Está en la página 1de 34

Damages (in general

)
1. Custodio v CA
There is a material distinction between damages and injury. Injury is the
illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which
results from the injury; and damages are the recompense or compensation
awarded for the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage without injury
in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation
of a legal duty. These situations are often called damnum absque injuria.
In order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries of which he
complains, he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of
duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff—a concurrence of injury to
the plaintiff and legal responsibility by the person causing it. The underlying
basis for the award of tort damages is the premise that an individual was
injured in contemplation of law.
2. Ong v CA (1999)
Actual damages are such compensation or damages for an
injury that will put the injured party in the position in which he had
been before he was injured. They pertain to such injuries or losses
that are actually sustained and susceptible of measurement. Except
as provided by law or by stipulation, a party is entitled to adequate
compensation only for such pecuniary loss as he has duly proven.

To be recoverable, actual damages must be pleaded and proven
in Court. In no instance may the trial judge award more than those so
pleaded and proven. Damages cannot be presumed. The award there
of must be based on the evidence presented, not on the personal
knowledge of the court; and certainly not on flimsy, remote,
speculative and nonsubstantial proof. Article 2199 of the Civil Code
expressly mandates that "[e]xcept as provided by law or by stipulation, one
is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss
suffered by him as he has duly proved."

ii. on moral damages: A person is entitled to the physical integrity of
his or her body, and if that integrity is violated, damages are due and
assessable. However, physical injury, like loss or diminution of use of an arm
or a limb, is not a pecuniary loss. Indeed, it is nor susceptible of exact
monetary estimation. The usual practice is to award moral damages for
physical injuries sustained. In the case at bar, it was sufficiently shown
during the trial that Francia's right arm could not function in a normal
manner and that, as a result, she suffered mental anguish and anxiety. Thus,
an increase in the amount of moral damages awarded, from P30,000 to

P50,000, appears to be reasonable and justified. Renato also suffered mental
anxiety and anguish from the accident. Thus, he should be separately
awarded P30,000 as moral damages. In some instances, the Court
awards the cost of medical procedures to restore the injured person
to his or her former condition. However, this award necessitates
expert testimony on the cost of possible restorative medical
procedure. (NB: expenses for medical restoration – must be
established by expert testimony. I believe the ruling here
distinguishes between actual damages and moral damages. Moral
damages would be granted by the mere fact that a person suffered
physical injury, i.e. “QD 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.)

In the case at bar, petitioner failed to present evidence
regarding the feasibility or practicability and the cost of a restorative
medical operation on her arm. Thus, there is no basis to grant her P48,000
for such expense.
iii. Unrealized income:
The bare and unsubstantiated assertion of Francia that she usually
earned P200 a day from her market stall is not the best evidence to prove
her claim of unrealized income for the eight-month period that her arm was
in plaster cast. Her testimony that was their lessor who filed their income
tax returns and obtained business licenses for them does not justify her
failure to present more credible evidence of her income. Furthermore, after
her ten-day confinement at the San Pablo Hospital, she could have returned
so her work at the public market despite the plaster cast on her right arm,
since she claimed to have two nieces as helpers. Clearly, the appellate court
was correct in deleting the award for unrealized income, because of
petitioner's utter failure to substantiate her claim.
iv. Under the Civil Code, an award of attorney's fees is an indemnity for
damages ordered by a court to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing
party, based on any of the cases authorized by law. It s payable not to the
lawyer but to the client, unless the two have agreed that the award shall
pertain to the lawyer as additional compensation or as part thereof. The
Court has established a set standards in fixing the amount of attorney's fees:

(1) The amount and character of the services rendered; (2)
labor, time and trouble involved; (3) the nature and importance
of the litigation or business in which the services were
rendered; (4) the responsibility imposed; (5) the amount of
money or the value of the property affected by the controversy

or involved in the employment; (6) the skill and experience
called for in the performance of the services; (7) the
professional character and social standing of the attorney; (8)
the results secured, it being a recognized rule that an attorney
may properly charge a much larger fee when it is contingent
than when it is not. (ALIRAS-PR)

Counsel's performance, however, does not justify the award of 25%
attorney's fees. It is well-settled that such award is addressed to sound
judicial discretion and subject to judicial control.

ACTUAL DAMAGES
1. Algarra v Sandejas
Facts: Lucio Algarra sold products of a distillery on a 10% commission and
made an average of P50 per month. He had about twenty regular customers
who, it seems, purchased in small quantities, necessitating regular and
frequent deliveries. He was injured. He had to spend for medical expenses,
stopped work for 2 months, and also lost 16/20 of his customers.
Held:
i. Purpose: The PURPOSE OF THE LAW IN AWARDING ACTUAL DAMAGES is to
repair the wrong that has been done, to compensate for the injury inflicted,
and not to impose a penalty. Actual damages are not dependent on nor
graded by the intent with which the wrongful act is done. In other words,
actual damages are compensatory only. They proceed from a sense of
natural justice, and are designed to repair that of which one has been
deprived by the wrong of another.
The party claiming damages must establish by competent evidence the
amount of such damages, and courts can not give judgment for a
greater amount than those actually proven.
ii. Scope: Actual damages include not only loss already suffered, but loss
of profits which may not have been realized. Plagiarizing from Sanchez
Roman, he says that the indemnity comprises, not only the value of the
loss suffered, but also that of the prospective profit that was not
realized, and the obligation of the debtor in GOOD FAITH is limited to
such losses and damages as were foreseen or might have been
foreseen at the time the obligation was incurred and which are a
necessary consequence of his failure of fulfillment. Losses and damages
under such limitations and frustrated profits must, therefore, be proved
directly by means of the evidence the law authorizes.

the rule may be said to be that their damages are confined to the duration of their enforced absence from their occupation. GENERAL RULE: As to persons whose labor is thus compensated and who completely recover from their injuries. he found that it would be necessary to start with practically no regular trade. The difficult question in the present case is to determine the damage which has resulted to his business through his enforced absence. as is the case of a person working for a stipulated daily or monthly or yearly salary. iii. As a result of the accident. But he could figure on making at least some sales each month to others besides his regular customers. and either win back his old customers from his competitors or else secure others. this same author. which in this case. He had built up an established business which included some 20 regular customers. EXCEPT (as in this case): But the present plaintiff could not resume his work at the same profit he was making when the accident occurred. Other agents had invaded his territory. has the following to say: It is proper to consider the business the plaintiff is engaged in. As to the damages resulting from the actual incapacity of the plaintiff to attend to his business there is no question. and upon becoming physically able to attend to his business. In addition to this he made sales to other people who were not so regular in their purchases. the nature and extent of such business. and loss of the greater portion of his business. Nor are his damages confined to the actual time during which he was physically incapacitated for work.The case at bar involves actual incapacity of the plaintiff for 2 months.) As to the ELEMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED in "estimating the damage done to plaintiff's business by reason of his accident. is P50 per month. the importance of his personal oversight and superintendence in conducting it. he lost all but 4 of his regular customers and his receipts dwindled down to practically nothing. but amount need not be. it need not be a mathematical certainty. Amount of damages for injury to his business ELEMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED While certainty is an essential element of an award of damages. to be allowed on the basis of his earning capacity. During this process of re-establishing his patronage his income would necessarily be less than he was making at . and the consequent loss arising from his inability to prosecute it. of course. citing numerous authorities. Taken as a whole his average monthly income from his business was about P50. These customers represented to him a regular income. They are. Lopez here differentiated injury to person and injury to business). (NB: Sir said that fact of loss must be certain. (NB: Atty. The business of the present plaintiff required his immediate supervision of all the profits derived therefrom were wholly due to his own exertions.

