1. DPWH v Quiwa, oct 12, 2011Contracts; It has been settled in several cases that payment for services done on account of the government, but based on a void contract, cannot be avoided.It was, however, undisputed that there was no certification from the chief accountant of DPWH regarding the said expenditure. In addition, the project manager has a limited authority to approve contracts in an amount not exceeding P1 million. Notwithstanding these irregularities, it should be pointed out that there is no novelty regarding the question of satisfying a claim for construction contracts entered into by the government, where there was no appropriation and where the contracts were considered void due to technical reasons. It has been settled in several cases that payment for services done on account of the government, but based on a void contract, cannot be avoided. The Court first resolved such question in Royal Trust Construction v. Commission on Audit. In that case, the court issued a Resolution granting the claim of Royal Trust Construction under a void contract. [Department of Public Works and Highways vs. Quiwa, 659 SCRA 8(2011)]2. Integrated packaging v CA, 333 scra 170Same; Moral damages may be awarded when in a breach of contract the defendant acted in bad faith, or was guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith, or in wanton disregard of his contractual obligation.The deletion of the award of moral damages is proper, since private respondent could not be held liable for breach of contract. Moral damages may be awarded when in a breach of contract the defendant acted in bad faith, or was guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith, or in wanton disregard of his contractual obligation. Finally, since the award of moral damages is eliminated, so must the award for attorneys fees be also deleted.3. Chaves v Gonzales, 32 scra 547Same; Damages; Claims for damages and attorneys fees must be alleged and proved.Claims for damages and attorneys fees must be pleaded, and the existence of the actual basis thereof must be proved. Where there is no findings of fact on the claims for damages and attorneys fees in the lower courts decision, there is no factual basis upon which to make an award therefor. [Chaves vs. Gonzales, 32 SCRA 547(1970)]

4. Mendoza v PAL, 90 phil 836ID.; DAMAGES; UNFORSEEN DAMAGES.The defendant company can not be held liable for damages where it could not have forseen the damages that would be suffered by the plaintiff upon failure to deliver the can of film for reason that the plans of the plaintiff to exhibit that film during the town fiesta and his preparation, specially the announcement of said exhibition by poster and advertisement in the newspapers were not called to the defendant's attention. [Mendoza vs. Philippine Air Lines, Inc., 90 Phil. 836(1952)]5. PNOC shipping v CA, 297 scra 402Damages; There are two kinds of actual or compensatory damages: One is the loss of what a person already possesses (dao emergente), and the other is the failure to receive as a benefit that which would have pertained to him (lucro cesante).Under Article 2199 of the Civil Code, actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury sustained. They proceed from a sense of natural justice and are designed to repair the wrong that has been done, to compensate for the injury inflicted and not to impose a penalty. In actions based on torts or quasi-delicts, actual damages include all the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. There are two kinds of actual or compensatory damages: one is the loss of what a person already possesses (dao emergente), and the other is the failure to receive as a benefit that which would have pertained to him (lucro cesante).Same; Evidence; To enable an injured party to recover actual or compensatory damages, he is required to prove the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence availabledamages cannot be presumed and courts, in making an award must point out specific facts that could afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne.As stated at the outset, to enable an injured party to recover actual or compensatory damages, he is required to prove the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence available. The burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence would be presented on either side. He must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence which means that the evidence, as a whole, adduced by one side is superior to that of the other. In other words, damages cannot be presumed and courts, in making an award must point out specific facts that could afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne. [PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 402(1998)]Same; Same; Same; Damages may not be awarded on the basis of hearsay evidence.Accordingly, as stated at the outset, damages may not be awarded on the basis of hearsay evidence.Same; Same; In the absence of competent proof on the actual damage suffered, a party is entitled to nominal damages.Nonetheless, the non-admissibility of said exhibits does not mean that it totally deprives private respondent of any redress for the loss of its vessel. This is because in Lufthansa German Airlines v. Court of Appeals, the Court said: In the absence of competent proof on the actual damage suffered, private respondent is entitled to nominal damages which, as the law says, is adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by defendant, may be vindicated and recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered. [Italics supplied].Same; Nominal damages are damages in name only and not in fact.Actually, nominal damages are damages in name only and not in fact. 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 be awarded as nominal damages shall be equal or at least commensurate to the injury sustained by private respondent considering the concept and purpose of such damages. The amount of nominal damages to be awarded may also depend on certain special reasons extant in the case.Same; Pleadings and Practice; Allegations in the original and amended complaints can be the basis for determination of a fair amount of nominal damages inasmuch as a complaint alleges the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action.Applying now such principles to the instant case, we have on record the fact that petitioners vessel Petroparcel was at fault as well as private respondents complaint claiming the amount of P692,680.00 representing the fishing nets, boat equipment and cargoes that sunk with the M/V Maria Efigenia XV. In its amended complaint, private respondent alleged that the vessel had an actual value of P800,000.00 but it had been paid insurance in the amount of P200,000.00 and, therefore, it claimed only the amount of P600,000.00. Ordinarily, the receipt of insurance payments should diminish the total value of the vessel quoted by private respondent in his complaint considering that such payment is causally related to the loss for which it claimed compensation. This Court believes that such allegations in the original and amended complaints can be the basis for determination of a fair amount of nominal damages inasmuch as a complaint alleges the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action. Private respondent should be bound by its allegations on the amount of its claims.Same; Same; Docket Fees; A plaintiffs failure to pay the docket fee corresponding to its increased claim for damages under the amended complaint should not be considered as having curtailed the lower courts jurisdictionthe unpaid docket fee should be considered as a lien on the judgment.With respect to petitioners contention that the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction over the amended complaint increasing the amount of damages claimed to P600,000.00, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the case when private respondent paid the docket fee corresponding to its claim in its original complaint. Its failure to pay the docket fee corresponding to its increased claim for damages under the amended complaint should not be considered as having curtailed the lower courts jurisdiction. Pursuant to the ruling in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion, the unpaid docket fee should be considered as a lien on the judgment even though private respondent specified the amount of P600,000.00 as its claim for damages in its amended complaint. [PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 402(1998)]

6. Ong v CA, 301 scra 387Damages; Quasi-Delicts; Torts; 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.Granting arguendo that there was an agreement to submit the case for decision based on the pleadings, this does not necessarily imply that petitioners are entitled to the award of damages. The fundamental principle of the law on damages is that one injured by a breach of contract (in this case, the contract of transportation) 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.Same; 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.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.Same; Damages cannot be presumedthe award thereof 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.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 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.Same; Physical Injuries; A person is entitled to the physical integrity of his or her body, and if that integrity is violated, damages are due and assessablethus, the usual practice is to award moral damages for physical injuries sustained.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 not susceptible of exact monetary estimation. Thus, the usual practice is to award moral damages for physical injuries sustained. In Mayo v. People, the Court held that the permanent scar on the forehead and the loss of the use of the right eye entitled the victim to moral damages. The victim, in said case, was devastated by mental anguish, wounded feelings and shock, which she experienced as a result of her false eye and the scar on her forehead. Furthermore, the loss of vision in her right eye hampered her professionally for the rest of her life. [Ong vs. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 387(1999)]Same; Evidence; Although actual damages include indemnification for profits which the injured party failed to obtain (lucro cesante or lucrum cesans), the rule requires that said person produce the best evidence of which his case is susceptible.Protesting the deletion of the award for Francias unrealized income, petitioners contend that Francias injuries and her oral testimony adequately support their claim. The Court disagrees. Although actual damages include indemnification for profits which the injured party failed to obtain (lucro cesante or lucrum cesans), the rule requires that said person produce the best evidence of which his case is susceptible. 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 it 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.Same; Attorneys Fees; Standards in Fixing Attorneys Fees; The award of attorneys fees is 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.Under the Civil Code, an award of attorneys 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 is 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 of standards in fixing the amount of attorneys fees: (1) [T]he 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. [Ong vs. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 387(1999)]

