdinary vs. ="ecial damages < The damages recoverable in case ofthe breach of a contract are two sorts! namely! (1) the ordinary!natural! and in a sense necessary damage and (%) s"ecial damages.

a. 4rdinary damages is found in all breaches of contract where there are no special circumstances to distinguishthe case specially from other contracts. The consideration"aid for an un"erformed "romise is an instance of this sort ofdamage. In all such cases the damages recoverable are such asnaturally and generally would result from such a breach,according to the usual course of things. In cases involvingonly ordinary damage no discussion is ever indulged as towhether that damage was contem"lated or not. This isconclusively "resumed from the immediateness andinevitableness of the damage! and the recovery of such damagefollows as a necessary legal conse,uence of the breach.&rdinary damage is assumed as a matter of law to be within thecontem"lation of the "arties.

b. 5pecial damage! on the other hand! is such as follows lessdirectly from the breach than ordinary damage. It is only foundin case where some external condition, apart from theactual terms to the contract exists or intervenes! as itwere! to give a turn to a#airs and to increase damage in a waythat the "romisor! without actual notice of that eternalcondition! could not reasonably be e"ected to foresee. (eforesuch damage can be recovered the plainti must showthat the particular condition which made the damage apossible and li"ely consequence of the breach was "nownto the defendant at the time the contract was made.


15/34

5) Explanation) Je recogni;e the "ossibility that more etensivedamages (s"ecial damages) may be recovered where! at the time ofthe creation of the contractual obligation! the vendor! or lessor! isaware of the use to which the "urchaser or lessee desires to "ut the"ro"erty which is the subject of the contract, and the contract ismade with the eyes of the vendor or lessor open to the

possibility of the damage which may result to the other "arty fromhis own failure to give "ossession. Case at bar) The case before us isnot of this character! inasmuch as at the time when the rights of the"arties under the contract were determined! nothing was /nown toany of them about the =an 0rancisco ca"italist who would be willingto bac/ the "roject.

>) Tip on how the buyer may protect his interest) The etent of theliability for the breach of a contract must be determined in the light of the situation in eistence at the time the contract is made and thedamages ordinarily recoverable are in all events limited to such asmight be reasonably foreseen in the light of the facts then /nown tothe contracting "arties. 8here the purchaser desires to protecthimself, in the contingency of the failure of the vendorpromptly to give possession, from the possibility of incurringother damages than such as are incident to the normal value of the use and occupation, he should cause to be inserted in thecontract a clause providing for stipulated amount to be paidupon failure of the vendor to give possession# and no case hasbeen called to our attention where! in the absence of such asti"ulation! damages have been held to be recoverable by the"urchaser in ecess of the normal value of use and occu"ation.

D0 T:=! #$- To bring damages which would ordinarily be treatedas remote within the category of recoverable special damages,it is necessary that the condition should be made the subject of contract in such sense as to become an express or implied termof the engagement.

+) Case at bar! held- damages laid under the second cause of action inthe com"laint could not be recovered from her! :rst, because thedamages in ,uestion are s"ecial damages which were not withincontem"lation of the "arties when the contract was made! andsecondly, because said damages are too remote to be the subject ofrecovery. This conclusion is also necessarily fatal to the right of the"lainti# to recover such damages from the defendant cor"oration! for!as already suggested! by advising Teodorica not to "erform thecontract! said cor"oration could in no event render itself more

etensively liable than the "rinci"al in the contract.

@. Cariaga v 7T(

6acts) Cariaga was a:=T med student who was rode an @TH bus. The @THbus was negligent! causing the bus to collide with an B77 train. The victimbecame a veggie. 2arents sued @TH for H of V and B77 for QD. Claimed


16/34

actual damages in behalf of their child! and also se"arately for themselves!and also moral damages.

eld-

i. B77 "roved not liable for QD.

ii. @TH liable for H of V. Hut!

a. Actual damages in behalf of victim Wesb. Actual damages for the "arents Goc. Boral damages Go

!iscussion on !amages)

i. Actual damages in behalf of victim

The court awarded actual damages based on the medical e"enses and also

the future income he might receive (value of which testi6ed to by an e"ertwitness who is a doctor).