Thus. in this case. he was awarded actual damages for (1) the medical expenses. or the lost income of p50 for two months) and (3) an amount for the damages to his business. and the mere fact that the loss can not be ascertained with absolute accuracy. there can be no manner of doubt. that would be the amount he would be entitled to in this action. The question therefore resolves itself into whether this damage to his business can be so nearly ascertained as to justify a court in awarding any amount whatever. NB: Facts to consider in ascertaining loss to business: 1) nature of business. 3) losses due to absence. That this almost total destruction of his business was directly chargeable to defendant's wrongful act. is no reason for denying plaintiff's claim altogether. (causation) In the present case. it would have continued producing this average income "so long as is usual with things of that nature. 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. When it is shown that a plaintiff's business is a going concern with a fairly steady average profit on the investment. it may be assumed that had the interruption to the business through defendant's wrongful act not occurred. in other words. When in addition to the previous average income of the business it is further shown what the reduced receipts of the business are immediately after the cause of the interruption has been removed.the time of the accident and would continue to be so for some time. there can be no manner of doubt that a loss of profits has resulted from the wrongful act of the defendant. At the trial. . In this respect there is a notable difference between the two systems. so far as pecuniary compensation can do so. But manifestly this ideal compensation cannot be ascertained. No distinction is made therein between damage caused maliciously and intentionally and damages caused through mere negligence in so far as the civil liability of the wrongdoer in concerned. 2) supervision by plaintiff over it. Nor is the defendant required to do more than repair the damage done. The Civil Code requires that the defendant repair the damage caused by his fault or negligence. Of course. we not only have the value of plaintiff's business to him just prior to the accident. he testified that his wife had earned about 15 pesos during the 2 months that he was disabled. to put the plaintiff in the same position. (2) damages to person (p100. Extensive discussion from Amjur: a. that he would have been in had the damage not been inflicted. or. but we also have its value to him after the accident.

but includes such consequential damages as are the direct." . and probable result of the breach. or place in operation for a known purpose are not confined to the difference in value of the machinery as warranted and as it proves to be.When in addition to the previous average income of the business it is further shown what the reduced receipts of the business are immediately after the cause of the interruption has been removed. immediate. but we also have its value to him after the accident. Factors to consider: -When it is shown that a plaintiff's business is a going concern with a fairly steady average profit on the investment. as is the case of a person working for a stipulated daily or monthly or yearly salary.b. it would have continued producing this average income "so long as is usual with things of that nature. But the present plaintiff could not resume his work at the same profit he was making when the accident occurred. while certainty is an essential element of an award of damages. (BELO) e. it may be assumed that had the interruption to the business through defendant's wrongful act not occurred. the rule may be said to be that their damages are confined to the duration of their enforced absence from their occupation. Distinguished a mere salary employee vs one with a business: As to persons whose labor is thus compensated and who completely recover from their injuries. it need not be a mathematical certainty. the importance of his personal oversight and superintendence in conducting it. c. we not only have the value of plaintiff's business to him just prior to the accident. As to the elements to be considered in estimating the damage done to plaintiff's business: it is proper to consider the business the plaintiff is engaged in. Case at bar: The business of the present plaintiff required his immediate supervision. The damages recoverable of a manufacturer or dealer for the breach of warranty of machinery. In the present case. . All the profits derived therefrom were wholly due to his own exertions. Evidence needed: evidence of damages "must rest upon satisfactory proof of the existence in reality of the damages alleged to have been suffered. there can be no manner of doubt that a loss of profits has resulted from the wrongful act of the defendant. the nature and extent of such business. f. which he contracts to furnish. Nor are his damages confined to the actual time during which he was physically incapacitated for work. d. and the consequent loss arising from his inability to prosecure it." But.

and lost money on both. they had contracted three jobs of plumbing. still possible). for established businesses. and the findings of juries.” Gobel case . offered testimony to the effect that he was an attorney at law of ability and in good standing. or where the injury is to a particular subject matter. but no such argument can be made against proving a usual profit of an established business. Spencer . the value of which may be ascertained.Wellington vs. We think this was competent. which caused him to abandon his hotel business. There is as much reason to believe that there will be no profits as to believe that there will be no profits. Held: General rule is that no recovery could be had for prospective profits. good standing as a professional/ businessman: Joslin case . In one case. in substance. but when excluded. but because of lack of proof. Rule on Profits: Profits are not excluded from recovery because they are profits. (NB: so. This was objected to as irrelevant. because of any misconduct or wrongful acts on the part of the defendants or either of them. whereas if not established.When a regular and established business. not. the true general rule for compensating the party injured is to ascertain how much less valuable the business was by reason of the interruption.plaintiff had rented a building from the defendant and used it as a hotel. But nonetheless. one can do “trending” to determine the future profits. evidence as to expected profits must be excluded from the jury because of the uncertainty. it was held: In the present case the plaintiffs had only been in business a short time — not so long that it can be said that they had an established business. the injury had rendered him incapable of pursuing his profession. in making proof of his damages. the court had the following to say. then it would be hard to look for basis. Other proof to adduce: plaintiff may establish his reputation.) Where the plaintiff has just made his arrangements to begin business. f. g. So if with proof. however. immaterial and incompetent. Exception: damages may be allowed when the amount is capable of proof. they are disallowed not because they are prospective.e.g. has been wrongfully interrupted. should be based. and he is prevented from beginning either by tort or a breach of contract. had finished two. and that."The plaintiff. They carried no stock in trade. and allow that as damages. the court may award em. (i. Defendant sued out a wrongful writ of attachment upon the equipment of the plaintiff. and the extent and value of his practice. and their manner of doing business was to secure a contract and then purchase the material necessary for its . profits of which are uncertain. Established business v un-established . it is on the ground that there are no criteria by which to estimate the amount with the certainty on which the adjudications of courts. A business not established for which loss of profits may be allowed.

Nor was it shown that they were capable of so managing this business as to make it earn a profit. if any. To be entitled to an award of actual damages. There was little of that class of business being done at the time. Lopez said that to be entitled to damages.00 relative to the wake and burial of the victim. Only when they are issued in the ordinary course of business. may not enter into a domain of speculation or conjecture. It was an adventure. Neither of them had prior thereto managed or carried on a similar business. Its profits were speculative and remote. 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. . 2. in that case. In the absence of proof on the actual damage suffered. premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable x x x.” “A list of expenses cannot replace receipts when the latter should have been issued as a matter of course in business transactions. However. in making an award must point out specific facts that could afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne. as distinguished from an established business. PNOC 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 a benefit that which would have pertained to him. existing only in anticipation. since. The law. NB: Atty. To enable an injured party to recover actual or compensatory damages. the claim for said amount is supported merely by a list of expenses personally prepared by the widow instead of official receipts. with all its vigor and energy in its effort to right or wrongs and damages for injuries sustained. the jury had not sufficient evidence from which to ascertain profits. any other proof is not the “best proof”). the victim’s widow testified that the family spent a total of P66. It is not shown that they had any means or capital invested in the business other than their tools. Nominal damages are damages in name only and not in fact.” (NB: OR not always required. In view of the character and condition of the plaintiffs' business. one must prove 1) fact of loss and 2) amount 3. The plaintiffs' business lacked duration. People v Mamarungcas Anent the award of actual damages.completion. a party is entitled to nominal damages. permanency.damages cannot be presumed and courts. and recognition. and little. profit derived therefrom.904. “it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty.

