You are on page 1of 1

transportation LAW

A.Y. 2018-2019
CASE TITLE: HEREDIA VS. SALINAS
G.R. NO/DATE: G.R. No. L-4014
DOCTRINE: DAMAGES

FACTS:

This was an action between Justo Trinidad as plaintiff, on the one part, and Genaro Heredia as
defendant; it was decided against the latter by a judgment dated the 19th of April, 1906.

On the 23d of April, letters of notiflcation were addressed to the parties, and on the 28th of said month the
defendant excepted thereto and moved for a new trial. On the 5th of May following, the motion for a new
trial was heard and deuied, to which exception was at once taken. On the 5th of June of the same year,
the defendant gave notice of his intention to file a bill of exceptions, which was presented on the 13th of
the same month. That the admission and approval of the bill of exceptions was objected to by the plaintiff,
but the court overruled his objection and the bill \vas admitted and approved. Upon said bill having been
submitted to this Supreme Court, and upon the question being again raised, the court held that the bill of
exceptions should not have been admitted, and the appeal was thus abandoned.

By reason of such abandonment, the appellant in that case, believing himself prejudiced, filed the
complaint which is now before us on appeal. That the object of the present complaint is to claim damages
from Attorney Eamon Salinas, now the defendant, who advised him in the former case, on the ground
"that the latter, as lawyer for the plaintiff in the abovementioned case, did not perform his duties, as he
should have done, with all due diligence, and that through his fault or negligence the said plaintiff was
subjected to losses. Said losses are alleged to be as follow: (a) the sum of P611.39, which he paid to
Justo Trinidad as principal, interest, and costs, under the judgment entered in the above-cited case; (b)
the sum of P1,500, for which Geuaro Heredia had contracted to sell the four parcels of land Avhich
reverted to Justo Trinidad; (c) the sum of ?88, paid to the clerk of the Supreme Court and to the printing
establishment 'La Enriqueta' by reason of the appeal to which the complaint refers'' (VI, complaint).

ISSUE:

WON the petitioner is entitled to damages.

HELD:

Articles 1101, 1718, and 1902 of the Civil Code refer to losses and damages. The existence of the losses
and damages caused must be established in the suit upon the validity of the action prosecuted to secure
the indemnity. There is no proof of losses and damages when the action is based upon the
unsubstantiated and arbitrary supposition of the injustice of the judgment which became final by the fault
and negligence of the attorney. No proof of the injustice of such decision having been offered, the action
instituted for losses and damages is without foundation. The denial of remuneration for losses and
damages on sucli ground does not constitute a violation of the aforesaid articles of the Civil Code.