:"on this "remise it claims that only the actual damages su#ered bydgardo Cariaga consisting of medical! hos"ital and other e"enses in thetotal sum of 21?!?1'.?5 are within this category. 8e are of the opinion,however, that the income which Edgardo Cariaga could earn if heshould :nish the medical course and pass the corresponding boardexaminations must be deemed to be within the same categorybecause they could have reasonably been foreseen by the parties atthe time he boarded the bus 'o. @@ owned and operated by the 7T(.

As regards the income that he could "ossibly earn as a medical "ractitioner!

it a""ears that! according to Dr. Amado Doria! a witness for the @TH! theamount of 2344.44 could easily be e"ected as the minimum monthlyincome

(Query- Jhat if they 6led a QD case versus @THS Jill @TH be liable for thefuture income he could have earned as a doctor even if no reasonablyforeseenS)

ii. Boral damages disallowed

2redicated on the fact that the suit against @TH was for breach of contract of carriage. Boral damages! if ever! could be awarded! only in QD suits.

iii. Actual damages for "arents < disallowed

The claim made by said s"ouses for actual and com"ensatory damages isli/ewise without merits. As held by the trial court! in so far as the 7T( isconcerned, the present action is based upon a breach of contract ofcarriage to which said spouses were not a party, and neither can they premise their claim upon the negligence or quasi>delict of the 7T(for the simple reason that they were not themselves injured as a


17/34

result of the collision between the @TH bus and train owned by the Banila7ailroad Com"any.

ere the =C a#irmed the deletion

of the %mio award for loss of earning ca"acity. The =C said)Com"ensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of earningsbut for loss of ca"acity to earn money. Evidence must bepresented that the victim, if not yet employed at the timeof death, was reasonably certain to complete training fora speci:c profession. Court cited % cases-

i. where damages awarded > In shar" contrast with thesituation obtaining in 2eo"le v. Teehan/ee! where the


18/34

"rosecution merely "resented evidence to show the factof the victimNs graduation from high school and the factof his enrollment in a Fying school! the s"ouses 7osalesdid not content themselves with sim"ly establishing @i;a7osalieNs enrollment at :2 Integrated =chool. They"resented evidence to show that @i;a 7osalie was a good

student! "romising artist! and obedient child. =heconsistently "erformed well in her studies since gradeschool.

ii. where damages not awarded> In 2eo"le v. Teehan/ee!no award of com"ensation for loss of earning ca"acitywas granted to the heirs of a college freshman becausethere was no su#icient evidence on record to show thatthe victim would eventually become a "rofessional "ilot.Hut com"ensation should be allowed for loss of earningca"acity resulting from the death of a minor who has not

yet commenced em"loyment or training for a s"eci6c"rofession if su#icient evidence is "resented to establish

the amount thereof c. Thus- In the case at bar! res"ondents only testi6ed to the fact

that the victim! 7eggie Gabua! was a freshman ta/ing u"Industrial ngineering at the Technological Institute of the2hili""ines in Cubao. 2nli"e in +etro Transit whereevidence of good academic record, extracurricularactivities, and varied interests were presented in court,herein respondents oered no such evidence. ence! theCA was correct when it deleted the award of com"ensatorydamages amounting to 2%!444!444.44! as the same is withoutany basis.

F. Continental Cement v Asea

0acts- 2lainti# entered into a contract with defendant to re"air hise,ui"ment. Hut the defendant not only incurred delay! but failed to re"airentirely. Gow! "lainti# is claiming for actual damages and conse,uentialdamages (losses! e"enses by reason of the delay! for the duration that thedefendant incurred delay).

eld-

i. &n the non


19/34

to the contrary! the "enalty in the amount of 2'9?.%5 "er day ofdelay covers all other damages (i.e. "roduction loss! labor cost! andrental of the crane) claimed by "etitioner.

iii.&n conse,uential damages < Conse,uential damages! such as loss of"ro6ts on account of delay or failure of delivery! may be recoveredonly if such damages were reasonably foreseen or have been

brought within the contem"lation of the "arties as the "robableresult of a breach at the time of or "rior to contracting res"ondent

AHH! at the time it agreed to re"air "etitionerNs Viln Drive Botor!could not have reasonably foreseen that it would be madeliable for production loss, labor cost and rental of the cranein case it fails to repair the motor or incurs delay indelivering the same, especially since the motor under repair was a spare motor.

