Scribd
Upload
142 views2 pages

City of Dagupan v. Maramba

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on a petition for relief from a judgment that awarded ₱10 million in damages. The petitioner, the City of Dagupan, argued the damages were excessive given the evidence. The Court agreed, noting actual damages must be proven, and damages awards cannot be based on speculation. While a commercial fish center was demolished by the City, the plaintiff provided no receipts or proof of the alleged ₱10 million value. The Court therefore granted the petition for relief and remanded the case for a new determination of actual damages supported by competent evidence.

Uploaded by

Chris Inocencio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
142 views2 pages

City of Dagupan v. Maramba

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on a petition for relief from a judgment that awarded ₱10 million in damages. The petitioner, the City of Dagupan, argued the damages were excessive given the evidence. The Court agreed, noting actual damages must be proven, and damages awards cannot be based on speculation. While a commercial fish center was demolished by the City, the plaintiff provided no receipts or proof of the alleged ₱10 million value. The Court therefore granted the petition for relief and remanded the case for a new determination of actual damages supported by competent evidence.

Uploaded by

Chris Inocencio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

174411               July 2, 2014

CITY OF DAGUPAN, represented by the CITY MAYOR BENJAMIN S. LIM, Petitioner, 


vs.
ESTER F. MARAMBA, represented vy her ATTORNEY-IN-FACT JOHNNY
FERRER, Respondent.

A petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 is an equitable remedy which allows courts to
review a judgment tainted with neglect bordering on extrinsic fraud. In this case, total damages in the
amount of Pl 1 million was awarded in spite of the evidence on record.

We are asked in this petition  filed by the City of Dagupan through its then mayor, Benjamin S. Lim,
1

to: (1) reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision and resolution and (2) declare that the damages
awarded to respondent Ester F. Maramba are excessive

petitioner city caused the demolition of the commercial fish center, allegedly without giving direct
notice to Maramba and with threat of taking over the property.  This prompted Maramba, through her
6

attorney-in-fact, Johnny Ferrer, to file a complaint for injunction and damages with prayer for a writ of
preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order. 7

The complaint alleged that the demolition was unlawful and that the "complete demolition and
destruction ofthe previously existing commercial fish center of plaintiff is valued at Five Million
(₱10,000,000.00) pesos."  The word, "ten," was handwritten on top of the word, "five."
8

In the complaint’s prayer, Maramba asked for a judgment "ordering defendant corporation to pay
plaintiff the amount of Ten Thousand (₱10,000.00) pesos for the actual and present value of the
commercial fish center completely demolished by public defendant."  The word, "million," was
9

handwritten on top of the word, "thousand," and an additional zero was handwritten at the end ofthe
numerical figure.

On July 30, 2004, the trial court decision,  penned by Judge Crispin C. Laron, ruled in favor of
11

Maramba and awarded 10 million as actual damages:

petitioner city filed a motion for reconsideration

On August 25, 2005, the trial court, through acting Judge Silverio Q. Castillo, granted the petition for
relief and consequently modified its July 30, 2004 decision. It reduced the award ofactual damages
from 10 million to ₱75,000.00:

Maramba filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. CA Granted Maramba’s petition
and the July 30, 2004 decision became final and executory.

ISSUE:

Whether or not actual damages must be substantiated to be awarded.


RULING:

Yes. Article 2199 of the Civil Code defines actual damages. It states that "[e]xcept as provided by
law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss
suffered by him as he has duly proven." Competent proof of the amountclaimed as actual damages
107

is required before courts may grant the award:

Actual damages, to be recoverable, must not only be capable of proof, but must actually be proved
with a reasonable degree of certainty.  Courts cannot simply rely on speculation, conjecture or
1âwphi1

guesswork in determining the fact and amount of damages. To justify an award of actual damages,
there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss, credence can be given only to claims
which are duly supported by receipts. 108

Petitioner city emphasized the argument it made in its motion for reconsideration that "the
improvements allegedly destroyed or damaged consists [sic] only of G.I. sheets and some makeshift
stalls used for buying and selling of fishery products [and] [b]y no stretch of imagination would said
materials amount to Php10,000,000.00 as claimed by the plaintiff."  Considering the foregoing,
109

substantial justice warrants the grant of the petition.

You might also like