LEGAL NOTE 0042: HOW TO PROVE ACTUAL DAMAGES.

 

SOURCE: OCEANEERING CONTRACTORS (PHILS), INC.  VS. NESTOR N. BARRETTO, DOING BUSINESS AS N.N.B. LIGHTERAGE (G.R. NO. 184215, 9 FEBRUARY 2011, PEREZ, J.) SUBJECTS: MARITIME CASE; NEGLIGENCE OF COMMON CARRIER; COMPENSATORY DAMAGES DEPENDS ON PLEADING AND PROOF; ATTORNEYS FEES NOT AUTOMATIC FOR WINNING CASES. (BRIEF TITLE: OCEANEERING CONTRACTORS VS. BARRETO).

 

 

HOW DO YOUR PROVE ACTUAL DAMAGES?

BY PLEADING AND PROOF OF ACTUAL DAMAGES SUFFERED.

Conformably with the foregoing provision, the rule is long and well settled that there must be pleading and proof of actual damages suffered for the same to be recovered.[43]  

 

WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF THE LOSS YOU HAVE TO PROVE?

 THERE ARE TWO ELEMENTS:

 1.THE AMOUNT OF LOSS MUST BE CAPABLE OF PROOF;

2. IT MUST BE ACTUALLY PROVEN WITH REASONABLE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY BY MEANS OF COMPETENT PROOF OR BEST EVIDENCE AVAILABLE.

 In addition to the fact that the amount of loss must be capable of proof, it must also be actually proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or the best evidence obtainable.[44]  

 

WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF DAMAGE SUFFERED?

 THE PARTY CLAIMING THE SAME.

 The burden of proof of the damage suffered is, consequently, imposed on the party claiming the same[45] who should adduce the best evidence available in support thereof, like sales and delivery receipts, cash and check vouchers and other pieces of documentary evidence of the same nature. 

 

HOW ABOUT SELF-SERVING STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT, ARE THESE SUFFICIENT PROOF.

 NO. THERE MUST BE CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE.

 In the absence of corroborative evidence, it has been held that self-serving statements of account are not sufficient basis for an award of actual damages.[46] 

 

IF COURT AWARDS ACTUAL DAMAGES, WHAT MUST IT STATE?

 IT MUST STATE THE FACTUAL BASES BECAUSE ACTUAL DAMAGES CANNOT BE PREDICATED ON FLIMSY, REMOTE, SPECULATIVE AND INSUBSTANTIAL CASE.

Corollary to the principle that a claim for actual damages cannot be predicated on flimsy, remote, speculative, and insubstantial proof,[47] courts are, likewise, required to state the factual bases of the award.[48]

 

APPLIED TO THE CASE ABOVE, HOW DID THE COURT ARRIVED AT THE AWARD FOR ACTUAL DAMAGES?

Applying the just discussed principles to the case at bench, we find that Oceaneering correctly fault 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 dated 12 March 1998[49] and 13 July 1998[50] Oceaneering served Barretto, the former’s counterclaims for the value of its lost cargo in the sum of P4,055,700.00 and salvaging expenses in the sum of P125,000.00 were distinctly pleaded and prayed for in the 26 January 1999 answer it filed a quo.[51]  Rather than the entireP4,055,700.00 worth of construction materials reflected in the inventory[52] which Engr. Oracion claims to have prepared on 29 November 1997, based on the delivery and official receipts from Oceaneering’s suppliers,[53] we are, however, inclined to grant only the following items which were duly proved by the vouchers and receipts on record, viz.:  (a) P1,720,850.00 worth of spiral welded pipes with coal tar epoxy procured on 22 November 1997;[54] (b) P629,640.00 worth of spiral welded steel pipes procured on 28 October 1997;[55] (c) P155,500.00 worth of various stainless steel materials procured on 27 November 1997;[56]  (d)P66,750.00 worth of gaskets and shackles procured on 20 November 1997;[57] and, (e) P4,880.00 worth of anchor bolt procured on 27 November 1997.[58]

          The foregoing sums all add up to of P2,577,620.00 from which should be deducted the sum of P351,000.00 representing the value of the nine steel pipes salvaged by Oceaneering, or a total of  P2,226,620.00 in actual damages representing the value of the latter’s lost cargo.  Excluded from the computation are the following items which, on account of the dates of their procurement, could not have possibly been included in the 29 November 1997 inventory prepared by Engr. Oracion, to wit: (a) P1,129,640.00 worth of WO#1995 and PO#OCPI-060-97 procured on 9 December 1997;[59] and, (b) P128,000.00 worth of bollard procured on 16 December 1997.[60]  Likewise excluded are the anchor bolt with nut Oceaneering claims to have procured for an unspecified amount on 3 November 1997[61] and the P109,018.50 worth of Petron oil it procured on 28 November 1997[62] which does not fit into the categories of lost cargo and/or salvaging expenses for which it interposed counterclaims a quo.  Although included in its demand letters as aforesaid and pleaded in its answer, Oceaneering’s claim for salvaging expenses in the sum of P125,000.00 cannot, likewise, be granted for lack of credible evidence to support the same.