1>. Bendo;a v 2A@

0acts- ere! "lainti# wanted to show a movie in his theater to maimi;e his

"ro6ts in an u"coming 6esta. e ordered co"ies of a 6lm from Banila! andthe 6lm was to be brought to his "lace via 2A@. Hut 2A@ failed to dro" theitems o# at the air"ort. Thus! for a few days! "lainti# lost "ro6ts. e is nowclaiming for the "ro6ts which he should have gained.

eld- Denied. @iability for damages due to delay both under the GCC andCode of Commerce only cover ordinary damages. To be liable for s"ecialdamages! he should notify the carrier of the 1) nature of the items to bedelivered! %) "ur"ose and 3) desire to rush.

i. ven a""lying the "rovisions of the Code of Commerce! as already stated!the "ertinent "rovisions regarding damages only treats of ordinary damages

or damages in general! not s"ecial damages.

ii. Hut before defendant could be held to s"ecial damages! such as the"resent alleged loss of "ro6ts on account of delay or failure of delivery! itmust have a""eared that he had notice at the time of delivery to him of the"articular circumstances attending the shi"ment! and which "robably wouldlead to such s"ecial loss if he defaulted. &r! as the rule has been stated inanother form! in order to im"ose on the defaulting "arty further liabilitythan for damages naturally and directly! i.e.! in the ordinary course of things!arising from a breach of contract! such unusual or etraordinary damagesmust have been brought within the contem"lation of the "arties as the"robable result of a breach at the time of or "rior to contracting. 9enerally,

notice then of any special circumstances which will show that thedamages to be anticipated from a breach would be enhanced hasbeen held suicient for this eect.

iii. Jhat he should have done- 1) either ordered the 6lms earlier! or %)entered into a s"ecial contract with the carrier.

1?. Pilla 7ey Transit v CA


20/34

ow to com"ute for loss of earning ca"acity

i. The determination of such amount de"ends! mainly u"on T84 &?06ACT435! namely- (1) the number of years on the basis ofwhich the damages shall be computed and (%) the rate atwhich the losses sustained by said respondents should be

!ed.ii. 0irst factor- life e"ectancy.

a. 0ormula (%E3 *94


21/34

19. Cru; v =un olidays

=am"le com"utation of Actual Damages-

Civil Code holds the common carrier in breach of its contract of carriagethat results in the death of a "assenger liable to "ay the following- (1)indemnity for death! (%) indemnity for loss of earning ca"acity and (3) moraldamages.

2etitioners are entitled to indemnity for the death of 7uelito which is 6ed at254!444.

As for damages representing unearned income, the formula for itscomputation is)

7ife expectancy is determined in accordance with the formula)

? I @ x JKB L age of deceased at the time of deathM

i. The :rst factor, i.e.! life e"ectancy! is com"uted by a""lying the formula(%E3 *94 $ age at death+)

ii. The second factor is com"uted by multi"lying the life e"ectancy by thenet earnings of the deceased! i.e.! the total earnings less e"ensesnecessary in the creation of such earnings or income and less living andother incidental e"enses.

The loss is not equivalent to the entire

earnings of the deceased, but only such portion as he would haveused to support his dependents or heirs. ence! to be deducted from hisgross earnings are the necessary e"enses su""osed to be used by thedeceased for his own needs.

iii. In com"uting the third factor * necessary living expense) when thereis no showing that the living expenses constituted the smallerpercentage of the gross income, the living expenses are :xed at halfof the gross income.

A""lying the above guidelines! the Court determines 7uelitos lifee"ectancy as follows-

@ife e"ectancy O %E3 *94 < age of deceased at the time of death+

O %E3 *94 < %9+

O%E3 *5%+

@ife e"ectancy O 35


22/34

Documentary evidence shows that 7uelito was earning a basicmonthly salary of X'44

which! when converted to 2hili""ine "eso

a""lying the annual average echange rate of X1 O 288 in%444!amounts to 23'!>44. 7uelitoNs net earning ca"acity is thuscom"uted as follows-

Get arning Ca"acity O life e"ectancy (gross annual income <reasonable and necessary living e"enses). O 35 (28?5!%44 <2%3?!>44)

O 35 (2%3?!>44) Get arning Ca"acity O 29!31>!444

nterest Computation

0inally! astern =hi""ing @ines! Inc. v. Court of A""eals teaches that when

an obligation! regardless of its source! i.e.! law! contracts! ,uasi "er annum. Go interest!however! shall be adjudged on unli,uidated claims or damages ece"t whenor until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty.