temperate damages in the amount of P25. and (2) the rate at which the losses sustained by the respondent should be fixed.00 is automatically granted to the heirs of the victim without need of any evidence other than the fact of the commission of the crime. which was. One half of this amount would be considered as his necessary living expenses.Thus the Court deletes the lower courts’ award of actual damages. In this case. Factor number one in this ruling shall be computed by using the formula based on the American Expectancy Table of Mortality or 2/3 x [80 . The undisputed claim of the victim’s mother was that Andres was “employed” as a laborer at the Victory Rice Mill at the rate of P100.age of the victim at the time of death] = life expectancy in terms of years.000.00 a day. likewise. therefore.” 4. Ii. civil indemnity in the amount of P50. As such. The crime was committed on a Sunday after the victim and his co-workers had finished their work for the day. Likewise. People v Arrelano i.50 days).00 per annum (P100/day for 391. The victim should. While the heirs of the victim did not expressly claim an amount representing the deceased’s loss of earning capacity nor present evidence thereon. such failure does not necessarily prevent recovery of damages considering that there is sufficient basis on record upon which the court may determine a reasonable and fair estimate of such damages. be presumed to have worked everyday including Sundays or rest days. the victim is deemed to have worked a total of 391. since entitlement of the same is shown under the facts of the case. . As has been settled. the computation of the rate of loss of earnings should be based on the net earnings. be proved with certainty. Andres Ventura was eighteen years of age at the time of his death with a life expectance of 41 years. The amount of loss of earning capacity is based mainly on two factors. from the nature of the case.000. special days and regular holidays. under the “1999 Handbook on Workers’ Statutory Monetary Benefits” outlining the minimum legal requirements concerning workers’ monetary and nonmonetary.150.50 days a year with total wages in the amount of P39. These are (1) the number of years of which the damages shall be computed. Nonetheless.00 should be awarded in lieu of actual damages to the heirs of the victim pursuant to Article 2224 of the Civil Code which provides that temperate damages “may be recovered when the court finds that pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot. admitted by the defense. Factor number two is arrived at by multiplying the life expectancy by the earnings of the deceased. III.

00 and medical expenses of P7. And the Court of Appeals. We affirm the appellate court’s assessment of actual damages. without going into specifics. however. receipts should support claims of actual damages. since the defense did not contest that claim.000. However. actual damages include all the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. De Guia v The Manila Electric . and declared explicitly that the evidence sustained it. The claimants are not. that which would have pertained to him (lucro cesante) ii.00. Ordinarily. if and when they are proved. The award thereof must be based on the evidence presented. The trial judge mentioned such damages. speculative and nonsubstantial proof. the unalleged but proved matter of actual damages may be considered by the court. remote. Consequently. approved the award. (2) for the failure to receive.000. not on the personal knowledge of the court. mandated to prove damages in any specific or certain amount in order to recover damages for a substantial amount.00 as the defense admitted that the victim’s family incurred funeral expenses of P6. Is the award of actual damages proper? While the prayer by the respondents in their “Answer” mentions only exemplary damages. Adrian Wilson v TMX Actual damages puts the claimant in the position in which he had been before he was injured. Justiva v Gustilo Doctrine: No need to allege claim for damages in pleadings if it is put in issue in the course of the trial. yet petitioners failed to object to such presentation. classified as one (1) for the loss of what a person already possesses (daño emergente) and the other.” This prayer may include “actual damages”.The heirs of the victim should also be awarded actual damages in the total amount of P13. 8. When the existence of a loss is established. moral damages and attorney’s fees. GQ Garments v Miranda i. it should be granted. as a benefit. The amount of the damages should be determined with reasonable certainty 7. defendants introduced evidence of actual damages. one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. absolute certainty as to its amount is not required. 5. and certainly not on flimsy.000. 6. Under the Civil Code. therein also is a plea for “such further relief x x x as this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable. It is to be observed that in the course of the trial.

it results that the defendant's liability is limited to such damages as might. it could reasonably be expected that it would have continued earning from the business in which it was engaged. therefore. There is nothing novel in this proposition. 3) Damages – its extent: Petitioners are at best reminded that indemnification for damages comprehends not only the value of the loss suffered but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain. Lim v. i. applying them to the facts of this case. Held: 1) The thrust of the law in enjoining the kabit system is not so much as to penalize the parties but to identify the person upon whom responsibility may be fixed in case of an accident with the end view of protecting the riding public. since both the civil and the common law are agreed upon the point that the damages ordinarily recoverable for the breach of a contractual obligation. In other words. we are constrained to depart from the conclusion of the lower courts that .000. much less involved. The law will not put him in a position better than where he should be in had not the wrong happened. 4) Legal interest on unliquidated damages – when imposed: However.e. The award therefore of P236. indemnification for damages is not limited to damnum emergens or actual loss but extends to lucrum cessans or the amount of profit lost. within the meaning of article 1107 of the same Code. at the time of the accident.Although in case like this the defendant must answer for the consequences of the negligence of its employee. are such as can reasonably be foreseen at the time the obligation is contracted. damage wrought upon his jeepney and the income lost from his transportation business. 2) Damages – its limits: It is a fundamental principle in the law on damages that a defendant cannot be held liable in damages for more than the actual loss which he has inflicted and that a plaintiff is entitled to no more than the just and adequate compensation for the injury suffered. 9.00 as compensatory damages is not beyond reason nor speculative as it is based on a reasonable estimate of the total damage suffered by Gonzales. CA Facts: Owner and operator of a jeepney without a certificate of public convenience (kabit system) figured in an accident with a truck owned by lim. Case at bar: Had Gonzales’ jeepney not met an accident. against a person who has acted in good faith. the court has the power to moderate liability according to the circumstances of the case. loses its force if the public at large is not deceived. An employer who has in fact displayed due diligence in choosing and instructing his servants is entitled to be considered a debtor in good faith. The policy. Construing these two provisions together. have been reasonably foreseen as a probable consequence of the physical injuries inflicted upon the plaintiff and which were in fact a necessary result of those injuries.

e. We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred when it failed to treat the amended and supplemental complaint of TSMC and TSICA as if such complaint had in fact been amended to conform to the evidence.00 being refuted by Lim who argue that they could have the vehicle repaired easily for P20.upon the award of compensatory damages legal interest should be imposed beginning 22 July 1990. even though the relevant pleading had not been previously amended. so long as the basic requirements of fair play had been met. as where litigants were given full opportunity to support their respective contentions and to object to or refute each other's evidence. 2213.00.000. In this case. Talisay Silay v Gonzales A court may rule and render judgment on the basis of the evidence before it. 5) Doctrine of avoidable consequences: One last word. interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum should be from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to be reasonably ascertained). the amount due Gonzales was not a liquidated account that was already demandable and payable. assessed and determined by the courts after proof. interest “cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages. It is the burden of petitioners… 10. 11. i. Upon the provisions of Art. unliquidated and not known until definitely ascertained. we sadly note that in the present case Lim failed to offer in evidence the estimated amount of the damage caused by Gonzales’ unconcern towards the damaged vehicle. However. the date of the accident. so long as no surprise or prejudice is thereby caused to the adverse party. One who is injured then by the wrongful or negligent act of another should exercise reasonable care and diligence to minimize the resulting damage.. Coleman v Hotel de France . the court may validly treat the pleadings as if they had been amended to conform to the evidence and proceed to adjudicate on the basis of all the evidence before it. In fine.000. and when it limited the damages due to TSMC and TSICA to the amount prayed for in their original complaint. We have observed that Gonzales left his passenger jeepney by the roadside at the mercy of the elements. except when the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. Put a little differently. the matter was not a liquidated obligation as the assessment of the damage on the vehicle was heavily debated upon by the parties with Gonzales demand for P236.” It is axiomatic that if the suit were for damages. Article 2203 exhorts parties suffering from loss or injury to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question.