7. Optimum Motor v Tan, 558 scra 267Same; Same; Same; Damages; The mechanic is obliged to take care of the truck with proper diligence of a good father of a family while the same is in his possession, and failure to do so would render him liable to pay for the value of the truck, when restitution is no longer feasible, and the value should be based on the fair market value that the property would command at the time it was entrusted to the mechanic, which value may be recovered without prejudice to such other damages a claimant is entitled to under applicable laws.From another perspective, Optimum is obliged to take care of the truck with the proper diligence of a good father to a family while the same is in its possession. Records show that the subject truck had already deteriorated while in the possession of Optimum. Taking into consideration the last known condition of the truck in tandem with the fact that the court proceedings have spanned almost a decade, it can be readily inferred that the truck has become wholly useless. Since restitution is no longer feasible, Optimum is bound to pay the value of the truck. The value of the truck should be based on the fair market value that the property would command at the time it was entrusted to Optimum. Such recoverable value is fair and reasonable considering that the value of a motor vehicle depreciates. This value may be recovered without prejudice to such other damages a claimant is entitled to under applicable laws. [Optimum Motor Center Corporation vs. Tan, 558 SCRA 267(2008)]

8. Tan v OMC carrier, 639 scra 471Damages; Actual Damages; Evidence; Actual damages, to be recoverable, must not only be capable of proof, but must actually be proved with a reasonable degree of certaintycourts cannot simply rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork in determining the fact and amount of damages.We begin by discussing the petitioners claim for actual damages arising from the damage inflicted on petitioner Leticia Tans house and tailoring shop, taking into account the sewing machines and various household appliances affected. Our basic law tells us that to recover damages there must be pleading and proof of actual damages suffered. As we explained in Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos, 345 SCRA 509 (2000): Actual damages, to be recoverable, must not only be capable of proof, but must actually be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. Courts cannot simply rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork in determining the fact and amount of damages. To justify an award of actual damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss, credence can be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts.Same; Evidence; 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.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. 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.Same; Same; As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for loss of earning capacity; Exceptions.As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for loss of earning capacity. By way of exception, 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 which case, judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceaseds line of work, no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.Same; Temperate Damages; Temperate damages in lieu of actual damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded where earning capacity is plainly established but no evidence was presented to support the allegation of the injured partys actual income.According to the petitioners, prior to his death, Celedonio was a self-employed tailor who earned approximately P156,000.00 a year, or P13,000.00 a month. At the time of his death in 1995, the prevailing daily minimum wage was P145.00, or P3,770.00 per month, provided the wage earner had only one rest day per week. Even if we take judicial notice of the fact that a small tailoring shop normally does not issue receipts to its customers, and would probably not have any documentary evidence of the income it earns, Celedonios alleged monthly income of P13,000.00 greatly exceeded the prevailing monthly minimum wage; thus, the exception set forth above does not apply. In the past, we awarded temperate damages in lieu of actual damages for loss of earning capacity where earning capacity is plainly established but no evidence was presented to support the allegation of the injured partys actual income.Interest Rates; Legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amounts awarded starts to run from the time when the trial court rendered judgment, and from the time this judgment becomes final and executory, the interest rate shall be 12% per annum on the judgment amount and the interest earned up to that date.Accordingly, legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amounts awarded starts to run from May 14, 2003, when the trial court rendered judgment. From the time this judgment becomes final and executory, the interest rate shall be 12% per annum on the judgment amount and the interest earned up to that date, until the judgment is wholly satisfied. [Tan vs. OMC Carriers, Inc., 639 SCRA 471(2011)]

9. G.A. Machineries v Yaptinchay, 126 scra 78Damages; Evidence; The amount representing profits which damaged party failed to realize must be proved by the best evidence. Average actual profits of other trucks of respondent should have been presented rather than a mere estimate on "if-not-were-hired" basis.Applying the foregoing test to the instant case, we find the evidence of the respondent insufficient to be considered within the purview of "best evidence." The bare assertion of the respondent that he lost about P54,000.00 and the accompanying documentary evidence presented to prove the amount lost are inadequate if not speculative. The document itself merely shows that everytime a truck travels, Mr. Yaptinchay earns P369.88. This amount is then multiplied by the number of trips which the truck was allegedly unable to make. The estimates were prepared by a certain Dionisio M. Macasieb whose identity was not even revealed by the respondent. Mr. Yaptinchay was in the freight truck business. He had several freight trucks among them the truck with the subject Fordson diesel engine, covering the route from Manila to Baguio. To prove actual damages, it would have been easy to present the average actual profits realized by the other freight trucks plying the Manila-Baguio route. With the presentation of such actual income the court could have arrived with reasonable certainty at the amount of actual damages suffered by the respondent. We rule that the award of actual damages in the amount of P54,000.08 is not warranted by the evidence on record. [G.A. Machineries, Inc. vs. Yaptinchay, 126 SCRA 78(1983)]

10. Lim v CA, 373 scra 394Civil Law; Damages; Interest; It is axiomatic that if the suit were for damages, unliquidated and not known until definitely ascertained, assessed and determined by the courts after proof, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum should be from the date the judgment of the court is made.We are constrained to depart from the conclusion of the lower courts that upon the award of compensatory damages legal interest should be imposed beginning 22 July 1990, i.e. the date of the accident. Upon the provisions of Art. 2213 of the Civil Code, interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages, except when the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. It is axiomatic that if the suit were for damages, unliquidated and not known until definitely ascertained, assessed and determined by the courts after proof, 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).Same; Same; One who is injured by the wrongful or negligent act of another should exercise reasonable care and diligence to minimize the resulting damage.We have observed that private respondent left his passenger jeepney by the roadside at the mercy of the elements. Article 2203 of the Civil Code 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. One who is injured then by the wrongful or negligent act of another should exercise reasonable care and diligence to minimize the resulting damage. Anyway, he can recover from the wrongdoer money lost in reasonable efforts to preserve the property injured and for injuries incurred in attempting to prevent damage to it.Same; Same; 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.In awarding damages for tortuous injury, it becomes the sole design of the courts to provide for adequate compensation by putting the plaintiff in the same financial position he was in prior to the tort. 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. His recovery is, in the absence of circumstances giving rise to an allowance of punitive damages, limited to a fair compensation for the harm done. The law will not put him in a position better than where he should be in had not the wrong happened.Same; Same; Indemnification for damages is not limited to damnum emergens or actual loss but extends to lucrum cessans or the amount of profit lost.In the present case, petitioners insist that as the passenger jeepney was purchased in 1982 for only P30,000.00 to award damages considerably greater than this amount would be improper and unjustified. 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. In other words, indemnification for damages is not limited to damnum emergens or actual loss but extends to lucrum cessans or the amount of profit lost. [Lim vs. Court of Appeals, 373 SCRA 394(2002)]