Accordingly! where the demand is established with reasonable certainty! theinterest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially oretrajudicially (Art. 11>'! Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot be soreasonably established at the time the demand is made! the interest shallbegin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at whichtime the ,uanti6cation of damages may be deemed to have been reasonablyascertained). The actual base for the com"utation of legal interest shall! inany case! be on the amount 6nally adjudged.

3. Jhen the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes 6naland eecutory! the rate of legal interest! whether the case falls under"aragra"h 1 or "aragra"h %! above! shall be 1% "er annum from such6nality until its satisfaction! this interim "eriod being deemed to be by thenan e,uivalent to a forbearance of credit. (em"hasis su""lied).

=ince the amounts "ayable by res"ondent have been determined withcertainty only in the "resent "etition! the interest due shall be com"uted


23/34

u"on the 6nality of this decision at the rate of 1% "er annum untilsatisfaction! in accordance with "aragra"h number 3 of the immediatelycited guideline in aster =hi""ing @ines! Inc.

1'. De Caliston v CA

The "ension of the decedent being a sure income that was cut short by herdeath for which Dalmacio was res"onsible! the surviving heir of the formeris entitled to the award of 214!444.44 which is just e,uivalent to the "ensionthe decedent would have received for one year if she did not die.

The 25!444.44 "aid to the herein "etitioner by the insurer of the "assengerbus which 6gured in the accident may be deemed to have come from the busowner who "rocured the insurance. =ince the civil liability (e


24/34

iii. In the absence of documentary evidence! it is reasonable to "egnecessary e"enses for the lease and o"eration of the gasoline station at KBpercent of the gross income, and peg living expenses at FB percent of the net income (gross income less necessary e"enses).

%%. =ime v CA (1''4)

2lainti# here is a cor"oration who is a de"ositor of a ban/. The ban/negligently dishonored the chec/s drawn by the "lainti#. Thus! the "lainti#Nsre"utation was damaged. It sued not for actual damages! but for moraldamages etc.

eld-

Actual damages

The fact is that the "etitionerNs credit line was canceled and its orders werenot acted u"on "ending recei"t of actual "ayment by the su""liers. Its

business declined. Its re"utation was tarnished. Its standing was reduced inthe business community. All this was due to the fault of the res"ondent ban/which was undeniably remiss in its duty to the "etitioner.

Article %%45 of the Civil Code "rovides that actual or com"ensatory damagesmay be received K(%) for injury to the "lainti#Ns business standing orcommercial credit.L. There is no ,uestion that the "etitioner did sustainactual injury as a result of the dishonored chec/s and that the eistence ofthe loss having been established Kabsolute certainty as to its amount is notre,uired.L =uch injury should bolster all the more the demand of the"etitioner for moral damages and justi6es the eamination by this Court ofthe validity and reasonableness of the said claim.

Boral damages-

Its claim of moral damages in the amount of 21!444!444 is nothing short of"re"osterous. Its business certainly is not that big! or its name that"restigious! to sustain such an etravagant "retense. +oreover, acorporation is not as a rule entitled to moral damages because, notbeing a natural person, it cannot experience physical suering orsuch sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mentalanguish and moral shoc". The only exception to this rule is where thecorporation has a good reputation that is debased, resulting in itssocial humiliation.

2etitioner did su#er injury because of the "rivate res"ondentNs negligencethat caused the dishonor of the chec/s issued by it. The immediateconse,uence was that its "restige was im"aired because of the bouncingchec/s and con6dence in it as a reliable debtor was diminished.

em"lary damages

=ince ban/s are a#ected with "ublic interest! the court here im"osed


25/34

eem"lary damages as well.

