PNOC SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS.

HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS
G.R. No. 107518, October 8, 1998

FACTS:
The vessel M/V Efigenia XV, owned by Maria Efigenia Fishing Corporation
(MEFC) collided with the vessel Petroparcel, which at the time was owned by the
Luzon Stevedoring Corporation (LSC). The Board of Marine Industry rendered a
decision finding the Petroparcel at fault. After unsuccessful demands, MEFC sued
LSC at the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Caloocan for actual damages by the loss
of its vessel, equipment and cargo, which went down with the ship went sank.
During the pendency, PNOC Shipping substituted LSC as it had already acquired
ownership of the Petroparcel. MEFC amended its complaint and also claimed that
the amount of damages should account for the loss of business opportunities in
mind. The lower court ruled in favour of MEFC using evidence presented by the
testimony of its general manager and sole witness, Edilberto Rosario. It awarded
PHP 6,438,048 in actual damages taking into account the evidence presented by
MEFC.

PNOC asserted that the award was not convincingly proved by competent
and admissible evidence and that the quotations of prices submitted by MEFC
sufficient. It however, relied heavily on the testimony of their sole witness
without bothering to present documentary evidence to substantiate such claim.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the amount of damages was proven with a reasonable
degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and best evidence
obtainable.

HELD:
NO. Under Article 2199 of the Civil Code, actual or compensatory damages
are those awarded in satisfaction or in recompense for loss or injury sustained.
They proceed from a sense of natural justice 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 and 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 (dolo emergente), and the other is the failure to receive as a
benefit that which would have pertained to him (lucro cesante).

To enable an injured party to recover he is required to prove the actual
amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty. Damages cannot be
presumed and courts must point out specific facts that afford a basis for
measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne. A court cannot
merely rely on speculations, conjectures, or guesswork as to the fact and amount
of damages well as hearsay or uncorroborated testimony whose truth is suspect.
In this case, MEFC presented price quotations through the testimony of Del
Rosario. MEFC did not present any other witnesses specially those whose
signatures appear in the price quotations. A witness can only testify to those facts
that he knows of his personal knowledge. Moreover, because Del Rosario was the
owner of MEFC, whatever testimony he would give should be viewed in light of
his self-interest therein.

In the absence of competent proof on the actual damages suffered,
nominal damages is adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has
been violated or invaded may be vindicated and recognized, and not for the
purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff or any loss. The court believes that the
allegations in the original and amended complaints can be the basis for the
determination of a fair amount of nominal damages. The award of damages is
modified in so far as the amount of PHP 6,438,048 lacks of evidentiary basis.
Considering the fact, however, that first, technically petitioner sustained injury
which unfortunately, was not adequately proved, and second, this case has
dragged on for almost two decades, PHP 2,000,000 for nominal damages is proper