Lawyerly

GR No. 181426

2015-07-13

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Temperate or moderate damages may be allowed in cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss.[51] The computation of the amount of temperate or moderate damages is usually left to the discretion of the courts, but the amount must be reasonable, bearing in mind that temperate damages should be more than nominal but less than compensatory.[52] In this case, we find it proper to hold Allied Bank liable to GGDI for temperate or moderate damages in the amount of P500,000.00.[53]

GR No. 197842

2013-10-09

JAIME P. ADRIANO v. ALBERTO LASALA

MENDOZA, J.

Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, when pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proven with certainty, temperate damages may be recovered. Temperate damages may be allowed in cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss.[18]

GR No. 161909

2012-04-25

PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES v. FELIX PARAS

BERSAMIN, J.

The rationale for Article 2224 has been stated in Premiere Development Bank v. Court of Appeals[28] in the following manner: Even if not recoverable as compensatory damages. Panacor may still be awarded damages in the concept of temperate or moderate damages. When the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty, temperate damages may be recovered. Temperate damages may be allowed in cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss.

GR No. 190521

2011-01-12

LETICIA TAN v. OMC CARRIERS

BRION, J.

Nonetheless, absent competent proof on the actual damages suffered, a party still has the option of claiming temperate damages, which may be allowed in cases where, from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss.[23] As defined in Article 2224 of the Civil Code: Article 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.

GR Nos. 152613 & 152628

2009-11-20

APEX MINING CO. v. SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORP.

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Quite conspicuous is the fact that neither MMC nor SEM denied that they were unaware of the terms and conditions attached to EP 133. MMC and SEM did not present any evidence that they objected to these conditions. Indubitably, MMC wholeheartedly accepted these terms and conditions, which formed part of the grant of the permit. MMC agreed to abide by these conditions. It must be accentuated that a party to a contract cannot deny its validity, without outrage to one's sense of justice and fairness, after enjoying its benefits.[30] Where parties have entered into a well-defined contractual relationship, it is imperative that they should honor and adhere to their rights and obligations as stated in their contracts, because obligations arising from these have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.[31] Condition Number 6 categorically states that the permit shall be for the exclusive use and benefit of MMC or its duly authorized agents. While it may be true that SEM, the assignee of EP 133, is a 100% subsidiary corporation of MMC, records are bereft of any evidence showing that the former is the duly authorized agent of the latter. This Court cannot condone such utter disregard on the part of MMC to honor its obligations under the permit. Undoubtedly, having violated this condition, the assignment of EP 133 to SEM is void and has no legal effect.

GR No. 175339

2008-12-16

PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT BANK v. ALFREDO C. FLORES

TINGA, J.

Respondent corporations filed a motion for execution dated 25 August 2005[13] asking for the issuance of a writ of execution of our decision in G.R. No. 159352 where we awarded P800,000.00 as damages in their favor.[14] The RTC granted the writ of execution sought. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order.

GR No. 146141

2008-10-17

ERNESTO CANADA v. ALL COMMODITIES MARKETING CORPORATION

NACHURA, J.

However, respondent may still be awarded damages in the concept of temperate or moderate damages. When the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proven with certainty, temperate damages may be recovered. Temperate damages may be allowed in cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss.[21]

GR No. 174466

2008-07-14

ACI PHILIPPINES v. EDITHA C. COQUIA

TINGA, J,

The claim for actual damages in this case should be admitted with extreme caution since it is based only on bare assertions without support from independent evidence. In determining actual damages, the Court cannot rely on mere assertions, speculations, conjectures or guesswork but must depend on competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable regarding the actual amount of loss.[25]

GR No. 149553

2008-02-29

NICOLAS LAYNESA v. PAQUITO

VELASCO JR., J.

Thus, in Government Service Insurance System v. Labung-Deang[16] and Premiere Development Bank v. Court of Appeals,[17] this Court ruled that temperate damages will only be awarded by virtue of the wrongful act of a party.