11. OMC Carrier v Nabau, 622 scra 624Same; Damages; Moral Damages; Moral damages are not intended to enrich a plaintiff at the expense of the defendantthey are awarded to allow the plaintiff to obtain means, diversion or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he/she has undergone due to the defendants culpable action and must, perforce, be proportional to the suffering inflicted.Death indemnity has been fixed by jurisprudence at P50,000.00. Hence, the amount awarded by the RTC and the CA must be reduced accordingly. On the issue of moral damages, prevailing jurisprudence fixes moral damages of P50,000.00 for death. It must be stressed that moral damages are not intended to enrich a plaintiff at the expense of the defendant. They are awarded to allow the plaintiff to obtain means, diversion or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he/she has undergone due to the defendants culpable action and must, perforce, be proportional to the suffering inflicted. Thus, given the circumstances of the case at bar, an award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is proper.Same; Same; Attorneys Fees; The rule on the award of attorneys fees is that there must be a justification for the same. In the absence of a statement why attorneys fees were awarded, the same should be disallowed.The rule on the award of attorneys fees is that there must be a justification for the same. In the absence of a statement why attorneys fees were awarded, the same should be disallowed. On this note, after reading through the text of the CA decision, this Court finds that the same is bereft of any findings of fact and law to justify the award of attorneys fees. While it may be safe to surmise that the RTC granted attorneys fees as a consequence of its grant of exemplary damages, such cannot be said for the CA, since the same deleted the award of exemplary damages after finding that petitioner Aalucas was not grossly negligent. The CA did not explain why it was still awarding attorneys fees to respondents, therefore, such an award must be deleted.Same; Same; Actual Damages; Appeals; To justify an award of actual damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss; An appellate court is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if they are not assigned as errors, especially so if the court finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case before it.While petitioners did not put in error the award of actual damages, this Court feels that the same should nevertheless be reviewed as an appellate court is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if they are not assigned as errors. This is especially so if the court finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case before it. For one to be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and the best evidence obtainable by the injured party. 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. To justify an award of actual damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss. Credence can be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts.Same; Same; Loss of Earning Capacity; Award of compensation for loss of earning capacity is not granted to the heirs of a college freshman where there is no sufficient evidence on record to show that the victim would eventually become a professional.Although respondents did not appeal the CA Decision, they now pray in their Memorandum that this Court reinstate the RTC award of P2,000,000.00 as compensatory damages which was deleted by the CA. Respondents point out that the victim, Reggie Nabua, was 18 years old and at the time of his death, a freshman taking up Industrial Engineering. On this point, Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 495 (1998), is instructive, to wit: x x x Art. 2206 of the Civil Code provides that in addition to the indemnity for death caused by a crime or quasi delict, the defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; . . . Compensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of earnings but for loss of capacity to earn money. Evidence must be presented that the victim, if not yet employed at the time of death, was reasonably certain to complete training for a specific profession. In People v. Teehankee, 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. 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 [OMC Carriers, Inc. vs. Nabua, 622 SCRA 624(2010)]

12. Metro Manila Transit v CA, 298 scra 495Civil Law; Negligence; Damages; The responsibility of employers for the negligence of their employees in the performance of their duties is primary, that is, the injured party may recover from the employers directly, regardless of the solvency of their employees.Rather, the issue in this case turns on Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, which provides that employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. The responsibility of employers for the negligence of their employees in the performance of their duties is primary, that is, the injured party may recover from the employers directly, regardless of the solvency of their employees. [Metro Manila Transit Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 495(1998)]Same; Same; Same; Indemnity for death fixed at P50,000.00.Indemnity for Death. Art. 2206 provides for the payment of indemnity for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict. Initially fixed in said article of the Civil Code at P3,000.00, the amount of the indemnity has through the years been gradually increased based on the value of the peso. At present, it is fixed at P50,000.00. To conform to this new ruling, the Court of Appeals correctly increased the indemnity it had originally ordered the spouses Rosales to be paid from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 in its resolution, dated September 12, 1996.Same; Same; Same; If the judgment for damages is satisfied by the common carrier, the latter has a right to recover what it has paid from its employee who committed the fault or negligence which gave rise to the action based on quasi-delict.As already stated, MMTC is primarily liable for damages for the negligence of its employee in view of Art. 2180. Pursuant to Art. 2181, it can recover from its employee what it may pay. This does not make the employees liability subsidiary. It only means that if the judgment for damages is satisfied by the common carrier, the latter has a right to recover what it has paid from its employee who committed the fault or negligence which gave rise to the action based on quasi-delict. Hence, the spouses Rosales have the option of enforcing the judgment against either MMTC or Musa. [Metro Manila Transit Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 495(1998)]

13. Cariaga v Laguna Tayabas Bus, 110 phil 346DAMAGES; MORAL DAMAGES; RECOVERABLE ONLY IN INSTANCES ENUMERATED IN ART. 2219 OF THE CIVIL CODE.Article 2219 of the Civil Code enumerates the instances when moral damages may be recovered. Plaintiffs' claim for moral damages not falling under any one of them, the same cannot be granted.2.ID.; ID.; WHEN RECOVERABLE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT UNDER ART. 2220 OF THE CIVIL CODE.Neither could defendant LTB be held liable to pay moral damages to plaintiffs under Art. 2220 of the Civil Code on account of breach of its contract of carriage because said defendant did not act fraudulently or in bad faith in connection therewith.3.ID.; ACTUAL AND COMPENSATORY DAMAGES; ONLY PARTIES TO CONTRACTS BREACHED ARE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATORY DAMAGES RESULTING THEREFROMSince the present action is based upon a breach of contract of carriage and plaintiff's parents were not a party thereto and were not themselves injured as a result of the collision, their claim for actual and compensatory damages is without merit.4.ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW ; ATTORNEY'S FEES; CASE NOT FALLING UNDER ANY OF THE INSTANCES ENUMERATED IN ART. 2208 OF THE ClVIL CODE.The present case not falling under any of the instances enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code, plaintiffs are not entitled to recover attorney's fees [Cariaga vs. Laguna Tayabas Bus Company, 110 Phil. 346(1960)]

14. Magbanua v Tabasuares, 431 scra 99Civil Law; Damages; Loss of Earnings; The loss is not equivalent to the entire earnings of the deceased but only that portion that he would have used to support his dependents or heirs.Article 2205 of the New Civil Code allows the recovery of damages for loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury. Such damages covers the loss sustained by the dependents or heirs of the deceased, consisting of the support they would have received from him had he not died because of the negligent act of another. The loss is not equivalent to the entire earnings of the deceased, but only that portion that he would have used to support his dependents or heirs. Hence, we deduct from his gross earnings the necessary expenses supposed to be used by the deceased for his own needs. Same; Same; Same; Another factor considered in determining the award of loss of earning capacity is the life expectancy of the deceased which takes into account his work, lifestyle, age and state of health prior to the accident.Aside from the loss sustained by the heirs of the deceased, another factor considered in determining the award of loss of earning capacity is the life expectancy of the deceased which takes into account his work, lifestyle, age and state of health prior to the accident.Same; Same; Same; When there is no showing that the living expenses constituted a smaller percentage of the gross income, Court fix the living expenses at half of the gross income.A survey of more recent jurisprudence shows that the Court consistently pegged the amount at 50% of the gross annual income. We held in Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping Agency Corp. vs. Borja that when there is no showing that the living expenses constituted a smaller percentage of the gross income, we fix the living expenses at half of the gross income. [Magbanua vs. Tabusares, Jr., 431 SCRA 99(2004)]

