Torts and Damages Case Digest: National Power v. Philipp Brothers (2001)

G.R. No. 126204 November 20, 2001

Lessons Applicable: Who may recover (Torts and Damages)

Laws Applicable:

FACTS:

May 14, 1987: National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) issued invitations to bid for the supply and delivery of 120,000 metric tons of imported coal for its Batangas Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plant of which Philipp Brothers Oceanic, Inc. (PHIBRO) bidded and was accepted.
July 10, 1987: PHIBRO told NAPOCOR that disputes might soon plague Australia that will seriously hamper its ability to supply coal
July 23 to July 31, 1987: PHIBRO informed NAPOCOR that unless a "strike-free" clause is incorporated in the charter party or the contract of carriage shipowners are unwilling to load their cargo. In order to hasten the transfer of coal, they should share the burden of the "strike-free" clause but NAPOCOR refused.
November 17, 1987: PHIBRO effected its first shipment which was suppose to be on the 30th dat after receipt of the letter of credit of which it received on August 6, 1987
October 1987: NAPOCOR once more advertised for the delivery of coal to its Calaca thermal plant of which PHIBRO applied but was rejected since it was not able to satisfy the demand for damages on its delay.
PHIBRO filed for damages in the RTC alleging that the rejection was tainted with malice and bad faith
RTC: favored PHIBRO. Ordering NAPCOR to reinstate PHIBRO as accredited bidder, to pay $864,000 actual damages, $100,000 moral damages, $50,000 exemplary damages, $73,231.91 reimbursement for expenses, cost of litigation and attorney's fees, cost of suit and dismissed counterclaim of NAPOCOR.
CA: affirmed in toto. "Strikes" are undoubtedly included in the force majeure clause of the Bidding Terms and Specifications

ISSUE: W/N PHIBRO is entitled to damages.

HELD: NO. Modified actual, moral and exemplary damages, reimbursement for expenses, cost of litigation and attorney's fees, and costs of suit, is DELETED

Since there is no evidence to prove bad faith and arbitrariness on the part of the petitioners in evaluating the bids, we rule that the private respondents are not entitled to damages representing lost profits
NAPOCOR's act of disapproving PHIBRO's application for pre-qualification to bid was without any intent to injure or a purposive motive to perpetrate damage. Apparently, NAPOCOR acted on the strong conviction that PHIBRO had a "seriously-impaired" track record
The circumstances under which NAPOCOR disapproved PHIBRO's pre-qualification to bid do not show an intention to cause damage to the latter. The measure it adopted was one of self-protection. Consequently, we cannot penalize NAPOCOR for the course of action it took. NAPOCOR cannot be made liable for actual, moral and exemplary damages.
Corollarily, in awarding to PHIBRO actual damages in the amount of $864,000, the Regional Trial Court computed what could have been the profits of PHIBRO had NAPOCOR allowed it to participate in the subsequent public bidding. - Erroneous

Basic is the rule that to recover actual damages, the amount of loss must not only be capable of proof but must actually be proven with reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or best evidence obtainable of the actual amount thereof.

Moral damages are granted in recompense for physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. A corporation, being an artificial person and having existence only in legal contemplation, has no feelings, no emotions, no senses; therefore, it cannot experience physical suffering and mental anguish. Mental suffering can be experienced only by one having a nervous system and it flows from real ills, sorrows, and griefs of life
a winning party may be awarded attorney's fees only in case plaintiff's action or defendant's stand is so untenable as to amount to gross and evident bad faith - none here

Torts and Damages Case Digest: ABS-CBN v. CA (1999)

G.R. No. 128690 January 21, 1999

Lessons Applicable: Who may recover (Torts and Damages)

Laws Applicable: Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code

FACTS:

Viva, through Del Rosario, offered ABS-CBN through its vice-president Charo Santos-Concio, a list of 3 film packages or 36 titles from which ABS-CBN may exercise its right of first refusal
Mrs. Concio informed Vic through a letter that they can only purchase 10 titles to be schedules on non-primetime slots because they were very adult themes which the ruling of the MTRCB advises to be aired at 9:00 p.m
February 27, 1992: Del Rosario approached ABS-CBN's Ms. Concio with a list consisting of 52 original movie titles as well as 104 re-runs proposing to sell to ABS-CBN airing rights for P60M (P30M cash and P30M worth of television spots)
April 2, 1992: Del Rosario and ABS-CBN general manager, Eugenio Lopez III met wherein Del Rosario allegedly agreed to grant rights for 14 films for P30M
April 06, 1992: Del Rosario and Mr. Graciano Gozon of RBS Senior vice-president for Finance discussed the terms and conditions of Viva's offer to sell the 104 films, after the rejection of the same package by ABS-CBN
April 07, 1992: Ms. Concio sent the proposal draft of 53 films for P35M which Viva's Board rejected since they will not accept anything less than P60M
April 29, 1992: Viva granted RBS exclusive grants for P60M
RTC: Issued TRO against RBS in showing 14 films as filed by ABS-CBN.

