Custodio et al vs Court of Appeals

FACTS:
Pacifico Mabasa owns a property behind the properties of spouses Cristino
and Brigida Custodio and spouses Lito and Ma. Cristina Santos. The
passageway leading to Mabasas house passes through the properties of the
Custodios and the Santoses.
Sometime in 1981, the spouses Lito and Ma. Cristina Santos built a fence
around their property. This effectively deprived Mabasa passage to his
house. Mabasa then sued the Custodios and the Santoses to compel them to
grant his right of way with damages. Mabasa claims that he lost tenants
because of the blockade done by the families in front. The trial court ruled in
favor of Mabasa. It ordered the Custodios and the Santoses to give Mabasa a
permanent easement and right of way and for Mabasa to pay just
compensation. The Santoses and the Custodios appealed. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. However, the CA modified
the ruling by awarding damages in favor of Mabasa (Actual damages: P65k,
Moral damages: P30k, Exemplary damages: P10k).
ISSUE: Whether or not the grant of damages by the CA is proper.
HELD: No. The award is not proper. This is an instance of damnum absque
injuria.
There is a material distinction between damages and injury. Injury is the
illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which
results from the injury; and damages are the recompense or compensation
awarded for the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage without injury
in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation
of a legal duty.
In this case, it is true that Mabasa may have incurred losses (damage) when
his tenants left because of the fence made by the Santoses. However, when
Santos built the fence, he was well within his right. He built the fence inside
his property. There was no existing easement agreement, either by contract
or by operation of law, on his property. Hence, Santos has all the right to
build the fence. It was only after the judgment in the trial court that the
easement was created which was even conditioned on the payment of
Mabasa of the just compensation. Santos did not commit a legal injury
against Mabasa when he built the fence, therefore, there is no actionable
wrong as basis for the award of damages. In this case, the damage has to be
borne by Mabasa.

People vs. Gambao

FACTS:
Accused-appellants HALIL GAMBAO y ESMAIL, EDDIE KARIM y USO, EDWIN
DUKILMAN y SUBOH, TONY ABAO y SULA, RAUL UDAL y KAGUI, THENG
DILANGALEN y NANDING, JAMAN MACALINBOL y KATOL, MONETTE RONAS y

AMPIL and NORA EVAD y MULOK are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
as principals in the crime of kidnapping for ransom and sentenced to suffer
the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility of parole. Accusedappellant THIAN PERPENIAN y RAFON A.K.A. LARINA PERPENIAN is found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt as accomplice in the crime of kidnapping
for ransom and sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6)
months and one (1) day of Prision Correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years
and one (1) day of Prision Mayor, as maximum. Accused-appellants are
ordered to indemnify the victim in the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary
damages apportioned in the following manner: the principals to the crime
shall jointly and severally pay the victim the total amount of P288,000.00
while the accomplice shall pay the victim P12,000.00, subject to Article 110
of the Revised Penal Code on several and subsidiary liability.
Apportionment of Damages
The ruling of this Court in People v. Montesclaros is instructive on the
apportionment of civil liabilities among all the accused-appellants. The entire
amount of the civil liabilities should be apportioned among all those who
cooperated in the commission of the crime according to the degrees of their
liability, respective responsibilities and actual participation. Hence, each
principal accused-appellant should shoulder a greater share in the total
amount of indemnity and damages than Perpenian who was adjudged as
only an accomplice.

Gatchalian V. Delim (1991)

FACTS:
July 11,1973: Reynalda Gatchalian boarded Thames" mini bus at Aringay, La
Union bound for Bauang, of the same province. The bus bumped a cement
flower pot on the side of the road, went off the road, turned turtle and fell
into a ditch.
Gatchalian got injured with physical injuries on the leg, arm and forehead.
Mrs. Adela Delim visited the passenger and later paid for their hospitalization
and medical expenses. She also gave transportation expense of P12 in going
home from the hospital and they were made to sign a Joint Affidavit stating
that they are no longer interested to file a complaint, criminal or civil against
the said driver and owner of the said Thames.
Petitioner was among those who signed. Notwithstanding the said document,
petitioner filed a claim to recover actual and moral damages for loss of
employment opportunities, mental suffering and inferiority complex caused
by the scar on her forehead.
Delim averred that it was a fortuitous event.
CFI: dismissed because of the Joint Affidavit
CA: affirmed

ISSUE: W/N Gatchalian is entitled to damages

HELD: At the time of the accident, she was no longer employed in a public
school. Her employment as a substitute teacher was occasional and episodic,
contingent upon the availability of vacancies for substitute teachers. She
could not be said to have in fact lost any employment after and by reason of
the accident. She may not be awarded damages on the basis of speculation
or conjecture.
Petitioner's claim for the cost of plastic surgery for removal of the scar on her
forehead, is another matter. A person is entitled to the physical integrity of
his or her body; if that integrity is violated or diminished, actual injury is
suffered for which actual or compensatory damages are due and assessable.
Petitioner Gatchalian is entitled to be placed as nearly as possible in the
condition that she was before the mishap. A scar, especially one on the face
of the woman, resulting from the infliction of injury upon her, is a violation of
bodily integrity, giving raise to a legitimate claim for restoration to her
conditio ante.
Moral damages may be awarded where gross negligence on the part of the
common carrier is shown. Considering the extent of pain and anxiety which
petitioner must have suffered as a result of her physical injuries including the
permanent scar on her forehead, we believe that the amount of P30,000.00
would be a reasonable award. Petitioner's claim for P1,000.00 as attorney's
fees is in fact even more modest.

OCEANEERING CONTRACTORS (PHILS), INC., Petitioner, v.