15. Victory Liner v Gammad, 444 scra 355Same; Same; Same; Damages; Damages a common carrier bound to pay in breach of its contract of carriage that results in the death of a passenger.Article 1764 in relation to Article 2206 of the 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, (2) indemnity for loss of earning capacity, and (3) moral damages.Same; Same; Same; Same; Loss of Earning Capacity; As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity, exceptions.The award of compensatory damages for the loss of the deceaseds earning capacity should be deleted for lack of basis. As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased is self-employed earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceaseds line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.Same; Same; Same; Same; Moral damages cannot be lumped with exemplary damages because they are based on different jural foundations.Anent the award of moral damages, the same cannot be lumped with exemplary damages because they are based on different jural foundations. These damages are different in nature and require separate determination. In culpa contractual or breach of contract, moral damages may be recovered when the defendant acted in bad faith or was guilty of gross negligence (amounting to bad faith) or in wanton disregard of contractual obligations and, as in this case, when the act of breach of contract itself constitutes the tort that results in physical injuries. By special rule in Article 1764 in relation to Article 2206 of the Civil Code, moral damages may also be awarded in case the death of a passenger results from a breach of carriage. On the other hand, exemplary damages, which are awarded by way of example or correction for the public good may be recovered in contractual obligations if the defendant acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.Same; Same; Same; Same; In case of actual damages, only substantiated and proven expenses or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake or burial of the victim will be recognized.The actual damages awarded by the trial court reduced by the Court of Appeals should be further reduced. In People v. Duban, it was held that only substantiated and proven expenses or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake or burial of the victim will be recognized. A list of expenses (Exhibit J), and the contract/receipt for the construction of the tomb (Exhibit F) in this case, cannot be considered competent proof and cannot replace the official receipts necessary to justify the award. Hence, actual damages should be further reduced to P78,160.00, which was the amount supported by official receipts. [Victory Liner, Inc. vs. Gammad, 444 SCRA 355(2004)]

16. J. Marketing Corp v Sia, 285 scra 580Remedial Law; Actions; Damages; Attorneys Fees; A persons right to litigate should not be penalized by holding him liable for damages.A persons right to litigate should not be penalized by holding him liable for damages. This is especially true when the filing of the case is to enforce what he believes to be his rightful claim against another although found to be erroneous. In this case, petitioner precisely instituted the replevin case against private respondent based on the latters own challenge to the former that if they really had a right on the motorcycle, then they should institute the necessary case in court. When petitioner did sue private respondent and filed a third party complaint against the person from whom private respondent claims to have bought the motorcycle, it cannot be said that the institution of the replevin suit was tainted with gross and evident bad faith or was done maliciously to harass, embarrass, annoy or ridicule private respondent.Same; Same; Same; Same; No damages can be charged on those who may exercise such precious right in good faith, even if done erroneously.Moreover, the adverse result of an actiondismissal of petitioners complaintdoes not per se make an act unlawful and subject the actor to the payment of moral damages. It is not a sound public policy to place a premium on the right to litigate. No damages can be charged on those who may exercise such precious right in good faith, even if done erroneously.Same; Same; Same; Same; It is a requisite to award exemplary damages that the act must be accompanied by bad faith or done in wanton, fraudulent or malevolent manner.The award of exemplary damages has likewise no factual basis. It is a requisite that the act must be accompanied by bad faith or done in wanton, fraudulent or malevolent mannercircumstances which are absent in this case. In addition, exemplary damages cannot be awarded as the requisite element of compensatory damages was not present.Same; Same; Same; Same; An adverse decision does not ipso facto justify the award of attorneys fees to the winning party.With respect to the attorneys fees, an adverse decision does not ipso facto justify the award thereof to the winning party. All indications point to the fact that petitioner honestly thought that they had a good cause of action, so that notwithstanding the dismissal of their case, no attorneys fees can be granted to private respondent. Considering that the latter claims to be the owner of the motorcycle, petitioner was compelled to sue him. When the former necessarily became a party defendant no attorneys fees and litigation expenses can automatically be recovered even if he should win, as it is not the fact of winning alone that entitles recovery of such items but rather the attendance of special circumstancesthe enumerated exceptions in Article 2208 of the New Civil Code. There being no bad faith reflected in petitioners persistence in pursuing its case, other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of its cause, attorneys fees cannot be recovered as cost. [J Marketing Corp. vs. Sia, Jr., 285 SCRA 580(1998)]

17. Petron corp v national college, 516 scra 168Civil Law; Damages; Attorneys Fees; Article 2208(5) contemplates a situation where one refuses unjustifiably and in evident bad faith to satisfy anothers plainly valid, just and demandable claim, compelling the latter needlessly to seek redress from the courts; Even a clearly untenable defense does not justify an award of attorneys fees unless it amounts to gross and evident bad faith.Article 2208(5) contemplates a situation where one refuses unjustifiably and in evident bad faith to satisfy anothers plainly valid, just and demandable claim, compelling the latter needlessly to seek redress from the courts. In such a case, the law allows recovery of money the plaintiff had to spend for a lawyers assistance in suing the defendantexpenses the plaintiff would not have incurred if not for the defendants refusal to comply with the most basic rules of fair dealing. It does not mean, however, that the losing party should be made to pay attorneys fees merely because the court finds his legal position to be erroneous and upholds that of the other party, 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. In fact, even a clearly untenable defense does not justify an award of attorneys fees unless it amounts to gross and evident bad faith.Exemplary Damages; Temperate Damages; No exemplary damages may be awarded without the plaintiffs right to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages having first been established.With respect to the award of exemplary damages, the rule in this jurisdiction is that the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may even consider the question of whether exemplary damages should be awarded. In other words, no exemplary damages may be awarded without the plaintiffs right to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages having first been established. Therefore, in view of our ruling that Petron cannot be made liable to NCBA for compensatory damages (i.e., attorneys fees), Petron cannot be held liable for exemplary damages either. [Petron Corporation vs. National College of Business and Arts, 516 SCRA 168(2007)]