we proceed to consider the question of the liability of Teodorica Endencia for damages without reference . therefore. her attorneys have not seen fit to interpose the defense of res judicata in her behalf.” EXCEPT: if you are collecting from the interferer who was not party to the original action. and as the defendant corporation was not a party to that action. If not. but the full amount which she might have earned under the contract less such compensation as she actually obtained or might have obtained in some other employment during the term of the contract which had not yet expired at the date of the breach. Damages based on tortious interference: 1) The liability for damages of the original obligor must be determined in the action to enforce the original contract (specific performance). Daywalt v Corporacion Suit against defendant who was found to have encroached on the land of plaintiff. “As to Teodorica Endencia. the damages assessed are sufficient to compensate the plaintiff for the use and occupation of the land during the whole time it was used. it may not be recovered in another action. the burden of proof as to the amount by which the prima facie damage may thus be reduced being upon the defendant 12. we agree with the trial judge that plaintiff is entitled to recover not merely compensation for services rendered before the breach of the contract by her employer. and such defense could not in any event be of any avail to it. The court said: a. to wit: b. and it is clear that if damages are not sought or recovered in the action to enforce performance they cannot be recovered in an independent action.Holding as we do that the defendant corporation without just cause or excuse discharged the plaintiff in flagrant violation of its contract of employment with her. for which reason it became necessary to allow them to go over to pasture on the land in question. and it is not clear that the whole of the land was used for pasturage at any time. Held: Notwithstanding this circumstance. “Indemnification for damages resulting from the breach of a contract is a right inseparably annexed to every action for the fulfillment of the obligation. However. There is evidence in the record strongly tending to show that the wrongful use of the land by the defendant was not continuous throughout the year but was confined mostly to the season when the forage obtainable on the land of the defendant corporation was not sufficient to maintain its cattle. it should be considered that the right of action to recover damages for the breach of the contract in question was exhausted in the prior suit.

Ordinary damages is found in all breaches of contract where there are no special circumstances to distinguish the case specially from other contracts. The consideration paid for an unperformed promise is an instance of this sort of damage. (1) the ordinary.” 2) Rule: The stranger cannot become more extensively liable in damages for the nonperformance of the contract than the party in whose behalf he intermeddles. the court studied the damages attributable to the original obligor. to determine the liability of the interferer (corporation). according to the usual course of things. a. In this case.The damages recoverable in case of the breach of a contract are two sorts. namely. Before such damage can be recovered the plaintiff must show that the particular condition which made the damage a possible and likely consequence of the breach was known to the defendant at the time the contract was made. we believe. Special damage. apart from the actual terms to the contract exists or intervenes. what is the measure of damages for the wrongful detention of real property by the vender after the time has come for him to place the purchaser in possession? The damages ordinarily and normally recoverable against a vendor for failure to deliver land which he has contracted to deliver is the value of the use and occupation of the land for the time during which it is wrongfully withheld. 4) Ordinary vs. .to this point. Ordinary damage is assumed as a matter of law to be within the contemplation of the parties. This is conclusively presumed from the immediateness and inevitableness of the damage. In cases involving only ordinary damage no discussion is ever indulged as to whether that damage was contemplated or not. and (2) special damages. could not reasonably be expected to foresee. The rule that the measure of damages for the wrongful detention of land is normally to be found in the value of use and occupation is. on the other hand. as the rule that the measure of damages for the wrongful detention of money is to be found in the interest. a. indeed. In all such cases the damages recoverable are such as naturally and generally would result from such a breach. thus. one of the things that may be considered certain in the law almost as well settled. natural. without actual notice of that external condition. Now. b. is such as follows less directly from the breach than ordinary damage. Special damages . as it were. to give a turn to affairs and to increase damage in a way that the promisor. 3) Rule on unlawful detention of property: a. and the recovery of such damage follows as a necessary legal consequence of the breach. Teodora was the one directly liable/ obligor. It is only found in case where some external condition. and in a sense necessary damage.

in the absence of such a stipulation. Parents sued LTB for B of K and MRR for QD. and no case has been called to our attention where. and the contract is made with the eyes of the vendor or lessor open to the possibility of the damage which may result to the other party from his own failure to give possession. 13. The LTB bus was negligent. causing the bus to collide with an MRR train. The victim became a veggie. and secondly. inasmuch as at the time when the rights of the parties under the contract were determined. damages have been held to be recoverable by the purchaser in excess of the normal value of use and occupation. Where the purchaser desires to protect himself. Claimed . as already suggested. for. 7) THUS. by advising Teodorica not to perform the contract. nothing was known to any of them about the San Francisco capitalist who would be willing to back the project. and the damages ordinarily recoverable are in all events limited to such as might be reasonably foreseen in the light of the facts then known to the contracting parties. 6) Tip on how the buyer may protect his interest: The extent of the liability for the breach of a contract must be determined in the light of the situation in existence at the time the contract is made. said corporation could in no event render itself more extensively liable than the principal in the contract.5) Explanation: We recognize the possibility that more extensive damages (special damages) may be recovered where. in the contingency of the failure of the vendor promptly to give possession. NB: To bring damages which would ordinarily be treated as remote within the category of recoverable special damages. Cariaga v LTB Facts: Cariaga was aUST med student who was rode an LTB bus. 8) Case at bar. he should cause to be inserted in the contract a clause providing for stipulated amount to be paid upon failure of the vendor to give possession. first. from the possibility of incurring other damages than such as are incident to the normal value of the use and occupation. held: damages laid under the second cause of action in the complaint could not be recovered from her. because the damages in question are special damages which were not within contemplation of the parties when the contract was made. or lessor. This conclusion is also necessarily fatal to the right of the plaintiff to recover such damages from the defendant corporation. it is necessary that the condition should be made the subject of contract in such sense as to become an express or implied term of the engagement. is aware of the use to which the purchaser or lessee desires to put the property which is the subject of the contract. because said damages are too remote to be the subject of recovery. the vendor. Case at bar: The case before us is not of this character. at the time of the creation of the contractual obligation.

and neither can they premise their claim upon the negligence or quasi-delict of the LTB for the simple reason that they were not themselves injured as a . a witness for the LTB. LTB liable for B of K. that the income which Edgardo Cariaga could earn if he should finish the medical course and pass the corresponding board examinations must be deemed to be within the same category because they could have reasonably been foreseen by the parties at the time he boarded the bus No. could be awarded. hospital and other expenses in the total sum of P17.actual damages in behalf of their child. the amount of P300. and also separately for themselves. Actual damages in behalf of victim – Yes b. As held by the trial court. if ever.75 are within this category. Amado Doria. in so far as the LTB is concerned. only in QD suits. Moral damages.00 could easily be expected as the minimum monthly income (Query: What if they filed a QD case versus LTB? Will LTB be liable for the future income he could have earned as a doctor even if no reasonably foreseen?) ii. 133 owned and operated by the LTB. Upon this premise it claims that only the actual damages suffered by Edgardo Cariaga consisting of medical. Actual damages for the parents – No c. the present action is based upon a breach of contract of carriage to which said spouses were not a party. We are of the opinion. and also moral damages. Moral damages – No Discussion on Damages: i. Actual damages for parents . Held: i. Actual damages in behalf of victim The court awarded actual damages based on the medical expenses and also the future income he might receive (value of which testified to by an expert witness who is a doctor).disallowed The claim made by said spouses for actual and compensatory damages is likewise without merits. iii. ii. Moral damages – disallowed Predicated on the fact that the suit against LTB was for breach of contract of carriage. a. according to Dr. it appears that. As regards the income that he could possibly earn as a medical practitioner. however.719. MRR proved not liable for QD. But.

