G.R. No. 193914 November 26, 2014
SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. DMC-CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES, INC., Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation owned the cargo ship M/V “Diamond Rabbit.” Respondent DMC Construction Resource, Inc. owned a coal-conveyor facility at the PICOP Pier in Bislig, Surigao del Sur. On February 23, 1996, the vessel attempted to dock at the pier despite windy conditions and rough seas. A heaving line broke, causing an astern mooring rope to entangle the vessel’s propeller, disabling its main engine. The vessel’s starboard anchor was dropped and a forward mooring rope was secured ashore, but these could not hold the vessel against the strong winds and current. The vessel became uncontrollable, swung from side to side, collapsed a fender, and drifted, hitting and destroying respondent’s coal-conveyor facility. Respondent demanded payment for damages. Petitioner failed to pay, leading respondent to file a Complaint for damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found petitioner liable for actual damages amounting to ₱3,523,175.92, plus legal interest, due to the negligence of the vessel’s captain who proceeded to dock despite knowing the bad weather instead of waiting safely at the causeway. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the finding of negligence but modified the award, holding that actual damages were not sufficiently proven as respondent relied on estimates without presenting actual receipts. The CA instead awarded nominal damages in the same amount. Petitioner appealed, arguing that nominal damages are not a substitute for unproven actual damages and that the amount awarded was improper.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding nominal damages to respondent after ruling that the actual damages awarded by the RTC were unfounded.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that temperate, not nominal, damages should be awarded. The Court affirmed the factual findings of the lower courts, which are conclusive, establishing that respondent suffered a loss due to petitioner’s negligence but failed to prove the exact amount with certainty through receipts. The Court distinguished between nominal and temperate damages. Nominal damages are awarded to vindicate a violated right where no actual loss is proven. Temperate damages are recoverable when some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proven with certainty. Since respondent undoubtedly suffered pecuniary loss from the destruction of its property, though the exact amount was not provable with certainty, temperate damages were appropriate. The Court upheld the amount of ₱3,523,175.92 as a reasonable assessment of temperate damages. The CA decision was modified accordingly.