Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The rule is that actual damages cannot be presumed, but must be proved
with a reasonable degree of certainty.[27] In the case at bar, we agree
with petitioner that no competent proof was presented to prove that
respondent had paid P300,000.00 as advance rentals for the unexpired
period of the lease contract. On the contrary, the lease contract itself
provided that the remaining rentals of P448,000.00 shall be paid on April
23, 1997 and/or, on or before October 23, 1997, and on April 23, 1998
and/or, on or before October 23, 1998 the amount P448,000.00.
Respondent filed his complaint on February 7, 1997. No receipt or other
competent proof, aside from respondents self-serving assertion, was
presented to prove that respondent paid the rentals which were not yet
due. No proof was even presented by respondent to show that he had
already paid P1,000,000.00 upon signing of the lease contract, as
stipulated therein. Petitioner, in paragraphs 2 and 7 of his answer,[28]
specifically denied that respondent did so. Courts must base actual
damages suffered upon competent proof and on the best obtainable
evidence of the actual amount thereof.[29]
As to moral damages, Art. 2220 of the Civil Code provides that same may
be awarded in breaches of contract where the defendant acted
fraudulently or in bad faith. In the case at bar, respondent alleged that
petitioner made unauthorized repairs in the leased premises and ousted
his personnel therefrom despite their valid and subsisting lease
agreement. Petitioner alleged, by way of defense, that he undertook the
repairs because respondent abandoned the leased premises and left it in
a state of disrepair. However, petitioner presented no evidence to prove
his allegation, as he did not attend the pretrial conference and was
consequently declared in default. What remains undisputed therefore is
that petitioner had a valid and subsisting lease contract with respondent
which he refused to honor by giving back possession of the leased
premises to respondent. We therefore sustain the conclusion of both the
trial court and the Court of Appeals that an award of moral damages is
justified under the circumstances. We likewise sustain the award for
exemplary damages considering petitioners propensity not to honor his
contractual obligations, first under the lease contract and second, under
the amicable settlement executed before the Office of the Barangay
Captain. Since respondent was compelled to litigate and incur expenses to
protect his interest on account of petitioners refusal to comply with his
contractual obligations,[30] the award of attorneys fees has to be
sustained.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed
Decision dated April 2, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
59023 is modified by deleting the award of P300,000.00 as
reimbursement of advance rentals. The assailed Decision is AFFIRMED in
all other respects.
SO ORDERED.
DFA v. Falcon
Facts:
DFA and BCA entered into an agreement for the implementation of
machine readable passport and visa project. A Build-Operate-Transfer Agreement
(BOT Agreement) between DFA and PPC was signed. The BOT Agreement was
later amended to include the following changes. An Assignment Agreement was
executed by BCA and PPC whereby BCA assigned its rights arising from the
Amended BOT Agreement to PPC. DFA and BCA impute breach of the Amended
BOT Agreement against each other. DFA: Delay of project is due to the
submission of deficient documents as well as intervening issues regarding BCAs
financial incapacity. BCA: DFA failed to perform its reciprocal obligation to issue
to BCA a certificate of acceptance of Phase 1 within 14 days which was required
by the Amended BOT. Furthermore, it alleged that every new appointee to the
position of DFA secretary wanted to review the award to BCA thats why it took 3
years for DFA to issue said Certificate. DFA sent a Notice of Termination to BCA
and PPC due to their alleged failure to submit proof of financial capability to
complete the entire MRP/V Project in accordance with the financial warranty
under Section 5.02(A) of the Amended BOT Agreement. DFA likewise demanded
for liquidated damages. BCA sent a letter to the DFA demanding that it
immediately reconsider and revoke its previous notice of termination, otherwise,
BCA would be compelled to declare the DFA in default pursuant to the Amended
BOT Agreement. When the DFA failed to respond to said letter, BCA issued its
own Notice of Default against the DFA, stating that if the default is not remedied
within 90 days, BCA will be constrained to terminate the MRP/V Project and hold
the DFA liable for damages. BCA filed its Request for Arbitration with the
Philippine Dispute Resolution Center (PDRCI) pursuant to Section 19.02 of the
Amended BOT Agreement. Thereafter, the DFA and the BSP entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement for the latter to provide the former passports
compliant with international standards. The BSP then solicited bids for the
supply, delivery, installation and commissioning of a system for the production of
Electronic Passport Booklets or ePassports Thus, BCA filed a Petition for Interim
Relief under Section 28 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 (R.A.
No. 9285), with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig praying for the issuance of
TRO restraining DFA and BSP from awarding a new contract to implement the
Project or if such contract has been awarded, from implementing such projects.
DFA filed an Opposition (to the Application for Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction alleging that: 1} BCA has no cause of
action: MRP/V is not the same as the contract with BSP which is for the supply of
electronic passports. 2} RTC is prohibited from issuing a TRO pursuant to
RA 8975.The trial court ordered the issuance of the TRO. DFA filed an MR. BCAs
application for preliminary injunction was granted by trial court. DFA and BSP
filed the instant Petition for Certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for issuance
of TRO and/or a writ of preliminary injunction, imputing GAD on the trial court
when it granted interim relief to BCA and issued the WPI.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC can grant interim or provisional relief to parties in
arbitration case prior to the constitution of arbitral tribunal.
Ruling: Yes. We note that under Section 28, Republic Act No. 9285 or the
Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004, [76] the grant of an interim
measure of protection by the proper court before the constitution of an
arbitral tribunal is allowed Republic Act No. 9285 is a general law
applicable to all matters and controversies to be resolved through
alternative dispute resolution methods. This law allows a Regional Trial
Court to grant interim or provisional relief, including preliminary
injunction, to parties in an arbitration case prior to the constitution of the
arbitral tribunal. This general statute, however, must give way to a special
law governing national government projects, Republic Act No. 8975 which
prohibits courts, except the Supreme Court, from issuing TROs and writs of
preliminary injunction in cases involving national government projects.
However, as discussed above, the prohibition in Republic Act No.
8975 is inoperative in this case, since petitioners failed to prove that the
e-Passport Project is national government project as defined therein. Thus,
the trial court had jurisdiction to issue a writ of preliminary injunction
against the e-Passport Project.