18. Liga v allegro, 575 scra 310Ejectment; Judgments; Execution; The Supreme Court has previously sanctioned partial execution of the trial courts decision awarding damages in an ejectment suit at the instance of the plaintiffnot only is such an act procedurally sound, it also serves the ends of justice.The Court has previously sanctioned a similar partial execution of the trial courts decision awarding damages in an ejectment suit at the instance of the plaintiff. Not only is such an act procedurally sound, it also serves the ends of justice. As the Court succinctly held in Sps. Catungal v. Hao, 355 SCRA 29 (2001): Finally, respondent questions why petitioners would want to reinstate the RTC decision when in fact they had already applied for a writ of execution of the 8 March 1997 Decision. Respondent is of the view that since petitioners had already moved for the execution of the decision awarding a smaller amount of damages or fair rental value, the same is inconsistent with a petition asking for a greater fair rental value and, therefore, a possible case of unjust enrichment in favor of the petitioners. We are not persuaded. In order to avoid further injustice to a lawful possessor, an immediate execution of a judgment is mandated and the courts duty to order such execution is practically ministerial. In City of Manila, et al. v. CA, et al., 149 SCRA 183 (1987) We held that Section 8 (now Section 19), Rule 70, on execution pending appeal, also applies even if the plaintiff-lessor appeals where, as in that case, judgment was rendered in favor of the lessor but it was not satisfied with the increased rentals granted by the trial court, hence the appeal xxx.Same; Damages; Attorneys Fees; Attorneys fees and costs of litigation are awarded in instances where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiffs plainly valid, just and demandable claim.Liga also ends up at the shorter end. Law and jurisprudence support the award of attorneys fees and costs of suit in favor of Allegro. The award of damages and attorneys fees is left to the sound discretion of the court, and if such discretion is well exercised, as in this case, it will not be disturbed on appeal. Attorneys fees and costs of litigation are awarded in instances where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiffs plainly valid, just and demandable claim. Having delivered possession over the leased property to Liga, Allegro had already performed its obligation under the lease agreement. Liga should have exercised fairness and good judgment in dealing with Allegro by religiously paying the agreed monthly rental of P40,000.00.Same; Same; Interests; The back rentals in the instant case being equivalent to a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due thereon is twelve percent (12%) per annum from the time of extrajudicial demand.The Court deems it proper to award interest in favor of Allegro. In Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 78 (1994) we gave the following guidelines in the award of interest: II. With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed, as follows: 1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code. The back rentals in this case being equivalent to a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due thereon is twelve percent (12%) per annum from the time of extrajudicial demand on 15 December 2001. [Liga vs. Allegro Resources Corp., 575 SCRA 310(2008)]

19. Pilipinas bank v CA, 225 scra 26920. Crismina v CA, 304 scra 356Civil Law; Interest; Instances where the interest rate under CB Circular No. 416 applies; Cases beyond the scope of the said circular are governed by Article 2209 of the Civil Code which considers interest a form of indemnity for the delay in the performance of an obligation.In Reformina v. Tomol, Jr., this Court stressed that the interest rate under CB Circular No. 416 applies to (1) loans; (2) forbearance of money, goods or credits; or (3) a judgment involving a loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits. Cases beyond the scope of the said circular are governed by Article 2209 of the Civil Code, which considers interest a form of indemnity for the delay in the performance of an obligation.Same; Same; Same; The monetary award shall earn interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum from the date of the finality of the judgment until its satisfaction, regardless of whether or not the case involves a loan or forbearance of money.In Keng Hua Paper Products Co., Inc. v. CA, we also ruled that the monetary award shall earn interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum from the date of the finality of the judgment until its satisfaction, regardless of whether or not the case involves a loan or forbearance of money. The interim period is deemed to be equivalent to a forbearance of credit.Same; Same; Same; In Eastern Shipping, the Court observed that a forbearance in the context of the usury law is a contractual obligation of lender or creditor to refrain, during a given period of time, from requiring the borrower or debtor to repay a loan or debt then due and payable.Private respondent maintains that the twelve percent (12%) interest should be imposed, because the obligation arose from a forbearance of money. This is erroneous. In Eastern Shipping, the Court observed that a forbearance in the context of the usury law is a contractual obligation of lender or creditor to refrain, during a given period of time, from requiring the borrower or debtor to repay a loan or debt then due and payable. Using this standard, the obligation in this case was obviously not a forbearance of money, goods or credit. [Crismina Garments, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 304 SCRA 356(1999)]21. People v billaber, 421 scra 2722. Lim v CA, 373 scra 394Civil Law; Damages; Interest; It is axiomatic that if the suit were for damages, unliquidated and not known until definitely ascertained, assessed and determined by the courts after proof, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum should be from the date the judgment of the court is made.We are constrained to depart from the conclusion of the lower courts that upon the award of compensatory damages legal interest should be imposed beginning 22 July 1990, i.e. the date of the accident. Upon the provisions of Art. 2213 of the Civil Code, interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages, except when the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. It is axiomatic that if the suit were for damages, unliquidated and not known until definitely ascertained, assessed and determined by the courts after proof, 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).Same; Same; One who is injured by the wrongful or negligent act of another should exercise reasonable care and diligence to minimize the resulting damage.We have observed that private respondent left his passenger jeepney by the roadside at the mercy of the elements. Article 2203 of the Civil Code 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. One who is injured then by the wrongful or negligent act of another should exercise reasonable care and diligence to minimize the resulting damage. Anyway, he can recover from the wrongdoer money lost in reasonable efforts to preserve the property injured and for injuries incurred in attempting to prevent damage to it.Same; Same; 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.In awarding damages for tortuous injury, it becomes the sole design of the courts to provide for adequate compensation by putting the plaintiff in the same financial position he was in prior to the tort. 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. His recovery is, in the absence of circumstances giving rise to an allowance of punitive damages, limited to a fair compensation for the harm done. The law will not put him in a position better than where he should be in had not the wrong happened.Same; Same; Indemnification for damages is not limited to damnum emergens or actual loss but extends to lucrum cessans or the amount of profit lost.In the present case, petitioners insist that as the passenger jeepney was purchased in 1982 for only P30,000.00 to award damages considerably greater than this amount would be improper and unjustified. 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. In other words, indemnification for damages is not limited to damnum emergens or actual loss but extends to lucrum cessans or the amount of profit lost. [Lim vs. Court of Appeals, 373 SCRA 394(2002)]

23. LBC express v Ado, 468 scra 216Actions; Damages; One is entitled to actual or compensatory damages in form of an adequate compensation for such preliminary losses suffered as has been duly proved.One is entitled to actual or compensatory damages in the form of an adequate compensation for such pecuniary losses suffered as has been duly proved. In contracts, the damages for which the obligor who acted in good faith shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted. In the case where the obligor acted in bad faith, the obligor shall be responsible for all the damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation.Same; Same; Damages are not presumed but must be duly proved with reasonable degree of certainty.It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that actual or compensatory damages is not presumed, but must be duly proved with reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have suffered and on evidence of the actual amount thereof. Indeed, the party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.Same; Same; Quantum of Proof; Where there is preponderant evidence that the respondents indeed suffered some pecuniary loss due to the loss of the passport but failed to adduce preponderant evidence of the passports value, they are entitled only to temperate damages.There is preponderant evidence that the respondents indeed suffered some pecuniary loss due to the loss of Eubertos passport. However, the respondents failed to adduce preponderant evidence of the passports value. Nevertheless, they are entitled to temperate damages of P10,000.00 under Article 2224 of the New Civil Code which provides: [t]emperate 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 cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.Same; Same; While the failure to deliver the respondents passport does not per se amount to willful misconduct or bad faith, the evidence on record shows that the petitioners indeed acted in bad faith and in wanton disregard of their contractual obligation to the respondents.The rulings of the trial and appellate courts that the respondent spouses are entitled to moral damages are correct. While the failure to deliver Eubertos passport does not per se amount to willful misconduct or bad faith, the evidence on record shows that the petitioners indeed acted in bad faith and in wanton disregard of their contractual obligation to the respondents. The respondents made numerous inquiries from the petitioners on the whereabouts of Eubertos passport, and repeatedly made requests for its return; the petitioners dilly-dallied and gave various excuses. The petitioners told the respondents that the passport may have been inadvertently transported to their other branches. Exasperated, the respondents had to secure the services of counsel. Their demands for the production of the passport (made through counsel) were ignored by the petitioners. Worse still, the petitioners alleged in their answer to the complaint that the van carrying Eubertos passport, while parked somewhere along 14th Street, Port Area, South Harbor, Manila, was forcibly opened by unidentified person/s who pilfered its contents, probably including the said passport. [LBC Express, Inc. vs. Ado, 468 SCRA 216(2005)]