therefore. Attorney’s fees: LCs awarded attorneys fees but did not state reason therefor. given the circumstances of the case at bar. Nabua A first year IE student died due to a collision. SC upheld the award of moral damages: It must be stressed that moral damages are not intended to enrich a plaintiff at the expense of the defendant. To justify an award of actual damages. Court cited 2 cases: i. OMC Carriers Inc v. They are awarded to allow the plaintiff to obtain means.result of the collision between the LTB bus and train owned by the Manila Railroad Company. ACTUAL DAMAGES a. an award of P50. iii. if not yet employed at the time of death.000. ii. The SC said: Compensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of earnings but for loss of capacity to earn money. b.In sharp contrast with the situation obtaining in People v. the RTC erred when it awarded the amount of P110. The damages awarded were questioned as follows: i. Parents sued for damages. there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss.00 as moral damages is proper. Actual damages are such compensation or damages for an injury that will put the injured party in the position in which he had been before he was injured. the amount of actual damages that can only be recovered is P59.000.50. Based on the foregoing. Teehankee. it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty. Thus. diversion or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he/she has undergone due to the defendant’s culpable action and must. Credence can be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts. Must be substantiated by receipts: For one to be entitled to actual damages.00 as actual damages.173. They pertain to such injuries or losses that are actually sustained and susceptible of measurement. On proof of future income. be proportional to the suffering inflicted. where the . as the said amount was not duly substantiated with receipts. 14. RTC awarded 60k for death indemnity. The SC held: The CA did not explain why it was still awarding attorney’s fees to respondents. Evidence must be presented that the victim. The court modified this as only 50k is the amount established in jurisprudence as the proper amount. where damages awarded . was reasonably certain to complete training for a specific profession. Hence. perforce. premised upon competent proof and the best evidence obtainable by the injured party.Here the SC affirmed the deletion of the 2mio award for loss of earning capacity. such an award must be deleted. iv.

She consistently performed well in her studies since grade school. Reggie Nabua. the spouses Rosales did not content themselves with simply establishing Liza Rosalie’s enrollment at UP Integrated School. 15. for the duration that the defendant incurred delay). but failed to repair entirely. But compensation should be allowed for loss of earning capacity resulting from the death of a minor who has not yet commenced employment or training for a specific profession if sufficient evidence is presented to establish the amount thereof c. Held: i. Unlike in Metro Transit where evidence of good academic record.000. extracurricular activities. But the defendant not only incurred delay. the CA was correct when it deleted the award of compensatory damages amounting to P2. On the non-liability clause . and obedient child. ii. the penalty clause takes the place of indemnity for damages and the payment of interests in case of non-compliance with the obligation.00. Teehankee.Respondents contend that under Clause 7 of the General Conditions their liability “does not extend to consequential damages either direct or indirect. promising artist. where damages not awarded. expenses by reason of the delay. ii. Thus: In the case at bar.Under Article 1226 of the Civil Code.000. plaintiff is claiming for actual damages and consequential damages (losses. Hence. however. Since there is no stipulation . They presented evidence to show that Liza Rosalie was a good student. On penalty clauses . Continental Cement v Asea Facts: Plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant to repair his equipment. unless there is a stipulation to the contrary. is unavailing because respondents failed to show that petitioner was duly furnished with a copy of said General Conditions. as the same is without any basis.In People v.” This contention. Now. and varied interests were presented in court. respondents only testified to the fact that the victim. herein respondents offered no such evidence.prosecution merely presented evidence to show the fact of the victim’s graduation from high school and the fact of his enrollment in a flying school. no award of compensation for loss of earning capacity was granted to the heirs of a college freshman because there was no sufficient evidence on record to show that the victim would eventually become a professional pilot. was a freshman taking up Industrial Engineering at the Technological Institute of the Philippines in Cubao.

To be liable for special damages. production loss. for a few days. 16.. such as loss of profits on account of delay or failure of delivery. He ordered copies of a film from Manila. ii. arising from a breach of contract. could not have reasonably foreseen that it would be made liable for production loss. i. as already stated. iii. But PAL failed to drop the items off at the airport. at the time it agreed to repair petitioner’s Kiln Drive Motor. not special damages. Liability for damages due to delay both under the NCC and Code of Commerce only cover ordinary damages. plaintiff wanted to show a movie in his theater to maximize his profits in an upcoming fiesta. Or. Thus. in the ordinary course of things. the pertinent provisions regarding damages only treats of ordinary damages or damages in general. 17. especially since the motor under repair was a spare motor. such unusual or extraordinary damages must have been brought within the contemplation of the parties as the probable result of a breach at the time of or prior to contracting. plaintiff lost profits. Villa Rey Transit v CA . such as the present alleged loss of profits on account of delay or failure of delivery. and which probably would lead to such special loss if he defaulted.to the contrary.Consequential damages. i. He is now claiming for the profits which he should have gained. Mendoza v PAL Facts: Here. Held: Denied.25 per day of delay covers all other damages (i. But before defendant could be held to special damages. it must have appeared that he had notice at the time of delivery to him of the particular circumstances attending the shipment. and the film was to be brought to his place via PAL. or 2) entered into a special contract with the carrier. labor cost and rental of the crane in case it fails to repair the motor or incurs delay in delivering the same. labor cost. he should notify the carrier of the 1) nature of the items to be delivered.On consequential damages . notice then of any special circumstances which will show that the damages to be anticipated from a breach would be enhanced has been held sufficient for this effect. the penalty in the amount of P987. in order to impose on the defaulting party further liability than for damages naturally and directly. Generally. iii.e.e. may be recovered only if such damages were reasonably foreseen or have been brought within the contemplation of the parties as the probable result of a breach at the time of or prior to contracting respondent ABB. 2) purpose and 3) desire to rush. Even applying the provisions of the Code of Commerce. What he should have done: 1) either ordered the films earlier. and rental of the crane) claimed by petitioner. as the rule has been stated in another form.

184. of a purely arbitrary standard. life expectancy is. only net earnings. an important element in fixing the amount recoverable by private respondents herein. In fixing the amount of that support. which is the annual salary of Policronio Quintos. the liability of petitioner herein had been fixed at the rate only of P2. but rather the loss of that portion of the earnings which the beneficiary would have received. not of the full amount of his earnings. as an element of damages to one’s estate for his death by wrongful act is necessarily his net earning capacity or his capacity to acquire money. ii. Jr. as a young “training assistant” b. no cogent reason has been given to warrant its disregard and the adoption. the amount recoverable is not loss of the entire earning. c. Formula (2/3 x [80-30] = life expectancy) b. In other words. The determination of such amount depends. Although it is not the sole element determinative of said amount. which should be deducted from his earnings.How to compute for loss of earning capacity i. We must reckon with the “necessary expenses of his own living”. First factor: life expectancy. at the time of his death. . such as a four year rule. but. Petitioner impugns the decision appealed from upon the ground that the damages awarded therein will have to be paid now. a. mainly upon TWO (2) FACTORS. also. and that said damages consist. We are mainly concerned with the determination of the losses or damages sustained by the private respondents. not gross earning. in the case at bar. Thus. it has been consistently held that EARNING CAPACITY. iii. as dependents and intestate heirs of the deceased. “less the necessary expense for his own living Stated otherwise. the total of the earnings less expenses necessary in the creation of such earnings or income and less living and other incidental expenses. namely: (1) the number of years on the basis of which the damages shall be computed and (2) the rate at which the losses sustained by said respondents should be fixed. whereas most of those sought to be indemnified will be suffered years later.00 a year. Thus. but of the support they received or would have received from him had he not died in consequence of the negligence of petitioner’s agent. not only relevant. Held: Although payment of the award in the case at bar will have to take place upon the finality of the decision therein. Second factor: earning capacity a. are to be considered that is.

