CIVIL LAW; Damages: Actual, Temperate, Exemplary, and Moral Damages

Gonzales, et al. v. Camarines Sur II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (CASURECO), et al., G.R. No. 181096, 6 March 2013, is a case on the propriety of the grant of damages, as well as the amounts thereof, to Petitioners.

Actual and Temperate Damages

In upholding the appellate court’s ruling that actual damages cannot be granted, the Supreme Court explained that since no documentary proof was presented by the Petitioners to support their claim of actual damages, it may not be awarded. Indeed, while the Petitioners were able to enumerate their expenditures in their Complaint, they admittedly failed to back it up with the proper documentary proof (i.e., receipts or invoices):

“Despite the enumeration of expenditures, the claim of petitioners for actual damages cannot be granted. In People v. Buenavidez, this Court stressed that only expenses supported by receipts, and not merely a list thereof, shall be allowed as bases for the award of actual damages. As admitted by petitioners themselves, none of these expenses, which were incurred over a span of seven years, was backed up by documentary proof such as a receipt or an invoice. Considering, therefore, that adequate compensation is awarded only if the pecuniary loss suffered is proven by competent proof and by the best evidence obtainable showing the actual amount of loss, the CA correctly denied petitioners' claims for actual damages.

The Supreme Court, however, granted the alternative prayer of temperate damages in favor of the Petitioners since both the court a quo and the trial court recognized that there was some pecuniary loss suffered:

“Here, the RTC acknowledged that petitioners suffered some form of pecuniary loss when it accepted as fact that they went back and forth to the office of CASURECO at Del Rosario, Naga City, to settle the account of the Samsons. Although the CA did not review this factual finding, we find that the RTC's pronouncement on this matter was nonetheless substantiated by the evidence on record given the attached letters with postages, documents, and testimonies that signified an ongoing transaction between the parties to settle the electric charges. Indeed, they were at least able to prove that they incurred undue costs in pursuing their rights against CASURECO.

Hence, the award of temperate damages to petitioners is in order. Given that these are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, we deem it reasonable under the circumstances to award them P3,000.”

Note that, in the above case, the Supreme Court explained that while the issue on the grant of temperate damages was raised for the first time on appeal, it may nevertheless grant the same considering that the newly-raised question or issue is related closely or dependent on an assigned error, citing the case of Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos, 399 Phil. 243 (2000).

Also, even if the pecuniary loss suffered by the claimant is capable of documentary proof, the Supreme Court explained that an award of temperate damages is not precluded, as it is “drawn from equity to provide relief to those definitely injured.” Hence, “it may be allowed so long as the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss.”

“Article 2224 of the Civil Code provides that temperate damages may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be provided with certainty.

Notwithstanding the wording of the Civil Code cited above, we have already settled in jurisprudence that even if the pecuniary loss suffered by the claimant is capable of proof, an award of temperate damages is not precluded. The grant of temperate damages is drawn from equity to provide relief to those definitely injured. Therefore, it may be allowed so long as the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss.”

Exemplary Damages and Attorney’s Fees

On the issue of exemplary damages, the Supreme Court sided with the Petitioners and ruled that its deletion was improper, given the findings of the court a quo that there was evident bad faith on the part of CASURECO, which clearly betrayed the compromise agreement it entered into with the Petitioners by refusing to remove old accountabilities of the apartment unit, and unjustifiably and repetitively reflecting them for 7 years in several electric bills of the Petitioners with threat of electric service disconnection.

  

Inasmuch as there was a finding of evident bad faith on the part of CASURECO, the Supreme Court likewise reinstated the award of attorney’s fees, since the Civil Code provides that attorney’s fees shall be given to the claimant if “exemplary damages are awarded; or if the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the former’s plainly valid, just and demandable claim.”

               

Moral Damages

On the reduction of the amount awarded as moral damages by the CA, the Supreme Court reiterated its previous ruling that the fairness thereof may be subject of appellate determination and reduced if found to be far too excessive compared to the actual loss sustained by the claimants.

In this case, however, the Supreme Court held that the award of 50,000.00 as damages is proper in view of the severe sufferings inflicted on the Petitioners by CASURECO. The Supreme Court noted the fact that CASURECO failed to even explain why they failed to update their records despite the compromise agreement and the constant reminders of the Petitioners over the span of 7 years.