8/11/2019 Pnoc Shipping and Transport Corporation Vs

1/2

PNOC SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. HONORABLE COURT OFAPPEALSG.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 theLuzon Stevedoring Corporation (LSC). The Board of Marine Industry rendered adecision finding the Petroparcel at fault. After unsuccessful demands, MEFC suedLSC at the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Caloocan for actual damages by the lossof its vessel, equipment and cargo, which went down with the ship went sank.During the pendency, PNOC Shipping substituted LSC as it had already acquiredownership of the Petroparcel. MEFC amended its complaint and also claimed that

the amount of damages should account for the loss of business opportunities inmind. The lower court ruled in favour of MEFC using evidence presented by thetestimony of its general manager and sole witness, Edilberto Rosario. It awardedPHP 6,438,048 in actual damages taking into account the evidence presented byMEFC.

PNOC asserted that the award was not convincingly proved by competentand admissible evidence and that the quotations of prices submitted by MEFCsufficient. 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 evidenceobtainable.

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 beendone, to compensate for the injury inflicted and not to impose a penalty. Inactions based on torts and quasi-delicts, actual damages include all the naturaland probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. There are twokinds of actual or compensatory damages: one is the loss of what a person

8/11/2019 Pnoc Shipping and Transport Corporation Vs

2/2

already possesses (dolo emergente) , and the other is the failure to receive as abenefit 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 bepresumed and courts must point out specific facts that afford a basis formeasuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne. A court cannotmerely rely on speculations, conjectures, or guesswork as to the fact and amountof damages well as hearsay or uncorroborated testimony whose truth is suspect.In this case, MEFC presented price quotations through the testimony of DelRosario. MEFC did not present any other witnesses specially those whosesignatures appear in the price quotations. A witness can only testify to those factsthat 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 ofhis 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 hasbeen violated or invaded may be vindicated and recognized, and not for thepurpose of indemnifying the plaintiff or any loss. The court believes that theallegations in the original and amended complaints can be the basis for the

determination of a fair amount of nominal damages. The award of damages ismodified in so far as the amount of PHP 6,438,048 lacks of evidentiary basis.Considering the fact, however, that first, technically petitioner sustained injurywhich unfortunately, was not adequately proved, and second, this case hasdragged on for almost two decades, PHP 2,000,000 for nominal damages is proper