24. Ramos v CA, 321 scra 584Hospitals; Damages; Proximate Cause Defined.Proximate cause has been defined as that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. An injury or damage is proximately caused by an act or a failure to act, whenever it appears from the evidence in the case, that the act or omission played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury or damage; and that the injury or damage was either a direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of the act or omission. It is the dominant, moving or producing cause. [Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 584(1999)]Same; Same; Amount of damages awarded may be a continuing one where the injury is chronic and continuing, as when the patient is comatose.In these cases, the amount of damages which should be awarded, if they are to adequately and correctly respond to the injury caused, should be one which compensates for pecuniary loss incurred and proved, up to the time of trial; and one which would meet pecuniary loss certain to be suffered but which could not, from the nature of the case, be made with certainty. In other words, temperate damages can and should be awarded on top of actual or compensatory damages in instances where the injury is chronic and continuing. And because of the unique nature of such cases, no incompatibility arises when both actual and temperate damages are provided for. The reason is that these damages cover two distinct phases. [Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 584(1999)]

25. Araneta v bank of America, 40 scra 144Civil Code; Adverse reflection against financial credit is a material loss; Temperate damages are awarded.The financial credit of a businessman is a prized and valuable asset, it being a significant part of the foundation of his business. Any adverse reflection thereon constitutes some material loss to him. As stated in the case of Atlanta National Bank vs. Davis, 96 Ga 334, 23 SE 190, citing 2 Morse Banks, Sec. 458, it can hardly be possible that a customers check can be wrongfully refused payment without some impeachment of his credit, which must in fact be an actual injury, though he cannot, from the nature of the case, furnish independent, distinct proof thereof.Same; Concept of temperate damages.In some States of the American Union, temperate damages are allowed. There are cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered, although the court is convinced that there has been such loss. For instance, injury to ones commercial credit or to the goodwill of a business firm is often hard to show with certainty in terms of money. Should damages be denied for that reason? The judge should be empowered to calculate moderate damages in such cases, rather than that the plaintiff should suffer, without redress from the defendants wrongful act.Same; Court may increase amount of attorneys fees.Considering the nature and extent of the services rendered by the petitioners counsel both in the trial and appellate courts, the amount should be increased to P4,000. This may be done motu proprio by this Court under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, which provides that attorneys fees may be recovered in the instances therein enumerated and in any other case where the Court deems it first and equitable that attorneys fees. . . should be recovered, provided the amount thereof be reasonable in all cases.Remedial law; Review of the evidence and reappraisal of its probative value is not within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.A review of the evidence and a reappraisal of its probative value is not within the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. [Araneta vs. Bank of America, 40 SCRA 144(1971)]

26. Francisco v ferrer, 353 scra 261Civil Law; Damages; Moral damages may be awarded in breaches of contracts where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.To recover moral damages in an action for breach of contract, the breach must be palpably wanton, reckless, malicious, in bad faith, oppressive or abusive. Under the provisions of this law, in culpa contractual or breach of contract, moral damages may be recovered when the defendant acted in bad faith or was guilty of gross negligence (amounting to bad faith) or in wanton disregard of his contractual obligation and, exceptionally, when the act of breach of contract itself is constitutive of tort resulting in physical injuries. Moral damages may be awarded in breaches of contracts where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.Same; Same; Same; Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence.Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence, it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty through some motive or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud.Same; Same; Same; The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good faith; It must be shown that the proximate cause thereof was the unlawful act or omission of the wrongdoer.Moral damages are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good faith. It is not enough that one merely suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish, serious anxiety as the result of the actuation of the other party. Invariably such action must be shown to have been willfully done in bad faith or with ill motive. Mere allegations of besmirched reputation, embarrassment and sleepless nights are insufficient to warrant an award for moral damages. It must be shown that the proximate cause thereof was the unlawful act or omission of the [private respondent] petitioners.Same; Same; Same; Certain Conditions Required in Awarding Moral Damages.An award of moral damages would require certain conditions to be met, to wit: (1) first, there must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) second, there must be culpable act or omission factually established; (3) third, the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) fourth, the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.Same; Same; To warrant the award of exemplary damages, the wrongful act must he accompanied by bad faith and the guilty party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless or malevolent manner; Requirements of an Award of Exemplary Damages.In the same fashion, to warrant the award of exemplary damages, [t]he wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith, and an award of damages would be allowed only if the guilty party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless or malevolent manner. The requirements of an award of exemplary damages are: (1) they may be imposed by way of example in addition to compensatory damages, and only after the claimants right to them has been established; (2) that they can not be recovered as a matter of right, their determination depending upon the amount of compensatory damages that may be awarded to the claimant; (3) the act must be accompanied by bad faith or done in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner. [Francisco vs. Ferrer, Jr., 353 SCRA 261(2001)]