%3. G2C v CA

KAnd such actual or com"ensatory damages must be established by clearevidence. In justifying its award of damages in the amount of 2 544!444.44

for alleged injury to JI@BAs business standing or commercial credit! thea""ellate court merely too/ as good JI@BAs bare assertion that itscredit standing in the community were *sic+ com"letely shattered! its entirebusiness destroyed and its mortgages lost but cites no evidence whatsoeverto su""ort the same. Bore im"ortantly! these damages have no legal basis in

view of our 6nding that JI@BA has no cause of action against G2C. AsG2C submits in its brief! 87+A9 has no business reputation orcommercial credit standing in the community (in its decision! the Court of

A""eals did not even mention or discuss the business re"utation or standingof JI@BA)L

JI@BA enumerated a litany of 38 civil and % criminal cases for estafa

6led against it and its controlling stoc/holder Gatividad B. 0ajardo by third"arties! see/ing to justify the "resent action for damages against G2Callegedly because it could not as a result "ay its loans to ban/s and ful6ll itsobligations to their subdivision buyers. =u#ice it to state that G2C hasnothing whatever to do with such suits and certainly cannot be held in anyway liable for JI@BAs (a""arently /nown to its creditors also as7ABAJI@) failure to live u" to their contractual underta/ings with them.

(GH- Di#erences with =ime case (1) moral damages claimed in sime! buthere actual damages! (%) sime! it was really the fault of the defendant!while in here! it was not the fault of the defendant)

%8. Tanay 7ecreation Center v. 0austo (,uery- overturns =imeS)

0acts- Piolation of lessor of right of 6rst refusal.

eld-

i. The rule is that actual or compensatory damages cannot bepresumed, but must be proved with reasonable degree of certainty. Acourt cannot rely on speculations, conjectures, or guesswor" as tothe fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competentproof that they have been suered by the injured party and on thebest obtainable evidence of the actual amount thereof. t must point

out speci:c facts, which could aord a basis for measuring whatevercompensatory or actual damages are borne.

7CDCNs accountant! Berle Cru;! stated that based on the cor"orationNs6nancial statement for the years 1''4 and 1''1! they derived the amount of21%4!444.44 as annual income from rent. 0rom said 6nancial statement! it issafe to "resume that T7CDC generated a monthly income of 214!444.44 amonth (21%4!444.44 annual income divided by 1% months). At besttherefore! whatever actual damages that "etitioner su#ered from the


26/34

coc/"itNs closure for a "eriod of two months can be reasonably summed u"only to 2%4!444.44.

ii. An award of damages for loss of goodwill or reputation falls underactual or compensatory damages as provided in Article ??BF of theCivil Code! to wit-

Art. %%45. Damages may be recovered-(1) 0or loss or im"airment ofearning ca"acity in cases of tem"orary or "ermanent "ersonal injury(%) 0or injury to the "lainti#Ns business standing or commercial credit.

ven if it is not recoverable as com"ensatory damages! it may still beawarded in the conce"t of tem"erate or moderate damages. In arriving at areasonable level of tem"erate damages to be awarded! trial courts areguided by the ruling that-

. . . There are cases where from the nature of the case! de6nite "roofof "ecuniary loss cannot be o#ered! although the court is convinced

that there has been such loss. 0or instance! injury to ones commercialcredit or to the goodwill of a business 6rm is often hard to showcertainty in terms of moneyU

iii. The award of moral damages cannot be granted in favor of a cor"orationbecause! being an arti6cial "erson and having eistence only in legalcontem"lation! it has no feelings! no emotions! no senses. It cannot!therefore! e"erience "hysical su#ering and mental anguish! which can bee"erienced only by one having a nervous system. 2etitioner being acor"oration! the claim for moral damages must be denied.

%5. BBTC v CA

0acts- igh school :2 student died because she was hit by a s"eeding busalong Vati".

eld-

i. indemnity for death-

Art. %%4> "rovides for the "ayment of indemnity for death caused by a crimeor ,uasi


27/34

iii. Boral damages

:nder Art. %%4>! the Ks"ouse! legitimate and illegitimate descendants andascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguishby reason of the death of the deceased.L The reason for the grant of moraldamages has been e"lained thus-

The award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration! within the limits ofthe "ossible! of the s"iritual status ,uo ante and therefore! it must be"ro"ortionate to the su#ering inFicted. The intensity of the "ain e"eriencedby the relatives of the victim is "ro"ortionate to the intensity of a#ection forhim and bears no relation whatsoever with the wealth or means of theoender.

