torts and damages digested cases (1st & 2nd week of february)

magarin

TORTS & DAMAGES

**Under Damages in the Outline

THE CONGREGATION OF THE RELIGIOUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY VS. CA

FACTS: A lot owned by spouses Protasio in Davao City was in the middle of lots owned by petitioner. When they had the lot surveyed, they discovered that portions of their lot were fenced by petitioner and a portion is used for a boy’s quarter. The encroachment by petitioner is without consent of the spouses. The petitioner contended it was a builder in good faith asserting the right of way. Trial court & CA decided for the spouses, awarded actual damages in the form of back rentals.

ISSUE: Was the award of actual damages proper?

HELD: Judgement is hereby MODIFIED in the sense that the awards of back rentals, moral damages and attorney's fees are hereby DELETED. In all other respects, the assailed decision is AFFIRMED.

RATIO: A party is entitled to an adequate compensation for such pecuniary loss actually suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such damages, to be recoverable, must not only be capable of proof, but must actually be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. These damages cannot be presumed, and the courts in making such award of damages must point out specific facts which could afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne.

OLAN VS. CA

FACTS: Olan, a PLDT employee, allege a contract between him and Rosales for securing a contract with PLDT for the latter to manufacture PLDT uniforms existed. And that he has a 1.75 % commission. Olan filed a case for the collection of said commission. Rosales answered that such contract never existed and Olan did not extend help in securing a contract for manufacture of PLDT uniform with PLDT. Trial Court dismissed Olan’s case and awarded attorney’s fees to Rosales.CA affirmed.

ISSUE: Was the award proper?

HELD: CA decision affirmed. Award of attorney’s fees deleted.

RATIO: The award must be properly explained in the text of the decision itself and cannot just so suddenly appear in the dispositive portion of the judgment of the court. Article 2208 of the Civil Code requires that the award of attorney's fees must have factual and legal justification and not simply left for the court to speculate or conjecture about.

**Under Principle of Damnum Absque Injuria

ERNESTO DICHOSO vs. The HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and TEODOLFO RAMOS

FACTS:The spouses Gaspar Prila and Maria Beldad, owned a parcel of land at Cagmanaba, Ocampo, Camarines Sur. In 1955, Vivencia Prila,daughter of the spouses sold her 4/6 portion with an area of 11.2477 hectares to the petitioner Ernesto Dichoso who had been, ever since, in actual physical possession thereof,. Asuncion Pacamara who inherited 1/6 part of the land from Gaspar Prila, sold to the wife of private respondent Teodolfo Ramos her 1/6 share. Ramos’ part of the land was claimed by Dichoso.in 1962, Ramos, in the company of a constabulary soldier and two policemen, allegedly seized the produce of the land of Dichoso.In retaliation,Dichoso also brought along with him in 1963, a constabulary soldier and appropriated the produce of Ramos.The lower court and CA decided in favor of Ramos. requiring the petitioner to deliver forty (40) cavans annually to private respondent despite its finding that only one-third (1/3) of the produce "went to" the plaintiff (ramos), two-thirds (2/3) being for his tenant.

ISSUE: Can Dichoso be made to deliver 40 cavans annually despite only 1/3 of produce will go to Ramos and 2/3 for his tenant?

HELD: award of actual damages is hereby REDUCED in proportion to the area that may be awarded to Ramos and to his one-third (1/3) participation in the harvests, from 1964 up to the time the land appurtenant thereto is returned to the respondent.

RATIO: Actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed, but must be duly proved, and 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.

BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS vs.HEIRS OF MAXIMO M. KALAW

FACTS: Kalaw is the General Manager and Board Chairman of NACOCO(National Coconut Corporation). In 1947, NACOCO contracted to sell coconut product with several buyers. That year, there were four typhoons that hit Phil. Coconut trees throughout the country suffered extensive damage. Copra production decreased. When it became clear that the contracts would be unprofitable Kalaw submitted them to the board for approval. Which was approved by the Board. As was to be expected, NACOCO but partially performed the contracts.the buyers filed a case for the full performance of the Contract. settlements were paid. NACOCO seeks to recover from Kalaw the said paid settlements. For bad faith and/or breach trust for having approved the contracts.According to Kalaw he did so acted for the best interest of the Corp.Trial Court decided for Kalaw.

ISSUE: Is Kalaw liable?

HELD: judgment affirmed.

RATIO:Kalaw is not liable. the trial court correctly observed, this is a case of damnum absque injuria. Conjunction of damage and wrong is here absent. There cannot be an actionable wrong if either one or the other is wanting. Kalaw all along thought that he had authority to enter into the contracts; that he did so in the best interests of the corporation.