ACTUAL DAMAGES

6. G.R. No. 152040 March 31, 2006

MARIKINA AUTO LINE TRANSPORT CORPORATION and FREDDIE L. SUELTO, Petitioners,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ERLINDA V. VALDELLON, Respondents.

FACTS: Erlinda V. Valdellon is the owner of a two-door commercial apartment located at No. 31 Kamias Road,
Quezon City. The Marikina Auto Line Transport Corporation (MALTC) is the owner-operator of a passenger bus with
Plate Number NCV-849. Suelto, its employee, was assigned as the regular driver of the bus.

At around 2:00 p.m. on October 3, 1992, Suelto was driving the aforementioned passenger bus along Kamias Road,
Kamuning, Quezon City, going towards Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA). The bus suddenly swerved to the
right and struck the terrace of the commercial apartment owned by Valdellon located along Kamuning Road.3 Upon
Valdellons request, the court ordered Sergio Pontiveros, the Senior Building Inspection Officer of the City Engineers
Office, to inspect the damaged terrace.

He recommended that since the structural members made of concrete had been displaced, the terrace would have to
be demolished "to keep its monolithicness, and to insure the safety and stability of the building."

Photographs of the damaged terrace were taken. Valdellon commissioned Engr. Jesus R. Regal, Jr. to estimate the cost
of repairs, inclusive of labor and painting, and the latter pegged the cost at P171,088.46.7

In a letter dated October 19, 1992 addressed to the bus company and Suelto, Valdellon demanded payment of
P148,440.00, within 10 days from receipt thereof, to cover the cost of the damage to the terrace.8 The bus company
and Suelto offered a P30,000.00 settlement which Valdellon refused.

Valdellon filed a criminal complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property against Suelto. After the
requisite preliminary investigation.

The trial court rendered judgment finding Suelto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in
damage to property, and ordered MALTC and Suelto to pay, jointly and severally, P150,000.00 to Valdellon, by way
of actual and compensatory damages, as well as attorneys fees and costs of suit.

CA rendered judgment affirming the decision of the trial court, but the award for actual damages was reduced to
P100,000.00.

ISSUE: WON, the prosecution failed to adduce evidence to prove that respondent suffered actual damages in the
amount of P100,000.00

RULING: YES.

We agree with the contention of petitioners that respondents failed to prove that the damages to the terrace caused by
the incident amounted to P100,000.00. The only evidence adduced by respondents to prove actual damages claimed
by private respondent were the summary computation of damage made by Engr. Jesus R. Regal, Jr. amounting to
P171,088.46 and the receipt issued by the BB Construction and Steel Fabricator to private respondent for P35,000.00
representing cost for carpentry works, masonry, welding, and electrical works. Respondents failed to present Regal to
testify on his estimation. In its five-page decision, the trial court awarded P150,000.00 as actual damages to private
respondent but failed to state the factual basis for such award. Indeed, the trial court merely declared in the decretal
portion of its decision that the "sum of P150,000.00 as reasonable compensation sustained by plaintiff for her damaged
apartment." The appellate court, for its part, failed to explain how it arrived at the amount of P100,000.00 in its three-
page decision.

Under Article 2199 of the New Civil Code, actual damages include all the natural and probable consequences of the
act or omission complained of, classified as one for the loss of what a person already possesses (dao emergente) and
the other, for the failure to receive, as a benefit, that which would have pertained to him (lucro cesante). As
expostulated by the Court in PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation v. Court of Appeals:26

Under Article 2199 of the Civil Code, actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in satisfaction of, or in
recompense for, loss or injury sustained. They proceed from a sense of natural justice and are designed to repair the
wrong that has been done, to compensate for the injury inflicted and not to impose a penalty. In actions based on torts
or quasi-delicts, actual damages include all the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained
of. There are two kinds of actual or compensatory damages: one is the loss of what a person already possesses (dao
emergente), and the other is the failure to receive as a benefit that which would have pertained to him (lucro cesante).27

The burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence would be presented on either side. The
burden is to establish ones case by a preponderance of evidence which means that the evidence, as a whole, adduced
by one side, is superior to that of the other. Actual damages are not presumed. The claimant must prove the actual
amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence
obtainable. Specific facts that could afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne
must be pointed out. Actual damages cannot be anchored on mere surmises, speculations or conjectures. As the Court
declared:

As stated at the outset, to enable an injured party to recover actual or compensatory damages, he is required to prove
the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence
available. The burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence would be presented on either side.
He must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence which means that the evidence, as a whole, adduced by
one side is superior to that of the other. In other words, damages cannot be presumed and courts, in making an award,
must point out specific facts that could afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are
borne.28

The Court further declared that "where goods are destroyed by the wrongful act of defendant, the plaintiff is entitled
to their value at the time of the destruction, that is, normally, the sum of money which he would have to pay in the
market for identical or essentially similar goods, plus in a proper case, damages for the loss of the use during the
period before replacement.
MORAL DAMAGES

[G.R. No. 145712. September 24, 2002]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICTOR HATE, accused-appellant.