In (eople v. Teehankee, )r.! this Court awarded 1 million as moraldamages to the heirs of a 1? of the Civil Code "rovides that in addition to the indemnity fordeath caused by a crime or quasi>delict, the -defendant shall beliable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and theindemnity shall be "aid to the heirs of the latter.

Com"ensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of earnings but for lossof ca"acity to earn money. Evidence must be presented that the victim!if not yet employed at the time of death! was reasonably certain tocomplete training for a speci:c profession.

The s"ouses 7osales did not content themselves with simplyestablishing 7i;a 3osalies enrollment at 21 ntegrated 5chool. They"resented evidence to show that @i;a 7osalie was a good student! "romisingartist! and obedient child. =he consistently "erformed well in her studiessince grade school. A survey ta/en in 1'98 when @i;a 7osalie was 1% yearsold showed that she had good study habits and attitudes. Cleofe Chi!guidance counselor of the :niversity of the 2hili""ines Integrated =chool!described @i;a 7osalie as "ersonable! well


28/34

1!1%5.8% 13 (representing @th

month pay ) O 18!>34.8> (gross annualincome)

18!>34.8> 54 O ?!315.%3 (net annual income)

?!315.%3 88 (life e"ectancy) O 3%1!9?4.1% (net earning ca"acity)

%>. 2eo"le v Heduya

Boral damages are mandatory in cases of murder and homicide withoutneed of allegation and "roof other than the death of the victim. Consistentwith this rule! we award the amount of 254!444.44 as moral damages inaccordance with "revailing juris"rudence.L (so if as/ed- TE0! A@@ moraldamages must be "roved. 0alse)

%?. 2eo"le v Anticamara

i. murder

2?5!444.44 as civil indemnity! 2?5!444.44 as moral damages! 234!444.44 aseem"lary damages! and other "roved actual damages.

In 2eo"le v. Quiachon! even if the "enalty of death is not to be im"osedbecause of the "rohibition in 7.A. '38>! the civil indemnity of 1DF,BBB.BB is"ro"er! because it is not de"endent on the actual im"osition of the death"enalty but on the fact that ,ualifying circumstances warranting theim"osition of the death "enalty attended the commission of the o#ense.

Anent moral damages! the same are mandatory in cases of murder !without need of allegation and "roof other than the death of the victim.owever! consistent with recent juris"rudence on heinous crimes where theim"osable "enalty is death but reduced to reclusion "er"etua "ursuant to7.A. Go.'38>! the award of moral damages should be increased from254!444.44 to 2?5!444.44.

The award of exemplary damages is in order! because of the "resence ofthe aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident "remeditation in thecommission of the crime. The Court awards the amount of 234!444.44! aseem"lary damages! in line with current juris"rudence on the matter.

ii. ra"e

2?5!444.44 as civil indemnity! 2?5!444.44 as moral damages and 234!444.44as eem"lary damage

In addition! AAA is entitled to moral damages "ursuant to Article %%1' ofthe Civil Code!?1 without the necessity of additional "leadings or "roof otherthan the fact of ra"e. Boral damages is granted in recognition of the


29/34

victimNs injury necessarily resulting from the odious crime of ra"e. =uchaward is se"arate and distinct from the civil indemnity. owever! the amountof 2144!444.44 awarded as moral damages is reduced to 2?5!444.44! in linewith current juris"rudence.

iii. /idna""ing

254!444.44 as civil indemnity and 254!444.44 as moral damages.

