G.R. No. 145291 September 21, 2005
Public Estates Authority vs. Rosario Ganac Chu

FACTS

Respondent Rosario Ganac Chu filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Public Estates Authority (PEA) and the National Housing Authority. She alleged she was the owner of a parcel of land in Cavite, and that in June 1993, PEA, without notice, entered and bulldozed the property, destroying her black pepper plantation and depriving her of livelihood. She sought actual, moral, and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses. PEA, in its Answer, claimed ownership of an adjacent property and asserted it was conducting a relocation project. It contended Chu failed to prove ownership and had allegedly sold a portion of her land.
The trial court rendered a Partial Decision, holding PEA jointly and severally liable. It awarded Chu ₱2,000,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages and ₱100,000.00 as attorney’s fees, plus costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision in toto. PEA elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari, arguing the factual findings were unproven and the damage awards were baseless.

ISSUE

Whether there is a valid basis for the award of damages in favor of respondent.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the awards. On procedural grounds, the Court noted that a Rule 45 petition generally bars a re-evaluation of factual findings, as the CA’s affirmance of the trial court’s findings is typically binding. However, exceptions exist, such as when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. The Court found the award of ₱2,000,000.00 as actual damages improper. Actual damages require proof of actual loss with reasonable certainty, evidenced by receipts or other documentation. Chu’s testimony regarding her capital investment and lost income, while credible for establishing wrongful acts, was deemed insufficient to quantify actual damages with the requisite certainty. The Court cannot rely on speculation or conjecture.
Consequently, the award for actual damages was deleted. In its place, the Court awarded temperate damages under Article 2224 of the Civil Code. Temperate damages may be granted when some pecuniary loss has been proven but its exact amount cannot be ascertained from the evidence. The destruction of the pepper plantation constituted a clear loss justifying temperate damages. The Court reduced the attorney’s fees from ₱100,000.00 to ₱50,000.00, aligning it with the amount originally prayed for in the complaint. The award for costs of suit was sustained.