GR L 12332; (June, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12332; June 30, 1960
AURORA SUNTAY TANJANGCO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOSE JOVELLANOS, ET AL., defendants-appellees, CATALINA MATA VDA. DE VILLANUEVA, intervenor.
FACTS
Plaintiff Aurora Suntay Tanjangco filed an action to establish an easement of right of way over a portion of the defendants’ land on P. Faura Street, Ermita, Manila. She sought to widen the entrance of an adjacent alley owned by the City of Manila, which she and the intervenor used as a passageway to their lots, by securing an easement over 0.96 meters of the defendants’ land. Upon the plaintiff’s posting of a cash bond, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from constructing on the portion claimed by the plaintiff. After trial, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint and the intervenor’s complaint. On the defendants’ counterclaim, the trial court, despite noting the absence of separate evidence, awarded them damages of P500.00 and attorney’s fees of P500.00, reasoning that the stoppage of construction from the injunction “must have caused them damages from the very nature of things.”
ISSUE
Whether the lower court acted properly in awarding damages and attorney’s fees to the defendants.
RULING
No, the lower court erred in awarding damages but correctly awarded attorney’s fees.
1. On Damages: The award of P500.00 as damages is eliminated. The defendants’ allegations of damages in their counterclaim were denied by the plaintiff. The defendants had the burden to prove the fact and amount of damages suffered with competent and satisfactory evidence. The rule requires that judgments for damages must be based on proof of the real existence of the damages and the amount must be proven with some degree of certainty. The lower court could not rely on speculation or the “nature of things” but needed actual proof, which was absent. In the absence of such definite proof, no damages may be awarded.
2. On Attorney’s Fees: The award of P500.00 as attorney’s fees is affirmed. The facts found by the lower court show that the action filed by the plaintiff was evidently unfounded. Under these circumstances, the defendants are entitled to recover attorney’s fees pursuant to Article 2208(4) of the New Civil Code.
The appealed decision is affirmed in all other respects.