%9. 2eo"le v 7arugal (%413 case)

0acts-

Pictim! while riding his bi/e! was suddenly stabbed by the accused. edidnNt suddenly die. e was able to go home and tell his bros who /illed him(dying declaration). e died ? days later. =C ruled that ,ualifyingcircumstance of treachery was "resent. Thus! he is guilty of murder.DamagesS

eld-

i. Damages allowable if death due to a crime

Anent the award of damages! when death occurs due to a crime! thefollowing may be recovered- (1) civil indemnity e delicto for the death ofthe victim (%) actual or com"ensatory damages (3) moral damages (8)eem"lary damages (5) attorneyNs fees and e"enses of litigation and (>)interest! in "ro"er cases. (ICA BA)

ii. There is no distinction between ordinary and ,ualifying circumstance

insofar as damages are concerned

Jithal! the ordinary or ,ualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is adistinction that should only be of conse,uence to the criminal! rather than tothe civil! liability of the o#ender. n :ne, relative to the civil aspect ofthe case, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary orqualifying, should entitle the oended party to an award ofexemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article %%34 of theCivil Code.L

iii. Amount of civil liability e delicto and eem"lary damages under current juris"rudence-

Je! however! increase the award of eem"lary damages to 234!444.44 andthe award for mandatory civil indemnity to 2?5!444.44 to conform to recent

juris"rudence.

iv. Boral damages to be awarded when death is caused by crime even withthe absence of "roof.


30/34

8e sustain the 3TCs award for moral damages in the amount of1FB,BBB.BB even in the absence of proof of mental and emotionalsuering of the victims heirs. As borne out by human nature andexperience, a violent death invariably and necessarily brings aboutemotional pain and anguish on the part of the victims family.

%'. 2adilla Bachine sho" v Mavilgas

Illegal dismissal case.

eld-

0inally, there is no merit in petitioners claim that attorneys fees may not be awarded to the respondent since his case was being handledpro bono by the :.2. ice of @egal Aid! which "rovides free legalassistance to indigent litigants. In this jurisdiction! there are two conce"ts of

attorneyNs fees. In the ordinary sense! attorneyNs fees re"resent thereasonable com"ensation "aid to a lawyer by his client for the legal serviceshe has rendered to the latter. &n the other hand! in its extraordinaryconcept, attorneys fees may be awarded by the court as indemnityfor damages to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing party,and not counsel. In its etraordinary sense! attorneyNs fees as "art ofdamages is awarded only in the instances s"eci6ed in Article %%49 of theCivil Code! among which are the following which obtain in the instant case-

(?) In actions for the recovery of wages of household hel"ers! laborers ands/illed wor/ers

(9) In actions for indemnity under wor/mens com"ensation and em"loyersliability laws

(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and e,uitable thatattorneys fees and e"enses of litigation should be recovered.

34. David v Bisamis

0acts- Contract of sale of e,ui"ment. A contract of sale was "erfected! andthe items were already delivered. =ince the vendee was not able to "ay atthe sti"ulated date! the "arties agreed to etend the term but with a %8interest rate.

eld-

i. =ti"ulated interest rate will be decreased if unconscionable.


31/34

That being said! the Court now comes to DavidNs "rayer that B&@CI bemade to "ay the total sum of 25!8?%!?%%.%? "lus the sti"ulated interest at%8 "er annum from the 6ling of the com"laint. Although the Court agreesthat B&@CI should "ay interest! the sti"ulated rate is! however!unconscionable and should be e,uitably reduced. Accordingly! the ecessiveinterest of %8 "er annum sti"ulated in the sales invoice should be reduced

to 1% "er annum.

ii. Attorneys fees

Indeed! David was com"elled to 6le an action against B&@CI but thisreason alone will not warrant an award of attorneyNs fees. It is settled thatthe award of attorneyNs fees is the ece"tion rather than the rule.

(Also discussed ordinary and etraordinary attorneyNs fees)

iii. AttorneyNs fees will be awarded for cases outside the enumeration under Art. %%49 of GCC only when-

a. If sti"ulated.b. In the absence of sti"ulation! a winning "arty may be awarded

attorneyNs fees only in case "lainti#Ns action or defendantNs stand isso untenable as to amount to gross and evident bad faith.B&@CINs case cannot be similarly classi6ed.

31. @acson v 7eyes

0acts- @awyer! as administrator and lawyer of heirs! 6led a "etition for"robate of a will. Go o""ositors. ranted. e then 6led a motion forattorneyNs fees.

eld-

The rule (7&C) is therefore clear that an administrator or eecutor may beallowed fees for the necessary e"enses he has incurred as such! but he maynot recover attorneyNs fees from the estate. Compensation is :xed by therule but such compensation is in the nature of executors oradministrators commissions, and never as attorneys fees. A greatersum other than that established by the rule may be allowed Nin anyspecial case, where the estate is large, and the settlement has beenattended with great diiculty, and has required a high degree ofcapacity on the part of the executor or administrator.N It is left to the

sound discretion of the court.

