Actual and compensatory damages are those recoverable because of pecuniary loss

in business, trade, property, profession, job or occupation.

Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate
compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved.
Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages (Art. 2199,
NCC). Both actual damages and consequential damages are dealt with in the
Civil Code under the same Chapter 2 of Title XVIII and the two terms are used as
equivalent of one another.
In determining actual damages, the court cannot rely on speculation, conjecture
or guess works as to the amount. Without the actual proof of loss, the award of
actual damages becomes erroneous.
The burden of proof of the damages suffered is on the party claiming the same. It
is the duty of petitioner to present evidence to support his claim for actual
damages (Salas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86500, November 21, 1990). He
must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence which means that the
evidence, as a whole, adduced by one side is superior to that of the other.
Actual damages is not proved by mere testimony of witness.
Only expenses supported by receipts and which appear to have been actually
expended in connection with the death of the victim should be allowed. The award
of actual damages cannot be based on the allegation of a witness without any
tangible document to support such claim.
The indemnification shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered, but
also that of the profits that the obligee failed to obtain.
There are two kinds of actual or compensatory damages: one is the loss of what a
person already possesses, and the other is the failure to receive as a benefit that
which would have pertained to him.
(second kind) The familiar rule is that damages consisting of unrealized profits,
frequently referred as ganacias frustradas or lucrum cessans, are not to be
granted on the basis of mere speculation, conjecture, or surmise, but rather by
reference to some reasonably definite standard such as market value, established
experience, or direct inference from known circumstances.

 In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages which may be awarded are

dependent on whether the obligor acted with good faith or otherwise.
In case of good faith, the damages recoverable are those which are the natural and
probable consequences of the breach of the obligation and which the parties have
foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time of the constitution of the
obligation. If the obligor acted with fraud, bad faith, malice, or wanton attitude, he
shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the
non-performance of the obligation.
Brief rulings on attorneys fees.
(4) The plaintiff is not entitled to attorneys fees where the litigation was caused not by
the defendants failure to pay but by the exorbitant amount claimed by the plaintiff or
because the plaintiff asked for too much and the defendant was justified in resisting
this action. (Cachero vs. Manila Yellow Taxicab, 101 Phil. 623 [1957];
Brief rulings on quasi-delict.
(3) Where plaintiff booked in an airline for a flight to leave at 2:20 p.m., arrived at the
airport at 1:50 p.m. but was not able to check in because her seat was given to another
passenger. (Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals, 154 SCRA 211 [1987].)

Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral
damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages
are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant
acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
Injury to property and breach of contract.
(e) Moral damages are not recoverable for breach of contract of carriage; except: 1)
where the mishap results in the death or physical injuries of a passenger and 2) where it is
proved that the carrier was guilty of fraud or bad faith, even if death does not result.