‘Damages’ is a term defined by the Supreme Court in the case of MEA Builders, Inc.

vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121484, 31 January 2005, as the sum of money
which the law awards or imposes as a pecuniary compensation, a recompense, or
satisfaction for an injury done or a wrong sustained as a consequence either of a
breach of a contractual obligation or a tortious act.

In Julita Robleza vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-80364, 28 June 1989, the
Supreme Court ratiocinated why damages may be recovered, to wit:

“The law on damages is merely intended to repair the damage done by putting the
plaintiff in the same position, as far as pecuniary compensation can do, that he
would be had the damage not been inflicted and the wrong not committed.”

“ The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to judicial
proceedings to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the
administration of justice.

Cayosa said the sub judice rule originated from the United States
judicial system where verdicts were decided by a jury composed of
ordinary citizens. The rule is not applicable in the Philippine judicial
system, he said, where decisions are handed down by judges who are
expected to be knowledgeable about the rules of evidence.