Accordingly! to the etent that the trial court set aside the sum of2>5!444.44 as and for Br. =er,uinaNs attorneyNs fees! to o"erate as a Klien onthe subject "ro"erties!L the trial judge must be said to have gravely abusedits discretion.

Je have held that a lawyer of an administrator or eecutor may not chargethe estate for his fees! but rather! his client. Butatis mutandis! where the


32/34

administrator is himself the counsel for the heirs! it is the latter who must"ay therefor. n that connection, attorneys fees are in the nature ofactual damages, which must be duly proved. They are also subject tocertain standards! to wit-

(1) they must be reasonable! that is to say! they must have a bearing on the

im"ortance of the subject matter in controversy(%) the extent of theservices rendered and(3) the professional standing of the lawyer. In allcases! they must be addressed in a full


33/34

moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court mayeven consider the question of whether exemplary damages should beawarded. n other words, no exemplary damages may be awarded without the plaintis right to moral, temperate, liquidated orcompensatory damages having :rst been established .

33. Huan v Camaganacan

AttorneyNs fees-

i. 7ule- The tet of the decision should state the reason why attorneysN feesare being awarded! otherwise! the award is disallowed.

ii. The very o"ening "aragra"h of Article %%49 reveals that the award ofattorneys fees remains exceptional in our law. The 9E'E3A7 327Ebeing still that it is not sound public policy to place a penalty on the

right to litigate nor should counsel fees be awarded every time aparty wins a lawsuit.

iii. In the "resent case! for the award of 2%!>94.44 in actual damages thea""ealed decisions awards no less than 2%!444.44 in counsel fees! which ishardly reasonable. ence! the exercise of judicial discretion in theaward of attorneys fees under Article ??BK &0 of the Civil Codedemands a factual, legal, or equitable justi:cation upon the basis of which the court exercises its discretion. Jithout such justi6cation! theaward is a conclusion without a "remise! as basis being im"ro"erly left tos"eculation and conjecture.

38. Pillanueva v =alvador

i. Boral damages-

Jhile "roof of "ecuniary loss is unnecessary to justify an award of moraldamages! the amount of indemnity being left to the sound discretion of thecourt! it is! nevertheless! essential that the claimant satisfactorily "roves theeistence of the factual basis of the damages and its causal connection todefendantNs wrongful act or omission. This is so because moral damages!albeit inca"able of "ecuniary estimation! are designed to com"ensate theclaimant for actual injury su#ered and not to im"ose a "enalty on thewrongdoer. There is thus merit on "etitionersN assertion that "roof of moral

su#ering must "recede a moral damage award.

The conditions required in awarding moral damages are) &0 theremust be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearlysustained by the claimant# &?0 there must be a culpable act oromission factually established# &@0 the wrongful act or omission ofthe defendant must be the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant# and &


34/34

the cases stated in Article ??O of the Civil Code.

&C11 0

Jhile there need not be a showing that the defendant acted in a wanton ormalevolent manner! as this is a re,uirement for an award of eem"lary

damages! there must still be "roof of fraudulent action or bad faith for aclaim for moral damages to succeed. Then! too! moral damages are generallynot recoverable in cul"a contractual ece"t when bad faith su"ervenes andis "roven. (GH- This ruling a""lies only for C:@2A C&GT7ACT:A@)

Clear it is from the above that before moral damages may be assessedthereunder! the defendantNs act must be vitiated by bad faith or that there iswillful intent to injure. =im"ly "ut! moral damages cannot arise from sim"lenegligence.

ii. AttorneyNs fees-

As a matter of sound "ractice! an award of attorneyNs fee has always beenregarded as the ece"tion rather than the rule. And it is necessary for thetrial court to ma/e e"ress 6ndings of fact and law that would bring the casewithin the ece"tion

35. astern =hi""ing v CA

(Discussed in Cru; v =un olidays)

Documents

TORTS - Actual Damages