GR 100188; (February, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 100188 February 4, 1993
JULIETA ILAO & FELICIDAD REALTY CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, MARCOS QUIROZ & SALVADOR PALAMING, respondents.
FACTS
On November 25, 1985, an International Harvester truck owned by Marcos Quiroz and driven by Salvador Palaming bumped the rear of an Isuzu Gemini sedan owned by Felicidad Realty Corporation and driven by its driver, with petitioner Julieta Ilao on board. The sedan was badly damaged. The truck driver was convicted of simple imprudence. The sedan was covered by a comprehensive own-damage insurance policy from Central Surety and Insurance Company, which paid the insured corporation P10,270.81. The insured executed a Release of Claim with Loss and Subrogation Receipt in favor of the insurance company. Ilao claimed she paid an additional P8,181.16 for repairs. When demands for payment from the truck owner were unheeded, Ilao and the corporation filed a civil case for damages. The trial court ruled in their favor, awarding P8,161.16 (with interest) for repair costs, P10,800.00 for car rental during repairs, and P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court’s decision, finding insufficient proof of the actual damages claimed.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that there was no adequate proof of the petitioners’ claim for damages and in setting aside the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs.
RULING
The petition has no merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The records showed the damaged car was insured, and the insurance company paid P10,270.81, for which a subrogation receipt was issued. Although Ilao alleged the total repair cost was P18,181.16, the actual repair bill was not presented as evidence. The receipt presented only showed a partial payment of P8,181.16. No receipt was presented to prove that the amount received from the insurance company was paid to the repair shop. The claim for car rental was also not proved, as the rental contract alone did not establish that the contract was performed and payments were made. As plaintiffs, the petitioners had the burden of proving their claims, which they failed to discharge. Consequently, the claim for attorney’s fees also had no basis. The petition for review was denied.