General Principles of Recovery

Art. 2197. Damages may be:

(1) Actual or compensatory;
(2) Moral;
(3) Nominal;
(4) Temperate or moderate;
(5) Liquidated; or
(6) Exemplary or corrective.

Spouses Ong v. CA:
The fundamental principle of the law on damages is that one injured by a breach of contract or by a
wrongful or negligent act or omission shall have a fair and just compensation, commensurate with the
loss sustained as a consequence of the defendants acts. Hence, actual pecuniary compensation is the
general rule, except where the circumstances warrant the allowance of other kinds of damages.

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 thereof
must be based on the evidence presented, not on personal knowledge of the court; and certainly not on
flimsy, remote, speculative and nonsubstantial proof. Article 2199 of the Civil Code expressly mandates
that except 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.


Air France v. CA:
In breach of contract of carriage by air, moral damages are awarded only if the defendant acted
fraudulently or in bad faith. Bad faith means a breach of a known duty through some motive of interest
or ill will. Bad faith under the law cannot be presumed; it must be established by clear and convincing
evidence. Again, the unbroken jurisprudence is that in breach of contract cases where the defendant is
not shown to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith, liability for damages is limited to the natural and
probable consequences of the breach of the obligation which the parties had foreseen or could
reasonably have foreseen.

Dichoso v. CA
PAL v. Miano
DBP v. CA







PNOC vs CA
M/V Maria Efigenia owned by Maria Efigenia Fishing Corp collided with Petroparcel owned by
Luzon Stevedoring in the waters of Batangas on its way to Navotas
Board of Marin Inquiry investigation: Petroparcel at fault
o MEFC demanded to no avail, hence the suit vs Lusteveco and Petroparcel Captain
Doruelo before CFI Caloocan
692,680 as value of fishing nets, boat equipment and cargoes
Interest at 25%
Attorneys fees
PNOC shipping acquired ownership of Petroparcel via Deed of Transfer; PNOC assumes without
qualifications, all obligations arising from and by virtue of all rights it obtained over the LSCO
Petroparcel
MEFC sought to amend its complaint: failed to plead to the recovery of the lost value of the
HULL of the M/V Maria Efigenia
o Actual value of 800,000 but insurance already paid 200,000 hence balance of 600,000
left
o Take into account inflation
o Unrealized profits and lost business opportunities
Stipulation of facts prompted the RTC to rule in favor of MEFC; PNOC to pay
o 6,438,048 representing value of the fishing boat with 6% interest per annum
o 50,000 attys fees and costs of suit
Evidence by MEFC:
o testimony of its general manager Edilberto del Rosario
Vessel was carrying 1,060 baneras of assorted fish with value unrecovered
Two cummins engines (250 horse power), radar, pathometer, and compass also
lost
Constrained to hire counsel to handle BMI case 10,000 and commencing the suit
50,000
o Documentary evidence: quotation of prices issued to Del Rosario, marine protest, pro
forma invoice, retainer agreement with law office,
Evidence by PNOC: senior estimator at PNOC Dockyard and Shipping Lorenzo Lazaro; no
documentary evidence at all; merely proferred that the quotations submitted were excessive by
using unpresented quotations of his suppliers (secret scheme daw)
PNOC MR denied
CA affirms in toto:
o Not necessary to qualify Del Rosario as an expert witness: owner; within his knowledge
and competency to identify and determine the equipment installed and the cargoes
loaded
o Reception of documentary exhibits as evidence rests on the sound discretion of the trial
court; never rebutted naman by Lazaro
The following are assailed: Failed to prove the extent and value of the damages
o Trial Court did not base the award on the actual value of the vessel and its equipment at
the time of loss in 1977
o No evidence re extraordinary inflation
o Value of the lost cargo and prices quoted only amount to 4,336,215
o Failed to present evidence re unrealized profit and business opportunities

Held:
Damagesdesigned to repair wrong done, compensate injury
2 kinds of actual or compensatory: actual value of loss of thing possessed, failure to receive
benefit
PNOC did not object to the documentary evidence in terms of the time index for the valuation of
the lost goods and equipment, unlike the baneras of fish which were pegged at their 1977 value
Del Rosarios claims should be admitted with extreme caution and should be viewed in light of
self interest
o Del Rosario could not have testified on the veracity of the contents of the writings
because he was not the one who issued the price quotations = hearsay evidence, not
commercial lists; simply letters
Hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, has no probative value: nature and quality
remain the same, so far as its intrinsic weakness and incompetency to satisfy the mind are
concerned
Admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence
DAMAGES MAY NOT BE AWARDED ON THE BASIS OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE
NON ADMISSIBILITY OF SAID EXHIBITS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT TOTALLY DEPRIVES THE
PRIVATE RESPONDENT OF ANY REDRESS FOR THE LOSS IF ITS VESSEL.
o In absence of competent proof on the actual damages suffered, private respondent is
entitled to nominal damages
Where these are allowed, they are not treated as an equivalent of a wrong
inflicted but simply in recognition of the existence of a technical injury.
However, the amount to the awarded as nominal damages shall be equal or at
least commensurate to the injury sustained
Allegations in the original and amended complaints can be the basis of the fair amount of
nominal damages inasmuch as a complaint alleges the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs
caus of action
CA decision modified: technically, injury was sustained but which, unfortunately was not
adequately and properly proved, and this case has dragged on for almost 2 decades: 2,000,000
nominal damages awarded.

Eastern Shipping