Petitioners are entitled to indemnity for the death of Ruelito which is fixed at P50. Hence.e.age of deceased at the time of death] = 2/3 x [80 .. Applying the above guidelines. the formula for its computation is: Life expectancy is determined in accordance with the formula: 2 / 3 x [80 — age of deceased at the time of death] i. i. but only such portion as he would have used to support his dependents or heirs. The loss is not equivalent to the entire earnings of the deceased. life expectancy.28] =2/3 x [52] Life expectancy = 35 . As for damages representing unearned income. The first factor.e. Cruz v Sun Holidays Sample computation of Actual Damages: Civil Code holds the common carrier in breach of its contract of carriage that results in the death of a passenger liable to pay the following: (1) indemnity for death. iii.18. the living expenses are fixed at half of the gross income. the Court determines Ruelito's life expectancy as follows: Life expectancy = 2/3 x [80 . to be deducted from his gross earnings are the necessary expenses supposed to be used by the deceased for his own needs. is computed by applying the formula (2/3 x [80 — age at death]) ii.. the total earnings less expenses necessary in the creation of such earnings or income and less living and other incidental expenses. i.000. In computing the third factor – necessary living expense: when there is no showing that the living expenses constituted the smaller percentage of the gross income. The second factor is computed by multiplying the life expectancy by the net earnings of the deceased. (2) indemnity for loss of earning capacity and (3) moral damages.

= 35 x (P475. whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2. Since the amounts payable by respondent have been determined with certainty only in the present petition. when converted to Philippine peso applying the annual average exchange rate of $1 = P44 in 2000. however. quasi-contracts.000 Interest Computation Finally. where the demand is established with reasonable certainty. When the obligation is breached. regardless of its source.e. the interest due shall be computed .. Ruelito’s net earning capacity is thus computed as follows: Net Earning Capacity = life expectancy x (gross annual income reasonable and necessary living expenses). an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. contracts. 2. subject to the following rules. 1169.amounts to P39. to wit — 1.e. be on the amount finally adjudged. a loan or forbearance of money. i.Documentary evidence shows that Ruelito was earning a basic monthly salary of $900 which. In the absence of stipulation. the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained).600) Net Earning Capacity = P8.. the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. Accordingly. the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default. Furthermore.200 P237. Court of Appeals teaches that when an obligation. the rate of legal interest. from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code. shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. above. v. i. the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. Eastern Shipping Lines. i. the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded.600. When an obligation. and it consists in the payment of a sum of money. Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made. in any case.600) = 35 x (P237. this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit.e. 3. delicts or quasi-delicts is breached. No interest. law. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory.316. The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall. (emphasis supplied). the contravenor can be held liable for payment of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages. Inc. is breached. not constituting a loan or forbearance of money. shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction..

at bottom. General Rule: Actual damages must be substantiated by documentary evidence. As a rule. 21.” On the other hand. Here. gross annual income requires the presentation of documentary evidence for the purpose of proving the victim’s annual income.000. in accordance with paragraph number 3 of the immediately cited guideline in Easter Shipping Lines. in which case.000. the insurance proceeds should be credited in favor of the errant driver. De Caliston v CA The pension of the decedent being a sure income that was cut short by her death for which Dalmacio was responsible. Meanwhile. Lee i. Hence. or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws. EXCEPT: By way of exception. the victim’s net income was correctly pegged at 50% of his gross income in the absence of proof as regards the victim’s living expenses.upon the finality of this decision at the rate of 12% per annum until satisfaction. Tamayo v Senora PNP officer died in a car accident. judicial notice may be taken of the fact that at in the deceased's line of work no documentary evidence is available.00 which is just equivalent to the pension the decedent would have received for one year if she did not die. 19. Proper? Held: No. arises from the same culpa. it used (55-aged at death) since 55 yo is the retirement age for the PNP. Phil Hawk Corp v. The P5. 20.00. ii. the RTC erred in modifying the formula and using the retirement age of the members of the PNP (55) instead of “80. such as receipts. . The RTC modified the formula for net earning capacity – instead of (80-age at death).00 paid to the herein petitioner by the insurer of the passenger bus which figured in the accident may be deemed to have come from the bus owner who procured the insurance. The victim’s heirs presented in evidence Señora’s pay slip from the PNP. the surviving heir of the former is entitled to the award of P10. showing him to have had a gross monthly salary of P12. Since the civil liability (ex-delicto) of the latter for the death caused by his driver is subsidiary and. damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when: (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws. in order to prove expenses incurred as a result of the death of the victim or the physical injuries sustained by the victim. competent proof of income was one’s Certificate of Tax Withheld. documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity.754. Inc.

All this was due to the fault of the respondent bank which was undeniably remiss in its duty to the petitioner. Simex v CA (1990) Plaintiff here is a corporation who is a depositor of a bank. a corporation is not as a rule entitled to moral damages because. it cannot experience physical suffering or such sentiments as wounded feelings.000 is nothing short of preposterous. Exemplary damages Since banks are affected with public interest.000. 22. Held: Actual damages The fact is that the petitioner’s credit line was canceled and its orders were not acted upon pending receipt of actual payment by the suppliers. or its name that prestigious. Moral damages: Its claim of moral damages in the amount of P1. to sustain such an extravagant pretense. Petitioner did suffer injury because of the private respondent’s negligence that caused the dishonor of the checks issued by it. Article 2205 of the Civil Code provides that actual or compensatory damages may be received “(2) for injury to the plaintiff’s business standing or commercial credit. serious anxiety. resulting in its social humiliation.iii. Thus. The bank negligently dishonored the checks drawn by the plaintiff. but for moral damages etc.”. Moreover. It sued not for actual damages. it is reasonable to peg necessary expenses for the lease and operation of the gasoline station at 80 percent of the gross income. the plaintiff’s reputation was damaged. The only exception to this rule is where the corporation has a good reputation that is debased. Its business declined. Its business certainly is not that big. not being a natural person. Its standing was reduced in the business community. mental anguish and moral shock. There is no question that the petitioner did sustain actual injury as a result of the dishonored checks and that the existence of the loss having been established “absolute certainty as to its amount is not required.” Such injury should bolster all the more the demand of the petitioner for moral damages and justifies the examination by this Court of the validity and reasonableness of the said claim. Its reputation was tarnished. In the absence of documentary evidence. and peg living expenses at 50 percent of the net income (gross income less necessary expenses). The immediate consequence was that its prestige was impaired because of the bouncing checks and confidence in it as a reliable debtor was diminished. the court here imposed .