   

[1]               CA rollo, CV No. 87168, pp. 165-183.

[2]               Id. at 183.

[3]               Exhibit “A,” Records, Civil Case No. 87168, p. 199.

[4]               Exhibit “C”, id. at 201.

[5]               Exhibit “2”, id. at 448.

[6]               Exhibits “E” to “E-2”, id. at 203-205.

[7]               TSN, 20 April 2001, pp. 5-6.

[8]               Records, pp. 204-205.

[9]               TSN, 27 March 2003, pp. 18-24.

[10]             Id. at 19-20.

[11]             Exhibit “3,” Records, Civil Case No. 87168, p. 449.

[12]             Exhibit “F”, id. at 206.

[13]             Exhibit “21”, id. at 465.

[14]             Exhibit “23”, id. at 468-469.

[15]             Exhibit “22”, id. at 466-467.

[16]             Exhibit “M”, id. at 215.

[17]             Exhibit “25”, id. at 471.

[18]             Id. at 1-26.

[19]             Id. at 51-59.

[20]             Id. at 104.

[21]             TSN, 10 December 1999; 12 January, 2001; 4 April 2000; 1 September 2000.

[22]             TSN, 8 December 2000.

[23]             TSN, 20 April 2001.

[24]             TSN, 24 October 2002; 27 March 2003; 8 May 2003.

[25]             TSN, 15 May 2003.

[26]             TSN, 3 July 2003.

[27]             TSN, 14 August 2003.

[28]             TSN, 28 August 2003.

[29]             TSN, 4 December 2003.

[30]             Records, Civil Case No. 87168, pp. 195-217; 434-506; 539-543.

[31]             Id. at 229; 512; 553; 560-561.

[32]             Id. at 635-663.

[33]             Id. at 668-679.

[34]             Id. at 686-689.

[35]             CA rollo, CV No.  87168, pp. 40-82.

[36]             Id. at 165-183.

[37]             Id. at 185-203.

[38]             Id. at 227-230.

[39]             Rollo, p. 18.

[40]             Empire East Land Holdings, Inc. vs. Capitol Industrial Construction Groups, Inc., 566 SCRA 473, 485.

[41]             Spouses Ong vs. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 338, 353 (1999).

[42]             Filipinas (Pre-Fab Bldg.) Systems, Inc. vs. MRT Development Corporation, G.R. No. 167829-30, 13 November 2007, 537 SCRA 609, 640, citing Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 11053, 16 October 1996, 249 SCRA 331.

[43]             Canada vs. All Commodities Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 146141, 17 October 2008, 569 SCRA 321, 329.

[44]             Manila Electric Corporation vs. T.E.A.M. Electronics Corporation, G.R. No. 131723, 13 December 2007, 540 SCRA 62, 79.

[45]             Luxuria Homes, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 989, 1001-1002, (1999).

[46]             MCC Industrial Sales Corporation vs. Ssangayong Corporation, G.R. No. 153051, 18 October 2007, 536 SCRA 408, 467-468.

[47]             Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co., Ltd. v. Dynamic Planners and Construction Corp., G.R. Nos. 169408 & 170144, 30 April 2008, 553 SCRA 541, 567 .

[48]             Santiago vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127440, 26 January 2007, 513 SCRA 69, 86.

[49]             Exhibit “23”, Records, Civil Case No. 87168, pp. 468-469.

[50]             Exhibit “25”, id. at 471.

[51]             Id. at 56-57.

[52]             Exhibit “5”, id. at 451.

[53]             TSN, 27 March 2003, pp. 7-8.

[54]             Exhibits “5” and “6”, Records, Civil Case No. 87168, pp. 451-452.

[55]             Exhibit “10”, id. at 454.

[56]             Exhibits “11” and “12”, id. at 455-456.

[57]             Exhibit “15”, id. at 458.

[58]             Exhibits “16” and “17”, id. at 459.

[59]             Exhibits “8” and “9”, id. at 453.

[60]             Exhibits “13” and “14”, id. at 457, Exhibit “27”; id. at 472.

[61]             Exhibit “28”, id. at 473.

[62]             Exhibit “29” and submarkings, id. at 474-475.

[63]             Exhibit “25”, id. at 471.

[64]             Philippine Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-46558, 31 July 1981, 106 SCRA, 391, 412.

[65]             G.R. No. 97412, 12 July 1994, 234 SCRA 78, 96-97.

[66]             Scott Consultants & Resource Development Corporation, Inc. vs. CA, 312 Phil. 466, 480 (1995).

[67]             Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 326 Phil. 504, 518-519 (1996).

[68]             Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation vs. Kamalig Resources, Inc., G.R. No. 165608, 13 December 2007, 540 SCRA 139, 159.    

[69]             Frias vs. San Diego-Sison, G.R. No. 155223, 3 April 2007, 520 SCRA 244, 259-260.

[70]             Felsan Realty & Development Corporation vs. Commonwealth of Australia, G.R. No. 169656, 11 October 2007, 535 SCRA 618, 632.