FACTS: The facts as narrated by the eyewitness presented by the prosecution are as follows:

At about midnight of December 31, 1997, Bernardo Palacio was walking from the church of Casiguran, Sorsogon
towards the transportation terminal with Marcial Dio on his left side, Joselito Esmea on his right side and one Dante
ahead of them. Suddenly, Marcial Dio cried, I was hit. Bernardo immediately turned to his left side and saw accused-
appellant stab the victim from behind with a sharp instrument. Accused-appellant thereafter ran away. He was able to
identify the accused-appellant because the latter stared at him and a beam of flashlight shone on his face. The victim
was brought to the Sorsogon Provincial Hospital. Bernardo then went to Cogon, Casiguran, Sorsogon with Joselito
Esmea to tell the victims parents what had happened.[3]

Joselito Esmea corroborated the testimony of Bernardo Palacio and further testified that they chased accused-appellant
for about two meters but they stopped because stones were pelted at them; [4] and that he signed a sworn statement
before Judge Rica H. Lacson.

ISSUE: WON, the heirs of the deceased is entitled to moral damages.

RULING: YES.

The award of actual damages amounting to P15,000.00 was not duly proven by the prosecution. In awarding said
damages, the trial court merely relied on the list of expenses [23] presented by Remedios Dio. The list of expenses
cannot replace receipts when the latter should have been issued as a matter of course in business transaction. Only
substantiated and proven expenses, or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death,
wake or burial of the victim will be recognized in court.[24] Thus, the award of actual damages must be deleted for lack
of competent proof.[25] However, as the heirs of the victim incurred medical and funeral expenses, we deem it proper
to award P10,000.00 by way of nominal damages so that a right which has been violated may be recognized or
vindicated.[26]

In People v. Ciron,[27] the Court held that the unlawful killing of a person, which may either be murder or
homicide, entitles the heirs of the deceased to moral damages without need of independent proof other than the
fact of death of the victim. Thus, an award of P50,000.00 is proper and reasonable under current case law.[28]

Finally, an award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is in order, in view of the attendance of the
qualifying circumstance of treachery. In People v. Catubig,[29] we held that in criminal cases, exemplary damages in
the amount of P25,000.00 is recoverable if there is present an aggravating circumstance, whether qualifying or
ordinary, in the commission of the crime.[30]
NOMINAL DAMAGES

[ G.R. No. L-8194, July 11, 1956 ]

EMERENCIANA M. VDA. DE MEDINA, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES VS. GUILLERMO

CRESENCIA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. GUILLERMO CRESENCIA, APPELLANT.

FACTS: It appears that on May 31, 1953, passenger jeepney bearing plate No. TPU-2232 (Manila), driven
by Brigido Avorque, smashed into a Meralco post on Azcarraga Street, resulting in the death of Vicente Medina,
one of its passengers. A criminal case for homicide through reckless imprudence was filed against Avorque (criminal
case No. 22775 of the Court of First Instance of Manila), to which lie pleaded guilty on September 9, 1953.

The heirs of the deceased, however, reserved their right to file a separate action fbr damages, and on
June 16, 1953, brought suit against the driver Brigido Avorque and appellant Guillermo Cresencia, the registered
owner and operator of the jeepney in question.

Defendant Brigido Avorque did not file any answer; while defendant Cresencia answered, disclaiming liability on
the ground that he had sold the jeepney in question on October 14, 1950 to one Maria A. Cudiamat; that the
jeepney had been repeatedly sold by one buyer after another, until the vehicle was purchased on
January 29, 1953 by Rosario Avorque, the absolute owner thereof at the time of the accident. In
view of Cresencia's answer, plaintiffs filed leave, and was allowed, to amend their complaint making Rosario
Avorque a co-defendant; and the latter, by way of answer, admitted having purchased the aforesaid jeepney on May
31, 1953, but alleged in defense that she was never the public utility operator thereof.

The case then proceeded to trial, during which, after the plaintiffs had presented their evidence, defendants
Guillermo Cresencia and Rosario Avorque made manifestations admitting' that the former was still the registered
operator of the jeepney in question in the records of the Motor Vehicles Office and the Public Service Commission,
while the latter was the owner thereof at the time of the accident; and submitted the case for the decision on
the question of who, as between the two, should be held liable to plaintiffs for damages. The lower court, by Judge
Jose Zulueta, held that as far as the public is concerned, defendant Cresencia, in the eyes of the law, continued to
be the legal owner of the jeepney in question; and rendered judgment against him, jointly and severally with the
driver Brigido Avorque, for P6,000 compensatory damages, P30,000 moral damages, P10,000
exemplary damages, P10,000 nominal damages, P5,000 attorneys fees, and costs, while defendant Rosario Avorque
was absolved from liability. From this judgment, defendant Cresencia appealed.

ISSUE: WON, the award of nominal damages was proper.

RULING: NO.

The propriety of the damages awarded has not been questioned. Nevertheless, it is patent upon the record that
the award of P10,000 by way of nominal damages is untenable as a matter of law, since nominal damages can not
co-exist with compensatory damages. The purpose of nominal damages is to vindicate or recognize a right that
has been violated, in order to preclude further contest thereon; "and not for the purpose of indemnifying the
plaintiff for any loss suffered by him" (Articles 2221, 2223, new Civil Code.) Since the court below has already
awarded compensatory and exemplary damages that are in themselves a judicial recognition that plaintiff's right
was violated, the award of nominal damages is unnecessary and improper." Anyway, ten thousand pesos can not,
in common sense, be deemed "nominal".