the appellate court merely took as good WILMAG's bare assertion that its "credit standing in the community were [sic] completely shattered. WILMAG has no business reputation or commercial credit standing in the community (in its decision. Tanay Recreation Center v. seeking to justify the present action for damages against NPC allegedly because it could not as a result pay its loans to banks and fulfill its obligations to their subdivision buyers. The rule is that actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed. it was not the fault of the defendant) 24. whatever actual damages that petitioner suffered from the . its entire business destroyed and its mortgages lost" but cites no evidence whatsoever to support the same.00 as annual income from rent. It must point out specific facts.00 annual income divided by 12 months). Suffice it to state that NPC has nothing whatever to do with such suits and certainly cannot be held in any way liable for WILMAGs (apparently known to its creditors also as RAMAWIL) failure to live up to their contractual undertakings with them. Fausto (query: overturns Simex?) Facts: Violation of lessor of right of first refusal. 23. while in here. it is safe to presume that TRCDC generated a monthly income of P10. the Court of Appeals did not even mention or discuss the business reputation or standing of WILMAG)” WILMAG enumerated a litany of "34 civil and 2 criminal cases for estafa" filed against it and its controlling stockholder Natividad M.000. (NB: Differences with Simex case – (1) moral damages claimed in simex. they derived the amount of P120.000.000. but must depend upon competent proof that they have been suffered by the injured party and on the best obtainable evidence of the actual amount thereof. but here actual damages.00 a month (P120. Held: i. (2) simex. At best therefore. but must be proved with reasonable degree of certainty. RCDC’s accountant. or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages. these damages have no legal basis in view of our finding that WILMAG has no cause of action against NPC. More importantly. From said financial statement. As NPC submits in its brief.000. it was really the fault of the defendant. Merle Cruz.00 for alleged injury to WILMAG's business standing or commercial credit. Fajardo by third parties. which could afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne. conjectures. A court cannot rely on speculations.exemplary damages as well. stated that based on the corporation’s financial statement for the years 1990 and 1991. NPC v CA “And such actual or compensatory damages must be established by clear evidence. In justifying its award of damages in the amount of P 500.

25. For instance. it has no feelings.00. definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered. being an artificial person and having existence only in legal contemplation. At present. 2205. Hence. the amount of the indemnity has through the years been gradually increased based on the value of the peso.65. it may still be awarded in the concept of temperate or moderate damages. There are cases where from the nature of the case. Held: i. (2) For injury to the plaintiff’s business standing or commercial credit.00. they submitted receipts showing that expenses for the funeral.000. the claim for moral damages must be denied. In arriving at a reasonable level of temperate damages to be awarded. during the trial. Damages may be recovered:(1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury. Actual damages However. . The award of moral damages cannot be granted in favor of a corporation because. wake. experience physical suffering and mental anguish. indemnity for death: Art. 2206 provides for the payment of indemnity for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict. which can be experienced only by one having a nervous system. ii. although the court is convinced that there has been such loss.cockpit’s closure for a period of two months can be reasonably summed up only to P20.000. to wit: Art.226. It cannot. no emotions. Initially fixed in said article of the Civil Code at P3. injury to one's commercial credit or to the goodwill of a business firm is often hard to show certainty in terms of money… iii. trial courts are guided by the ruling that: . no senses. Petitioner being a corporation. ii. . and interment of Liza Rosalie amounted only to P60.000. it is fixed at P50. therefore. apart from the indemnity for death. . the spouses Rosales are entitled to recover the above amount as actual damages. An award of damages for loss of goodwill or reputation falls under actual or compensatory damages as provided in Article 2205 of the Civil Code. Even if it is not recoverable as compensatory damages. MMTC v CA Facts: High school UP student died because she was hit by a speeding bus along Katip.00.

was reasonably certain to complete training for a specific profession. guidance counselor of the University of the Philippines Integrated School.125. the “spouse. and obedient child. Considering her good academic record. 2206. The spouses Rosales did not content themselves with simply establishing Liza Rosalie’s enrollment at UP Integrated School. iv. legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. Evidence must be presented that the victim. This amount seems reasonable to us as moral damages for the loss of a minor child.50513. 2206 of the Civil Code provides that in addition to the indemnity for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict. In People v. and with a balanced personality. Moral damages Under Art.iii.. the “defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased. She consistently performed well in her studies since grade school.505 / 12 = 1. and therefore.” The reason for the grant of moral damages has been explained thus: The award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration. They presented evidence to show that Liza Rosalie was a good student. extracurricular activities. A survey taken in 1984 when Liza Rosalie was 12 years old showed that she had good study habits and attitudes. of the spiritual status quo ante. if not yet employed at the time of death.00 37 x 365 = 13. and varied interests. Cleofe Chi. it is reasonable to assume that Liza Rosalie would have enjoyed a successful professional career had it not been for her untimely death. this Court awarded P1 million as moral damages to the heirs of a 17-year-old girl who was murdered.42 (equivalent monthly rate) . Compensation for loss of earning capacity Art. The intensity of the pain experienced by the relatives of the victim is proportionate to the intensity of affection for him and bears no relation whatsoever with the wealth or means of the offender. and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter. promising artist. Compensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of earnings but for loss of capacity to earn money. well-liked. described Liza Rosalie as personable. Jr. Computation: Wage Order (1984) = 37. it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. whether he or she was a victim of a crime or a quasi-delict. Teehankee. within the limits of the possible.

870. Anent moral damages.00 as civil indemnity.9346.000.23 (net annual income) 7.315.125. However. People v Anticamara i.630.42 x 13 (representing 13 income) th month pay) = 14.00.1. The Court awards the amount of P30.46 (gross annual 14. without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim. murder P75. Moral damages is granted in recognition of the . rape P75.000. Quiachon.000. In People v. we award the amount of P50. 9346.000.” (so if asked: T/F.000. ALL moral damages must be proved.630. False) 27. even if the penalty of death is not to be imposed because of the prohibition in R. the civil indemnity of P75. and other proved actual damages.23 x 44 (life expectancy) = 321.000.000. as exemplary damages. Consistent with this rule. P75.12 (net earning capacity) 26.00 as exemplary damages. the award of moral damages should be increased from P50.000.00 as moral damages and P30.000. because of the presence of the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation in the commission of the crime.00 as moral damages. AAA is entitled to moral damages pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code.00 to P75.A.00 as civil indemnity. P75. consistent with recent jurisprudence on heinous crimes where the imposable penalty is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to R.00 as moral damages in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.000.000.46 x 50% = 7.315.00 is proper. People v Beduya "Moral damages are mandatory in cases of murder and homicide without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim. ii.00.71 without the necessity of additional pleadings or proof other than the fact of rape.00 as exemplary damage In addition. the same are mandatory in cases of murder. No.A. because it is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense. in line with current jurisprudence on the matter. The award of exemplary damages is in order. P30.

an aggravating circumstance. iii.000.00 to conform to recent jurisprudence. Damages? Held: i. the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim.00 and the award for mandatory civil indemnity to P75. rather than to the civil.000.00 as civil indemnity and P50.000. iv. whether ordinary or qualifying. relative to the civil aspect of the case. He didn’t suddenly die. Thus. however.victim’s injury necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape. (3) moral damages. the ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal. Such award is separate and distinct from the civil indemnity. (5) attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation.00 as moral damages. In fine. SC ruled that qualifying circumstance of treachery was present. There is no distinction between ordinary and qualifying circumstance insofar as damages are concerned Withal.000. Amount of civil liability ex delicto and exemplary damages under current jurisprudence: We. liability of the offender. . 28.00. when death occurs due to a crime.00 awarded as moral damages is reduced to P75. He died 7 days later. (4) exemplary damages.” iii. was suddenly stabbed by the accused. the amount of P100. while riding his bike. kidnapping P50. increase the award of exemplary damages to P30. Damages allowable if death due to a crime Anent the award of damages.000. He was able to go home and tell his bros who killed him (dying declaration). However. (2) actual or compensatory damages. should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code. and (6) interest. Moral damages to be awarded when death is caused by crime even with the absence of proof. in line with current jurisprudence. (ICA MEA) ii.000. he is guilty of murder. People v Rarugal (2013 case) Facts: Victim. in proper cases.