27. Herbosa v CA, 374 scra 578Same; Damages; It is basic that the claim for actual, moral and exemplary damages as well as attorneys fees must each be independently identified and justified.However, the award of damages to the petitioners cannot be lumped together as was done by the trial court. It is basic that the claim for actual, moral and exemplary damages as well as attorneys fees must each be independently identified and justified. In this connection, Article 1170 of the New Civil Code provides that those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. For failure of PVE, a division of respondent Solid Distributors, Inc., to comply with its obligation under the video tape coverage contract, petitioners are entitled to actual damages at least in the amount of One Thousand Four Hundred Twenty-Three Pesos (P1,423.00) representing their downpayment in that contract.Same; Same; Moral damages are recoverable for breach of contract where the breach was wanton, reckless, malicious or in bad faith, oppressive or abusive.Ordinarily, moral damages cannot be recovered in an action for breach of contract because such an action is not among those expressly mentioned in Article 2219 of the New Civil Code. However, moral damages are recoverable for breach of contract where the breach was wanton, reckless, malicious or in bad faith, oppressive or abusive. The wanton and reckless failure and neglect to timely check and remedy the video tape recorder by the PVE crew who are all employees of respondent Solid Distributors, Inc. indicates a malicious breach of contract and gross negligence on the part of said respondent in the discharge of its contractual obligations. Consequently, the petitioners who suffered mental anguish and tortured feelings thereby, are entitled to an award of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as moral damages.Same; Same; Marriage; Wedding Ceremonies; In our society, the importance of a wedding ceremony cannot be underestimated as it is the matrix of the family and, therefore, an occasion worth reliving in the succeeding years.In the case of Go v. Court of Appeals, we emphasized that (i)n our society, the importance of a wedding ceremony cannot be underestimated as it is the matrix of the family and, therefore, an occasion worth reliving in the succeeding years. Further, we reiterate the following pronouncements therein where we also awarded moral damages on account of a malicious breach of contract similar to the case at bar, to wit: Considering the sentimental value of the tapes and the fact that the event therein recordeda wedding which in our culture is a significant milestone to be cherished and rememberedcould no longer be reenacted and was lost forever, the trial court was correct in awarding the appellees moral damages albeit in the amount of P75,000.00 xxx in compensation for the mental anguish, tortured feelings, sleepless nights and humiliation that the appellees suffered and which under the circumstances could be awarded as allowed under Articles 2217 and 2218 of the Civil Code. [Herbosa vs. Court of Appeals, 374 SCRA 578(2002)]28. Manuel v people, 476 scra 461Same; Same; Same; Same; Damages; Requisites; Moral damages may be awarded in favor of the offended party only in criminal cases enumerated in Article 2219, paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Civil Code and analogous cases.Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendants wrongful act or omission. An award for moral damages requires the confluence of the following conditions: first, there must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant; second, there must be culpable act or omission factually established; third, the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and fourth, the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 or Article 2220 of the Civil Code. Moral damages may be awarded in favor of the offended party only in criminal cases enumerated in Article 2219, paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Civil Code and analogous cases.Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; While bigamy is not one of those specifically mentioned in Article 2219 of the Civil Code in which the offender may be ordered to pay moral damages to the private complainant/offended party, the guilty party is liable to the offended party for moral damages under Article 2219 in relation to Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code.The law does not intend that moral damages should be awarded in all cases where the aggrieved party has suffered mental anguish, fright, moral anxieties, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury arising out of an act or omission of another, otherwise, there would not have been any reason for the inclusion of specific acts in Article 2219 and analogous cases (which refer to those cases bearing analogy or resemblance, corresponds to some others or resembling, in other respects, as in form, proportion, relation, etc.) Indeed, bigamy is not one of those specifically mentioned in Article 2219 of the Civil Code in which the offender may be ordered to pay moral damages to the private complainant/offended party. Nevertheless, the petitioner is liable to the private complainant for moral damages under Article 2219 in relation to Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code. [Manuel vs. People, 476 SCRA 461(2005)]

29. Verules v posada, 522 scra 518Same; Same; Damages; There is nothing in law or jurisprudence that entitles the parents of a consenting adult who begets a love child to damages.We, however, cannot rule that respondents are entitled to damages. Article 2219 of the Civil Code which states moral damages may be recovered in cases of seduction is inapplicable in this case because Clarissa was already an adult at the time she had an affair with petitioner. Neither can her parents be entitled to damages. Besides, there is nothing in law or jurisprudence that entitles the parents of a consenting adult who begets a love child to damages. Respondents Constantino and Francisca Posada have not cited any law or jurisprudence to justify awarding damages to them. [Verceles vs. Posada, 522 SCRA 518(2007)]

30. Lopez v pan am, 16 scra 431Same; Moral damages and exemplary are recoverable for breach of contract of carriage in bad faith.As a proximate result of defendants breach in bad faith of its contracts with plaintiffs, the latter suffered social humiliation, wounded feelings, serious anxiety and mental anguish. For plaintiffs were travelling with first class tickets issued by defendant and yet they were given only the tourist class. At stopovers, they were expected to be among the first-class passengers by those awaiting to welcome them, only to be found among the tourist passengers. It may not be humiliating to travel as tourist passengers; it is humiliating to be compelled to travel as such, contrary to what is rightfully to be expected from the contractual undertaking.The rationale behind exemplary or corrective damages is, as the name implies, to provide an example or correction for public good. Defendant having breached its contracts in bad faith, the court may award exemplary damages in addition to moral damages (Articles 2229, 2232, New Civil Code). In view of its nature, it should be imposed in such amount as to sufficiently and effectively deter similar breach of contracts in the future by defendant or other airlines.Same; Attorneys fees; When written contract for attorneys fees controls the amount to be paid therefor is a case of breach of contract of carriage.A written contract for attorneys services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable. A consideration of the subject matter of the present controversy, of the professional standing of the attorney for plaintiffs-appellants, and of the extent of the services rendered by him, shows that the amount provided for in the written agreement is reasonable.Same; Factors considered in fixing damages.In the case at bar the damages were determined by considering the official, political, social and financial standing of the offended parties on one hand and the business and financial position of the offender on the other (Dominding vs. Ng, 55 O.G. 10). [Lopez, et al. vs. Pan American World Airways, 16 SCRA 431(1966)]

31. Cathay pacific v Vasquez, 399 scra 207Same; Same; Same; Damages; Requisites for Award of Moral Damages.Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Although incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendants wrongful act or omission. Thus, case law establishes the following requisites for the award of moral damages: (1) there must be an injury clearly sustained by the claimant, whether physical, mental or psychological; (2) there must be a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award for damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.Same; Same; Same; Same; Moral damages predicated upon a breach of contract of carriage may only be recoverable in instances where the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith or where the mishap resulted in the death of a passenger.Moral damages predicated upon a breach of contract of carriage may only be recoverable in instances where the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith or where the mishap resulted in the death of a passenger. Where in breaching the contract of carriage the airline 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 have reasonably foreseen. In such a case the liability does not include moral and exemplary damages.Same; Same; Same; Same; Attorneys Fees; It is a requisite in the grant of exemplary damages that the act of the offender must be accompanied by bad faith or done in wanton, fraudulent or malevolent manner; Where the awards for moral and exemplary damages are eliminated, so must the award for attorneys fees.The deletion of the award for exemplary damages by the Court of Appeals is correct. It is a requisite in the grant of exemplary damages that the act of the offender must be accompanied by bad faith or done in wanton, fraudulent or malevolent manner. Such requisite is absent in this case. Moreover, to be entitled thereto the claimant must first establish his right to moral, temperate, or compensatory damages. Since the Vazquezes are not entitled to any of these damages, the award for exemplary damages has no legal basis. And where the awards for moral and exemplary damages are eliminated, so must the award for attorneys fees.Same; Same; Same; Same; The amount of damages awarded should not be palpably and scandalously excessive as to indicate that it was the result of prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial court; Passengers must not prey on international airlines for damages awards, like trophies in a safari, after all neither the social standing nor prestige of the passenger should determine the extent to which he would suffer because of a wrong done, since the dignity affronted in the individual is a quality inherent in him and not conferred by these social indicators.Before writing finis to this decision, we find it well-worth to quote the apt observation of the Court of Appeals regarding the awards adjudged by the trial court: We are not amused but alarmed at the lower courts unbelievable alacrity, bordering on the scandalous, to award excessive amounts as damages. In their complaint, appellees asked for P1 million as moral damages but the lower court awarded P4 million; they asked for P500,000.00 as exemplary damages but the lower court cavalierly awarded a whooping P10 million; they asked for P250,000.00 as attorneys fees but were awarded P2 million; they did not ask for nominal damages but were awarded P200,000.00. It is as if the lower court went on a rampage, and why it acted that way is beyond all tests of reason. In fact the excessiveness of the total award invites the suspicion that it was the result of prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial court. The presiding judge of the lower court is enjoined to hearken to the Supreme Courts admonition in Singson vs. CA (282 SCRA 149 [1997]), where it said: The well-entrenched principle is that the grant of moral damages depends upon the discretion of the court based on the circumstances of each case. This discretion is limited by the principle that the amount awarded should not be palpably and scandalously excessive as to indicate that it was the result of prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial court. . . . and in Alitalia Airways vs. CA (187 SCRA 763 [1990]), where it was held: Nonetheless, we agree with the injunction expressed by the Court of Appeals that passengers must not prey on international airlines for damage awards, like trophies in a safari. After all neither the social standing nor prestige of the passenger should determine the extent to which he would suffer because of a wrong done, since the dignity affronted in the individual is a quality inherent in him and not conferred by these social indicators. [Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Vasquez, 399 SCRA 207(2003)]