GR No. 172406

2007-10-11

CONCEPCION ILAO-ORETA v. SPS. EVA MARIE

CARPIO MORALES, J.

In fixing the amount of actual damages, the Court of Appeals and the trial court included expenses which the spouses incurred prior to April 5, 1999 when the breach of contract complained of occurred.[24] The Court of Appeals also included the alleged P300 spent on fuel consumption from the spouses' residence at San Pascual, Batangas to the St. Luke's Medical Center in Quezon City and the alleged P500 spent on food in the hospital canteen, both of which are unsubstantiated by independent or competent proof.[25] The only piece of documentary evidence supporting the food and fuel expenses is an unsigned listing.[26] As the fuel and food expenses are not adequately substantiated, they cannot be included in the computation of the amount of actual damages. So Premiere Development Bank v. Court of Appeals[27] instructs:In the instant case, the actual damages were proven through the sole testimony of Themistocles Ruguero, the vice president for administration of Panacor. In his testimony, the witness affirmed that Panacor incurred losses, specifically, in terms of training and seminars, leasehold acquisition, procurement of vehicles and office equipment without, however, adducing receipts to substantiate the same. The documentary evidence marked as Exhibit "W," which was an ordinary private writing allegedly itemizing the capital expenditures and losses from the failed operation of Panacor, was not testified to by any witness to ascertain the veracity of its content. Although the lower court fixed the sum of P4,520,000.00 as the total expenditures incurred by Panacor, it failed to show how and in what manner the same were substantiated by the claimant with reasonable certainty. Hence, the claim for actual damages should be received with extreme caution since it is only based on bare assertion without support from independent evidence. Premiere's failure to prove actual expenditure consequently conduces to a failure of its claim. In determining actual damages, the court cannot rely on mere assertions, speculations, conjectures or guesswork but must depend on competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable regarding the actual amount of loss.[28] (Underscoring supplied)