NESTOR N. BARRETTO, doing business as N.N.B.
LIGHTERAGE, Respondent.
FACTS:
Barretto and petitioner Oceaneering entered into a Time Charter Agreement
whereby the latter hired the aforesaid barge for a renewable period of thirty
calendar days, for the purpose of transporting construction materials from
Manila to Ayungon, Negros Oriental.
Barrettos Bargeman, Eddie La Chica, executed a Marine Protest, reporting
that the barge reportedly capsized in the vicinity of Cape Santiago,
Batangas. Barretto apprised Oceaneering of the supposed fact that the
mishap was caused by the incompetence and negligence of the latters
personnel in loading the cargo and that it was going to proceed with the
salvage, refloating and repair of the barge.
Oceaneering caused its counsel to serve Barretto a letter demanding the
return of the unused portion of the charter payment. However, Barrettos
counsel informed Oceaneering that its unused charter payment was withheld
by his client who was likewise seeking reimbursement for the amount he
expended in salvaging, refloating and repairing the barge.

Contending that the accident was attributable to the incompetence and

negligence which attended the loading of the cargo by Oceaneerings hired
employees, Barretto sought indemnities for expenses incurred and lost
income before the RTC.
Alongside its claim for reimbursement of the sums expended for the salvage
operation it conducted which was denied for lack of evidence to prove the
same, Oceaneerings claim for the value of its cargo was likewise denied on
the ground, among other matters, that the same was not included in the
demand letters it served Barretto.
The CA reversed on the ground that the agreement executed by the parties,
by its express terms, was a time charter where the possession and control of
the barge was retained by Barretto; that the latter is, therefore, a common
carrier legally charged with extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the
goods transported by him; and, that the sinking of the vessel created a
presumption of negligence and/or unseaworthiness which Barretto failed to
overcome.
Applying the rule, however, that actual damages should be proved with a
reasonable degree of certainty, the CA denied Oceaneerings claim for the
value of its lost cargo and merely ordered the refund of the money it paid for
the time charter.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in disallowing the claims for actual
damages.
HELD:
The petition is meritorious.
CIVIL LAW: Actual damages
Actual or compensatory damages are those damages which the injured party
is entitled to recover for the wrong done and injuries received when none
were intended. Pertaining as they do to such injuries or losses that are
actually sustained and susceptible of measurement, they are intended to put
the injured party in the position in which he was before he was injured.
The rule is long and well settled that there must be pleading and proof of
actual damages suffered for the same to be recovered. In this regard,
Oceaneering correctly faulted the CA for not granting its claim for actual
damages or, more specifically, the portions thereof which were duly pleaded
and adequately proved before the RTC. While concededly not included in the
demand letters Oceaneering served Barretto, the formers counterclaims for
the value of its lost cargo and salvaging expenses were distinctly pleaded
and prayed for in the answer it filed.
PARTIALLY GRANTED.

PNOC V. CA (1998)

Lessons Applicable: Kinds of Damages (Torts and Damages)

FACTS:
September 21, 1977 early morning: M/V Maria Efigenia XV, owned by Maria
Efigenia Fishing Corporation on its way to Navotas, Metro Manila collided with
the vessel Petroparcel owned by the Luzon Stevedoring Corporation (LSC).
Board of Marine Inquiry, Philippine Coast Guard Commandant Simeon N.
Alejandro found Petroparcel to be at fault .
Maria Efigenia sued the LSC and the Petroparcel captain, Edgardo Doruelo
praying for an award of P692,680.00 representing the value of the fishing
nets, boat equipment and cargoes of M/V Maria Efigenia XV with interest at
the legal rate plus 25% as attorneys fees and later on amended to add the
lost value of the hull less the P200K insurance and unrealized profits and
lost business opportunities .
During the pendency of the case, PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation
sought to be substituted in place of LSC as it acquired Petroparcel.
Lower Court: against PNOC ordering it to pay P6,438,048 value of the fishing
boat with interest plus P50K attorney's fees and cost of suit.
CA: affirmed in toto.
ISSUE: W/N the damage was adequately proven
HELD: YES. affirming with modification actual damages of P6,438,048.00 for
lack of evidentiary bases therefor. P2M nominal damages instead.
In connection with evidence which may appear to be of doubtful relevancy or
incompetency or admissibility, it is the safest policy to be liberal, not
rejecting them on doubtful or technical grounds, but admitting them unless
plainly irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent, for the reason that their
rejection places them beyond the consideration of the court.
If they are thereafter found relevant or competent, can easily be remedied
by completely discarding or ignoring them.
There are two kinds of actual or compensatory damages:
-loss of what a person already possesses (dao emergente)
-failure to receive as a benefit that which would have pertained to him in the
case of profit-earning chattels, what has to be assessed is the value of the
chattel to its owner as a going concern at the time and place of the loss, and
this means, at least in the case of ships, that regard must be had to existing
and pending engagements.
If the market value of the ship reflects the fact that it is in any case virtually
certain of profitable employment, then nothing can be added to that value in
respect of charters actually lost, for to do so would be pro tanto to
compensate the plaintiff twice over.

If the ship is valued without reference to its actual future engagements and
only in the light of its profit-earning potentiality, then it may be necessary to
add to the value thus assessed the anticipated profit on a charter or other
engagement which it was unable to fulfill.
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 proven through sole testimony of
general manager without objection from LSC.
Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of whether or not the
circumstance (or evidence) is to considered at all. On the other hand, the
probative value of evidence refers to the question of whether or not it proves
an issue.
Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not has no probative value.
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 awarded in every
obligation arising from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, acts or omissions
punished by law, and quasi-delicts, or in every case where property right has
been invaded.
Damages in name only and not in fact 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.
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.