PNOC SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION, Where goods are destroyed by the wrongful act of the

Petitioner, v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and MARIA defendant the plaintiff is entitled to their value at the time
EFIGENIA FISHING CORPORATION, Respondents. of destruction, that is, normally, the sum of money which
he would have to pay in the market for identical or
G.R. No. 107518. October 8, 1998 essentially similar goods, plus in a proper case damages
for the loss of use during the period before replacement.
FACTS: The records disclose that in the early morning of September In other words, in the case of profit-earning chattels, what
21, 1977, the M/V Maria Efigenia XV, owned by private respondent has to be assessed is the value of the chattel to its owner
Maria Efigenia Fishing Corporation, was navigating the waters near as a going concern at the time and place of the loss, and
Fortune Island in Nasugbu, Batangas on its way to Navotas, Metro this means, at least in the case of ships, that regard must
Manila when it collided with the vessel Petroparcel which at the time be had to existing and pending engagements.x x x.
was owned by the Luzon Stevedoring Corporation (LSC). x x x. If the market value of the ship reflects the fact that
it is in any case virtually certain of profitable
After investigation was conducted by the Board of Marine Inquiry, employment, then nothing can be added to that value in
Philippine Coast Guard Commandant Simeon N. Alejandro rendered respect of charters actually lost, for to do so would be pro
a decision finding the Petroparcel at fault. Based on this finding by tanto to compensate the plaintiff twice over. On the other
the Board and after unsuccessful demands on petitioner, 7 private hand, if the ship is valued without reference to its actual
respondent sued the LSC and the Petroparcel captain, Edgardo future engagements and only in the light of its profit-
Doruelo, before the then Court of First Instance of Caloocan City, earning potentiality, then it may be necessary to add to
paying thereto the docket fee of one thousand two hundred fifty-two the value thus assessed the anticipated profit on a charter
pesos (P1,252.00) and the legal research fee of two pesos (P2.00). 8 In or other engagement which it was unable to fulfill. What
particular, private respondent prayed for an award of P692,680.00, the court has to ascertain in each case is the `capitalised
allegedly representing the value of the fishing nets, boat equipment value of the vessel as a profit-earning machine not in the
and cargoes of M/V Maria Efigenia XV, with interest at the legal rate abstract but in view of the actual circumstances, without,
plus 25% thereof as attorneys fees. Meanwhile, during the pendency of course, taking into account considerations which were
of the case, petitioner PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation too remote at the time of the loss. 27 [Underscoring
sought to be substituted in place of LSC as it had already acquired supplied].
ownership of the Petroparcel.9cräläwvirtualibräry
As stated at the outset, to enable an injured party to recover actual or
For its part, private respondent later sought the amendment of its compensatory damages, he is required to prove the actual amount
complaint on the ground that the original complaint failed to plead of loss with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon
for the recovery of the lost value of the hull of M/V Maria Efigenia competent proof and on the best evidence available.28 The burden
XV.10 Accordingly, in the amended complaint, private respondent of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence would
averred that M/V Maria Efigenia XV had an actual value of be presented on either side. He must establish his case by a
P800,000.00 and that, after deducting the insurance payment of preponderance of evidence which means that the evidence, as a
P200,000.00, the amount of P600,000.00 should likewise be claimed. whole, adduced by one side is superior to that of the other. 29 In other
The amended complaint also alleged that inflation resulting from the words, damages cannot be presumed and courts, in making an award
devaluation of the Philippine peso had affected the replacement value must point out specific facts that could afford a basis for measuring
of the hull of the vessel, its equipment and its lost cargoes, such that whatever compensatory or actual damages are
there should be a reasonable determination thereof. Furthermore, on borne.30cräläwvirtualibräry
account of the sinking of the vessel, private respondent supposedly
incurred unrealized profits and lost business opportunities that would In this case, actual damages were proven through the sole
thereafter be proven. testimony of private respondents general manager and certain
pieces of documentary evidence. Except for Exhibit B where the
Subsequently, the complaint was further amended to include value of the 1,050 baeras of fish were pegged at their September
petitioner as a defendant12 which the lower court granted in its order 1977 value when the collision happened, the pieces of documentary
of September 16, 1985.13 After petitioner had filed its answer to the evidence proffered by private respondent with respect to items and
second amended complaint, on February 5, 1987, the lower court equipment lost show similar items and equipment with corresponding
issued a pre-trial order. prices in early 1987 or approximately ten (10) years after the
collision. Noticeably, petitioner did not object to the exhibits in terms
ISSUE: WON actual damages were proven. of the time index for valuation of the lost goods and equipment. In
objecting to the same pieces of evidence, petitioner commented that
RULING: YES these were not duly authenticated and that the witness (Del Rosario)
did not have personal knowledge on the contents of the writings and
Under Article 2199 of the Civil Code, actual or compensatory neither was he an expert on the subjects thereof. 31 Clearly ignoring
damages are those awarded in satisfaction of, or in recompense petitioners objections to the exhibits, the lower court admitted these
for, loss or injury sustained. They proceed from a sense of pieces of evidence and gave them due weight to arrive at the award of
natural justice and are designed to repair the wrong that has P6,438,048.00 as actual damages.
been done, to compensate for the injury inflicted and not to
impose a penalty.24 In actions based on torts or quasi-delicts, actual The exhibits were presented ostensibly in the course of Del Rosarios
damages include all the natural and probable consequences of the testimony. Private respondent did not present any other witnesses
act or omission complained of.25 There are two kinds of actual or especially those whose signatures appear in the price quotations that
compensatory damages: one is the loss of what a person already became the bases of the award. We hold, however, that the price
possesses (dao emergente), and the other is the failure to receive quotations are ordinary private writings which under the Revised
as a benefit that which would have pertained to him (lucro Rules of Court should have been proffered along with the testimony
cesante).26 Thus: of the authors thereof. Del Rosario could not have testified on the
veracity of the contents of the writings even though he was the
seasoned owner of a fishing fleet because he was not the one who
issued the price quotations. Section 36, Rule 130 of the Revised
Rules of Court provides that a witness can testify only to those facts
that he knows of his personal knowledge.

For this reason, Del Rosarios claim that private respondent incurred
losses in the total amount of P6,438,048.00 should be admitted with
extreme caution considering that, because it was a bare assertion, it
should be supported by independent evidence. Moreover, because he
was the owner of private respondent corporation 32 whatever
testimony he would give with regard to the value of the lost vessel, its
equipment and cargoes should be viewed in the light of his self-
interest therein. We agree with the Court of Appeals that his
testimony as to the equipment installed and the cargoes loaded on the
vessel should be given credence 33 considering his familiarity thereto.
However, we do not subscribe to the conclusion that his valuation of
such equipment, cargo and the vessel itself should be accepted as
gospel truth.34 We must, therefore, examine the documentary
evidence presented to support Del Rosarios claim as regards the
amount of losses.