	GR No. 181426 2015-07-13	GAMES v. ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Temperate or moderate damages may be allowed in cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss.[51] The computation of the amount of temperate or moderate damages is usually left to the discretion of the courts, but the amount must be reasonable, bearing in mind that temperate damages should be more than nominal but less than compensatory.[52] In this case, we find it proper to hold Allied Bank liable to GGDI for temperate or moderate damages in the amount of P500,000.00.[53]
	GR No. 197842 2013-10-09	JAIME P. ADRIANO v. ALBERTO LASALA MENDOZA, J.
Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, when pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proven with certainty, temperate damages may be recovered. Temperate damages may be allowed in cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss.[18]
	GR No. 161909 2012-04-25	PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES v. FELIX PARAS BERSAMIN, J.
The rationale for Article 2224 has been stated in Premiere Development Bank v. Court of Appeals[28] in the following manner: Even if not recoverable as compensatory damages. Panacor may still be awarded damages in the concept of temperate or moderate damages. When the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty, temperate damages may be recovered. Temperate damages may be allowed in cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss.
	GR No. 190521 2011-01-12	LETICIA TAN v. OMC CARRIERS BRION, J.
Nonetheless, absent competent proof on the actual damages suffered, a party still has the option of claiming temperate damages, which may be allowed in cases where, from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss.[23] As defined in Article 2224 of the Civil Code: Article 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.
	GR Nos. 152613 & 152628 2009-11-20	APEX MINING CO. v. SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORP. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Quite conspicuous is the fact that neither MMC nor SEM denied that they were unaware of the terms and conditions attached to EP 133. MMC and SEM did not present any evidence that they objected to these conditions. Indubitably, MMC wholeheartedly accepted these terms and conditions, which formed part of the grant of the permit. MMC agreed to abide by these conditions. It must be accentuated that a party to a contract cannot deny its validity, without outrage to one's sense of justice and fairness, after enjoying its benefits.[30] Where parties have entered into a well-defined contractual relationship, it is imperative that they should honor and adhere to their rights and obligations as stated in their contracts, because obligations arising from these have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.[31] Condition Number 6 categorically states that the permit shall be for the exclusive use and benefit of MMC or its duly authorized agents. While it may be true that SEM, the assignee of EP 133, is a 100% subsidiary corporation of MMC, records are bereft of any evidence showing that the former is the duly authorized agent of the latter. This Court cannot condone such utter disregard on the part of MMC to honor its obligations under the permit. Undoubtedly, having violated this condition, the assignment of EP 133 to SEM is void and has no legal effect.
	GR No. 175339 2008-12-16	PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT BANK v. ALFREDO C. FLORES TINGA, J.
Respondent corporations filed a motion for execution dated 25 August 2005[13] asking for the issuance of a writ of execution of our decision in G.R. No. 159352 where we awarded P800,000.00 as damages in their favor.[14] The RTC granted the writ of execution sought. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order.
	GR No. 146141 2008-10-17	ERNESTO CANADA v. ALL COMMODITIES MARKETING CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
However, respondent may still be awarded damages in the concept of temperate or moderate damages. When the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proven with certainty, temperate damages may be recovered. Temperate damages may be allowed in cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss.[21]
	GR No. 174466 2008-07-14	ACI PHILIPPINES v. EDITHA C. COQUIA TINGA, J,
The claim for actual damages in this case should be admitted with extreme caution since it is based only on bare assertions without support from independent evidence. In determining actual damages, the Court cannot rely on mere assertions, speculations, conjectures or guesswork but must depend on competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable regarding the actual amount of loss.[25]
	GR No. 149553 2008-02-29	NICOLAS LAYNESA v. PAQUITO VELASCO JR., J.
Thus, in Government Service Insurance System v. Labung-Deang[16] and Premiere Development Bank v. Court of Appeals,[17] this Court ruled that temperate damages will only be awarded by virtue of the wrongful act of a party.
	GR No. 172406 2007-10-11	CONCEPCION ILAO-ORETA v. SPS. EVA MARIE CARPIO MORALES, J.
In fixing the amount of actual damages, the Court of Appeals and the trial court included expenses which the spouses incurred prior to April 5, 1999 when the breach of contract complained of occurred.[24] The Court of Appeals also included the alleged P300 spent on fuel consumption from the spouses' residence at San Pascual, Batangas to the St. Luke's Medical Center in Quezon City and the alleged P500 spent on food in the hospital canteen, both of which are unsubstantiated by independent or competent proof.[25] The only piece of documentary evidence supporting the food and fuel expenses is an unsigned listing.[26] As the fuel and food expenses are not adequately substantiated, they cannot be included in the computation of the amount of actual damages. So Premiere Development Bank v. Court of Appeals[27] instructs:In the instant case, the actual damages were proven through the sole testimony of Themistocles Ruguero, the vice president for administration of Panacor. In his testimony, the witness affirmed that Panacor incurred losses, specifically, in terms of training and seminars, leasehold acquisition, procurement of vehicles and office equipment without, however, adducing receipts to substantiate the same. The documentary evidence marked as Exhibit "W," which was an ordinary private writing allegedly itemizing the capital expenditures and losses from the failed operation of Panacor, was not testified to by any witness to ascertain the veracity of its content. Although the lower court fixed the sum of P4,520,000.00 as the total expenditures incurred by Panacor, it failed to show how and in what manner the same were substantiated by the claimant with reasonable certainty. Hence, the claim for actual damages should be received with extreme caution since it is only based on bare assertion without support from independent evidence. Premiere's failure to prove actual expenditure consequently conduces to a failure of its claim. In determining actual damages, the court cannot rely on mere assertions, speculations, conjectures or guesswork but must depend on competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable regarding the actual amount of loss.[28] (Underscoring supplied)

PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT BANK v. CA