32. Cathay pacific v ca, 219 scra 520Civil Law; Common Carriers; Contract of Carriage; Failure of common carrier to deliver luggage of passenger at designated place and time constitutes a breach of contract of carriage.Petitioner breached its contract of carriage with private respondent When it failed to deliver his luggage at the designated place and time, it being the obligation of a common carrier to carry its passengers and their luggage sefely to their destination, which includes the duty not to delay their transportation, and the evidence shows that petitioner acted fraudulently or in bad faith.Same; Same; Same; Same; Moral Damages; When recoverable.Moral damages predicated upon a breach of contract of carriage may only be recoverable in instances where the mishap results in death of a passenger, or where the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith.Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Discourteous and arbitrary conduct of common carrier's personnel amounts to bad faith entitling passenger's recovery for moral damages.While the mere failure of CATHAY to deliver respondent's luggage at the agreed place and time did not ipso facto amount to willful misconduct since the luggage was eventually delivered to private respondent, albeit belatedly, We are persuaded that the employees of CATHAY acted in bad faith. xxx The language and conduct of petitioner's representative towards respondent Alcantara was discourteous or arbitrary to justify the grant of moral damages. The CATHAY representative was not only indifferent and impatient; he was also rude and insulting.Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; In the absence of fraud or bad faith in breaching contract of carriage, liability of common carrier limited to natural and probable consequences of said breach, otherwise, moral and exemplary damages are recoverable.Where in breaching the contract of carriage the defendant airline 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 obligation which the parties had foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen. In that case, such liability does not include moral and exemplary damages. Conversely, if the defendant airline is shown to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith, the award of moral and exemplary damages is proper. [Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 520(1993)]

33. Sabena v ca, 171 scra 620Common Carriers; Damages; Misconduct on the part of the carriers employees toward a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the carrier.The issue, however, is not what was written in French in the document but what Yancha represented to Mrs. Fule when he induced her to sign it. As stated by the Court of Appeals, citing Air France v. Carrascoso (18 SCRA 155 [1966]), the misconduct on the part of the carriers employees toward a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the carrier.Same; Same; Same; Same; Rule with respect to recovery of moral damages in a damage suit predicated upon a breach of contract of carriage.In the same case, however, the Court ruled that [W]ith respect to moral damages, the rule is that the same are recoverable in a damage suit predicated upon a breach of contract of carriage only where (1) the mishap results in the death of a passenger and (2) it is proved that the carrier was guilty of fraud and bad faith, even if death does not result. (Ibid, at p. 13) As the appellate court found the petitioner guilty of bad faith in letting the respondent sign a quitclaim without her knowledge or understanding and contrary to what she was planning to do, the reduced award of moral and exemplary damages is proper and legal. [Sabena Belgian World Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, 171 SCRA 620(1989)]

34. Bagumbayan corp v IAC, 132 scra 441Civil Law; Damages; Grant of moral and exemplary damages has no basis if not predicated upon any of the cases enumerated in the Civil Code.While the award for actual damages has some basis, the grant of moral and exemplary damages is devoid of legal justification because it was not predicated upon any of the cases enumerated in the Civil Code (Ventanilla vs. Centeno, 110 Phil. 811, 816). Generally, there can be no recovery of moral damages if the case is not mentioned in articles 2219 and 2220 (Malonzo vs. Galang, 109 Phil. 16; Ventanilla vs. Centeno, 110 Phil. 811).Same; Same; Moral damages treated in American jurisprudence on compensatory damages.What we call moral damages are treated in American jurisprudence as contemporary damages awarded for mental pain and suffering or mental anguish resulting from a wrong (25 C.J.S. 815).Same; Same; Alleged embarrassment by customers due to alleged negligence of a hotel waiter, not the mental anguish contemplated in Art 2217 of the Civil Code which allows recovery of moral damages.We hold that the embarrassment to which Mrs. Sea was exposed by the incident is not the mental anguish contemplated in article 2217 for which moral damages can be recovered.Same; Same; Exemplary or corrective damages, not recoverable, absent gross negligence; Case at bar.In this case, it would not be just and proper to include moral damages in the corporations vicarious liability as employer. The award of P5,000 as exemplary or corrective damages cannot also be sustained because there was no gross negligence in this case. [Bagumbayan Corp. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 132 SCRA 441(1984)]

35. Guanio v makati Shangri-la, 641 scra 591Civil Law; Contracts; Breach of Contract; Words and Phrases; Breach of contract is defined as the failure without legal reason to comply with the terms of a contract.Breach of contract is defined as the failure without legal reason to cmmomply with the terms of a contract. It is also defined as the [f]ailure, without legal excuse, to perform any promise which forms the whole or part of the contract. The appellate court, and even the trial court, observed that petitioners were remiss in their obligation to inform respondent of the change in the expected number of guests. The observation is reflected in the records of the case. Petitioners failure to discharge such obligation thus excused, as the above-quoted paragraph 4.5 of the parties contract provide, respondent from liability for any damage or inconvenience occasioned thereby. [Guanio vs. Makati Shangri-La Hotel and Resort, Inc., 641 SCRA 591(2011)]

36. Mabinay v velasquez, 419 scra 118Civil Law; Damages; In order that moral damages may be awarded, there must be pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the like; Mere allegations do not suffice; they must be substantiated by clear and convincing proof.In order that moral damages may be awarded, there must be pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the like. While respondent alleged in his complaint that he suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and moral shock, he failed to prove them during the trial. Indeed, respondent should have taken the witness stand and should have testified on the mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and other emotional and mental suffering he purportedly suffered to sustain his claim for moral damages. Mere allegations do not suffice; they must be substantiated by clear and convincing proof. No other person could have proven such damages except the respondent himself as they were extremely personal to him.Same; Same; The award of moral damages must be anchored to a clear showing that respondent actually experienced mental anguish, besmirched reputation, sleepless nights, wounded feelings or similar injury.The testimony of Machete was not enough evidence of the moral damages that the respondent supposedly suffered. Machete may have clearly testified on the specific words uttered by petitioner against respondent but he could not have testified on the wounded feelings respondent allegedly went through by reason of petitioners slanderous remark. The award of moral damages must be anchored to a clear showing that respondent actually experienced mental anguish, besmirched reputation, sleepless nights, wounded feelings or similar injury. There was no better witness to this experience than respondent himself. Since respondent failed to testify on the witness stand, the trial court did not have any factual basis to award moral damages to him.Same; Same; No exemplary damages can be aw