ACTUAL DAMAGES

6. G.R. No. 152040 March 31, 2006

MARIKINA AUTO LINE TRANSPORT CORPORATION and FREDDIE L. SUELTO, Petitioners,

FACTS: Erlinda V. Valdellon is the owner of a two-door commercial apartment located at No. 31 Kamias Road,
Quezon City. The Marikina Auto Line Transport Corporation (MALTC) is the owner-operator of a passenger bus with
Plate Number NCV-849. Suelto, its employee, was assigned as the regular driver of the bus.

At around 2:00 p.m. on October 3, 1992, Suelto was driving the aforementioned passenger bus along Kamias Road,
Kamuning, Quezon City, going towards Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA). The bus suddenly swerved to the
right and struck the terrace of the commercial apartment owned by Valdellon located along Kamuning Road.3 Upon
Valdellons request, the court ordered Sergio Pontiveros, the Senior Building Inspection Officer of the City Engineers
Office, to inspect the damaged terrace.

He recommended that since the structural members made of concrete had been displaced, the terrace would have to
be demolished "to keep its monolithicness, and to insure the safety and stability of the building."

Photographs of the damaged terrace were taken. Valdellon commissioned Engr. Jesus R. Regal, Jr. to estimate the cost
of repairs, inclusive of labor and painting, and the latter pegged the cost at P171,088.46.7

In a letter dated October 19, 1992 addressed to the bus company and Suelto, Valdellon demanded payment of
P148,440.00, within 10 days from receipt thereof, to cover the cost of the damage to the terrace.8 The bus company
and Suelto offered a P30,000.00 settlement which Valdellon refused.

Valdellon filed a criminal complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property against Suelto. After the
requisite preliminary investigation.

The trial court rendered judgment finding Suelto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in
damage to property, and ordered MALTC and Suelto to pay, jointly and severally, P150,000.00 to Valdellon, by way
of actual and compensatory damages, as well as attorneys fees and costs of suit.

CA rendered judgment affirming the decision of the trial court, but the award for actual damages was reduced to
P100,000.00.

ISSUE: WON, the prosecution failed to adduce evidence to prove that respondent suffered actual damages in the
amount of P100,000.00

RULING: YES.

We agree with the contention of petitioners that respondents failed to prove that the damages to the terrace caused by
the incident amounted to P100,000.00. The only evidence adduced by respondents to prove actual damages claimed
by private respondent were the summary computation of damage made by Engr. Jesus R. Regal, Jr. amounting to
P171,088.46 and the receipt issued by the BB Construction and Steel Fabricator to private respondent for P35,000.00
representing cost for carpentry works, masonry, welding, and electrical works. Respondents failed to present Regal to
testify on his estimation. In its five-page decision, the trial court awarded P150,000.00 as actual damages to private
respondent but failed to state the factual basis for such award. Indeed, the trial court merely declared in the decretal
portion of its decision that the "sum of P150,000.00 as reasonable compensation sustained by plaintiff for her damaged
apartment." The appellate court, for its part, failed to explain how it arrived at the amount of P100,000.00 in its three-
page decision.

Under Article 2199 of the New Civil Code, actual damages include all the natural and probable consequences of the
act or omission complained of, classified as one for the loss of what a person already possesses (dao emergente) and
the other, for the failure to receive, as a benefit, that which would have pertained to him (lucro cesante). As
expostulated by the Court in PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation v. Court of Appeals:26

Under Article 2199 of the Civil Code, actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in satisfaction of, or in
recompense for, loss or injury sustained. They proceed from a sense of natural justice and are designed to repair the
wrong that has been done, to compensate for the injury inflicted and not to impose a penalty. In actions based on torts
or quasi-delicts, actual damages include all the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained
of. There are two kinds of actual or compensatory damages: one is the loss of what a person already possesses (dao
emergente), and the other is the failure to receive as a benefit that which would have pertained to him (lucro cesante).27

The burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence would be presented on either side. The
burden is to establish ones 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 are not presumed. The claimant must prove the actual
amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence
obtainable. Specific facts that could afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne
must be pointed out. Actual damages cannot be anchored on mere surmises, speculations or conjectures. As the Court
declared:

As stated at the outset, to enable an injured party to recover actual or compensatory damages, he is required to prove
the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence
available. The burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence would be presented on either side.
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. In other words, damages cannot be presumed and courts, in making an award,
must point out specific facts that could afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are
borne.28

The Court further declared that "where goods are destroyed by the wrongful act of defendant, the plaintiff is entitled
to their value at the time of the destruction, that is, normally, the sum of money which he would have to pay in the
market for identical or essentially similar goods, plus in a proper case, damages for the loss of the use during the
period before replacement.