GR 107518; (October, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 107518 October 8, 1998
PNOC SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and MARIA EFIGENIA FISHING CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
On September 21, 1977, the M/V Maria Efigenia XV, owned by private respondent Maria Efigenia Fishing Corporation, collided with the vessel Petroparcel, then owned by Luzon Stevedoring Corporation (LSC), near Fortune Island, Batangas. The Board of Marine Inquiry found the Petroparcel at fault. Private respondent sued LSC and the Petroparcel captain. During the case’s pendency, petitioner PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation was substituted for LSC as it had acquired ownership of the Petroparcel and assumed its obligations. Private respondent amended its complaint to include claims for the hull’s value (P800,000.00 less P200,000.00 insurance), unrealized profits, and increased replacement costs due to inflation. The trial court rendered a decision ordering petitioner to pay private respondent P6,438,048.00 as the vessel’s value with interest, P50,000.00 in attorney’s fees, and costs. The award was based on private respondent’s evidence, primarily the testimony of its general manager, Edilberto del Rosario, and various price quotations from 1987 for vessel replacement and equipment. Petitioner’s sole witness, Lorenzo Lazaro, claimed the quotations were excessive but failed to present documentary evidence to substantiate this claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s award of actual damages in the amount of P6,438,048.00 to private respondent.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The award of actual damages was not supported by competent evidence. The price quotations submitted by private respondent were hearsay, as the persons who prepared them were not presented to testify and be cross-examined. These documents were not falling under any exception to the hearsay rule. Furthermore, the lone testimony of Edilberto del Rosario was insufficient and self-serving, lacking corroboration. The principle of “best evidence” requires the presentation of the highest quality of evidence available, which private respondent failed to do. Actual damages must be proved with reasonable certainty and cannot be based on speculation, conjecture, or hearsay. The Supreme Court modified the award, granting temperate damages of P500,000.00 in lieu of the unproven actual damages, pursuant to Article 2224 of the Civil Code, as some loss was undoubtedly suffered but its exact amount was not fully proved. The award of attorney’s fees was deleted for lack of justification.