P. there are two concepts of attorney’s fees.We sustain the RTC’s award for moral damages in the amount of P50. Held: i. Since the vendee was not able to pay at the stipulated date. attorney’s fees as part of damages is awarded only in the instances specified in Article 2208 of the Civil Code. A contract of sale was perfected. As borne out by human nature and experience.00 even in the absence of proof of mental and emotional suffering of the victim’s heirs. and the items were already delivered. (8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws. Stipulated interest rate will be decreased if unconscionable. a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim’s family. laborers and skilled workers. attorney’s fees represent the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter. which provides free legal assistance to indigent litigants. In its extraordinary sense. and not counsel. attorney’s fees may be awarded by the court as indemnity for damages to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing party. Held: Finally. in its extraordinary concept. In the ordinary sense. David v Misamis Facts: Contract of sale of equipment. . Office of Legal Aid. the parties agreed to extend the term but with a 24% interest rate. 29. On the other hand. among which are the following which obtain in the instant case: (7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers. there is no merit in petitioners’ claim that attorney’s fees may not be awarded to the respondent since his case was being handled pro bono by the U.000. Padilla Machine shop v Javilgas Illegal dismissal case. In this jurisdiction. 30. xxxx (11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered.

2208 of NCC only when: a. 31. Compensation is fixed by the rule but such compensation is in the nature of executor’s or administrator’s commissions.” the trial judge must be said to have gravely abused its discretion.472. Serquina’s attorney’s fees. No oppositors. Granted. unconscionable and should be equitably reduced. a winning party may be awarded attorney’s fees only in case plaintiff’s action or defendant’s stand is so untenable as to amount to gross and evident bad faith. b. and the settlement has been attended with great difficulty. and never as attorney’s fees. and has required a high degree of capacity on the part of the executor or administrator. Accordingly. Mutatis mutandis. Attorney’s fees will be awarded for cases outside the enumeration under Art.722. to operate as a “lien on the subject properties. filed a petition for probate of a will. however. but rather. the stipulated rate is. A greater sum other than that established by the rule may be allowed ‘in any special case. where the estate is large. Held: The rule (ROC) is therefore clear that an administrator or executor may be allowed fees for the necessary expenses he has incurred as such. If stipulated.’ It is left to the sound discretion of the court.000. (Also discussed ordinary and extraordinary attorney’s fees) iii.That being said. his client. Lacson v Reyes Facts: Lawyer. Accordingly. but he may not recover attorney’s fees from the estate. We have held that a lawyer of an administrator or executor may not charge the estate for his fees. the Court now comes to David’s prayer that MOELCI be made to pay the total sum of P5.27 plus the stipulated interest at 24% per annum from the filing of the complaint. MOELCI’s case cannot be similarly classified. In the absence of stipulation. David was compelled to file an action against MOELCI but this reason alone will not warrant an award of attorney’s fees. to the extent that the trial court set aside the sum of P65. Although the Court agrees that MOELCI should pay interest. ii. the excessive interest of 24% per annum stipulated in the sales invoice should be reduced to 12% per annum. where the . It is settled that the award of attorney’s fees is the exception rather than the rule. as administrator and lawyer of heirs.00 as and for Mr. Attorneys fees Indeed. He then filed a motion for attorney’s fees.

In fact. When exemplary damages may be awarded: With respect to the award of exemplary damages. ii. No gross and evident bad faith could be imputed to Petron merely for intervening in NCBA’s suit against DBP and the Monserrats in order to assert what it believed (and had good reason to believe) were its rights and to have the disputed ownership of the V. founded as it was on final deeds of sale on execution. the rule in this jurisdiction is that the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to . He did not exactly achieve anything out of the ordinary. that the losing party should be made to pay attorney’s fees merely because the court finds his legal position to be erroneous and upholds that of the other party. The will was furthermore not contested. they are subject to the moderating hand of the courts. Petron’s claim to the V. and(3) the professional standing of the lawyer. Art 2208 (5) construed: Article 2208(5) contemplates a situation where one refuses unjustifiably and in evident bad faith to satisfy another’s plainly valid. even a clearly untenable defense does not justify an award of attorney’s fees unless it amounts to gross and evident bad faith. In that connection. it is the latter who must pay therefor. Mapa properties. They are also subject to certain standards. they must be addressed in a full-blown trial and not on the bare word of the parties. 32. to wit: (1) they must be reasonable. so Justice Pedro Tuason wrote. for that would be an intolerable transgression of the policy that no one should be penalized for exercising the right to have contending claims settled by a court of law. And always. just and demandable claim. attorney’s fees are in the nature of actual damages. Mapa properties settled decisively in a single lawsuit. Case at bar. In all cases. Petron Corp v. NCBA i. They are not. compelling the latter needlessly to seek redress from the courts. that is to say. was far from untenable. (REP) Case at bar: Court observes that these are acts performed routinely since they form part of what any lawyer worth his salt is expected to do. however. which must be duly proved. It does not mean.administrator is himself the counsel for the heirs.(2) the extent of the services rendered. “a case [where] the administrator was able to stop what appeared to be an improvident disbursement of a substantial amount without having to employ outside legal help at an additional expense to the estate. they must have a bearing on the importance of the subject matter in controversy.” to entitle him to a bigger compensation.

The conditions required in awarding moral damages are: (1) there must be an injury. legal. The very opening paragraph of Article 2208 reveals that the award of attorneys’ fees remains exceptional in our law. for the award of P2. Villanueva v Salvador i. Hence. the award is disallowed. iii. temperate or compensatory damages before the court may even consider the question of whether exemplary damages should be awarded. whether physical. Without such justification. liquidated or compensatory damages having first been established. (3) the wrongful act or omission of the defendant must be the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant. albeit incapable of pecuniary estimation. and (4) the award of damages is predicated on any of .680. 34. or equitable justification upon the basis of which the court exercises its discretion. the exercise of judicial discretion in the award of attorneys’ fees under Article 2208 (11) of the Civil Code demands a factual. The GENERAL RULE being 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 a party wins a lawsuit. it is.00 in counsel fees. the award is a conclusion without a premise. as basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture. essential that the claimant satisfactorily proves the existence of the factual basis of the damages and its causal connection to defendant’s wrongful act or omission.moral. In the present case. no exemplary damages may be awarded without the plaintiff’s right to moral. Buan v Camaganacan Attorney’s fees: i. In other words. Rule: The text of the decision should state the reason why attorneys’ fees are being awarded.00 in actual damages the appealed decisions awards no less than P2. nevertheless. the amount of indemnity being left to the sound discretion of the court.000. Moral damages: While proof of pecuniary loss is unnecessary to justify an award of moral damages. clearly sustained by the claimant. which is hardly reasonable. (2) there must be a culpable act or omission factually established. This is so because moral damages. temperate. are designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. There is thus merit on petitioners’ assertion that proof of moral suffering must precede a moral damage award. mental or psychological. ii. 33. otherwise.

the defendant’s act must be vitiated by bad faith or that there is willful intent to injure. (NB: This ruling applies only for CULPA CONTRACTUAL) Clear it is from the above that before moral damages may be assessed thereunder. Attorney’s fees: As a matter of sound practice. (ICPP) While there need not be a showing that the defendant acted in a wanton or malevolent manner. moral damages cannot arise from simple negligence. And it is necessary for the trial court to make express findings of fact and law that would bring the case within the exception 35. Eastern Shipping v CA (Discussed in Cruz v Sun Holidays) . Simply put. as this is a requirement for an award of exemplary damages. Then.the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code. ii. an award of attorney’s fee has always been regarded as the exception rather than the rule. moral damages are generally not recoverable in culpa contractual except when bad faith supervenes and is proven. there must still be proof of fraudulent action or bad faith for a claim for moral damages to succeed. too.