RBS also set up a cross-claim against VIVA

RTC: ordered ABS-CBN to pay RBS P107,727 premium paid by RBS to the surety which issued their bond to lift the injunction, P191,843.00 for the amount of print advertisement for "Maging Sino Ka Man" in various newspapers, P1M attorney's fees, P5M moral damages, P5M exemplary damages and costs. Cross-claim to VIVA was dismissed.
ABS-CBN appealed. VIVA and Del Rosario also appealed seeking moral and exemplary damages and additional attorney's fees.
CA: reduced the awards of moral damages to P2M, exemplary damages to P2M and attorney's fees to P500,000. Denied VIVA and Del Rosario's appeal because it was RBS and not VIVA which was actually prejudiced when the complaint was filed by ABS-CBN

ISSUE:
1. W/N RBS is entitled to damages. -YES
2. W/N VIVA is entitled to damages. - NO

HELD: REVERSED except as to unappealed award of attorney's fees in favor of VIVA Productions, Inc.

1. YES.

One is entitled to compensation for actual damages only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. The indemnification shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered, but also that of the profits that the obligee failed to obtain. In contracts and quasi-contracts the damages which may be awarded are dependent on whether the obligor acted with good faith or otherwise, It 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. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of, whether or not such damages has been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant. Actual damages may likewise be recovered for loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury, or for injury to the plaintiff's business standing or commercial credit.
The claim of RBS for actual damages did not arise from contract, quasi-contract, delict, or quasi-delict. It arose from the fact of filing of the complaint despite ABS-CBN's alleged knowledge of lack of cause of action. Needless to state the award of actual damages cannot be comprehended under the above law on actual damages. RBS could only probably take refuge under Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code.
In this case, ABS-CBN had not yet filed the required bond; as a matter of fact, it asked for reduction of the bond and even went to the Court of Appeals to challenge the order on the matter, Clearly then, it was not necessary for RBS to file a counterbond. Hence, ABS-CBN cannot be held responsible for the premium RBS paid for the counterbond
Neither could ABS-CBN be liable for the print advertisements for "Maging Sino Ka Man" for lack of sufficient legal basis.
Article 2217 thereof defines what are included in moral damages, while Article 2219 enumerates the cases where they may be recovered, Article 2220 provides that moral damages may be recovered in breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. RBS's claim for moral damages could possibly fall only under item (10) of Article 2219

(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.

The award of moral damages cannot be granted in favor of a corporation because, being an artificial person and having existence only in legal contemplation, it has no feelings, no emotions, no senses, It cannot, therefore, experience physical suffering and mental anguish, which call be experienced only by one having a nervous system. A corporation may recover moral damages if it "has a good reputation that is debased, resulting in social humiliation" is an obiter dictum. On this score alone the award for damages must be set aside, since RBS is a corporation.
exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. They are recoverable in criminal cases as part of the civil liability when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances in quasi-contracts, if the defendant acted with gross negligence and in contracts and quasi-contracts, if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner
It may be reiterated that the claim of RBS against ABS-CBN is not based on contract, quasi-contract, delict, or quasi-delict, Hence, the claims for moral and exemplary damages can only be based on Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code.
There is no adequate proof that ABS-CBN was inspired by malice or bad faith. If damages result from a person's exercise of a right, it is damnum absque injuria.

Torts and Damages Case Digest: Strebel v. Figueros (1954)

G.R. No. L-4722 December 29, 1954

Lessons Applicable: Who may recover (Torts and Damages)

Laws Applicable:

FACTS:

Strebel subleased part of his lot in Sta. Mesa to Standard Vacuum Oil Company who constructed Mobilgas Station operated by a partnership Eustaquio & Co. Then Under-Secretary of Labor Jose Figueras wanted to build a drainage through the lots of Figueras and Stebel by using his social and political influence he managed to influence Assistant City Fiscal of Manila Cornelio S. Ruperto to write an opinion granting his right. Stebel and his parter Primo Eustaquio protested. But the was seemingly abandoned before the property rights could be violated
That due to personal conflicts his wife's son-in-law Manuel Hernandez was removed form his position
September 15, 1949: Figueras use of his official and political influence over Ruperto and Director of Labor Felipe E. Jose to institute a Criminal Case against Strebel and his partner Eustaquio for allegedly compelling several employees to work more than 8 hours a day but was dismissed for lackof prima facie evidence
RTC: Dismissed the complaint of Emilio Strebel against Jose Figueras, Felipe E. Jose and Cornelio S. Ruperto

ISSUE:
1. W/N Strebel can recover damages for the case of Hernandez - NO
2. W/N the wrongful filing of criminal charge is a ground for misconduct or malfeasance arising from an action ex delicto or a tortious act - NO

HELD:

1. NO.

general rule, the right of recovery for mental suffering resulting from bodily injuries is restricted to the person who has suffered the bodily hurt, and there can be no recovery for distress caused by sympathy for another's suffering, or for fright due to a wrong against a third person. So the anguish of mind arising as to the safety of others who may be in personal peril from the same cause cannot be taken into consideration
a husband or wife cannot recover for mental suffering caused by his or her sympathy for the other's suffering
Strebel is not even related to Dr. Hernandez whose wife is a daughter of Mrs. Strebel by a previous marriage

2. NO.

Although the same article permits recovery of said damages in cases of malicious prosecution, this feature of said provision may not be availed of by the plaintiff herein, inasmuch as the acts set forth in the complaint took place in 1949, or before said Code became effective. If the fault is also punished by the previous legislation, the less severe sanction shall be applied.
It is not alleged in the complaint that defendants Felipe Jose and Cornelio Ruperto had any participation whatsoever in the filing of the information for unjust vexation. Obviously, they are exempt from liability in connectiontherewith. Upon the other hand, the assistant city fiscal who signed said information and Antonio Isaac, the offended party therein, have not been included as defendants in the case at bar.