Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

W.E HICS V.

MANILA HOTEL COMPANY


Issue: WON W.E. Hicks is entitled to the P10,800, basing that claim upon the profits
which he would have received if he had continued the business for the second year.
Whether plaintiff has a right to claim for damages on the ground that the amount
sought for would be equivalent to the profits it would have received had the
defendant complied with the stipulation to renew for a second year their written
contract for the exclusive five-passenger automobile privilege of the defendant
hotel.
Ruling: the Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. In order to justify a recovery in
any case, assuming that a breach has been committed, there are two necessary
elements to be considered: One that a damage has been done; the other that such
damage is the result of the breach. The amount of the one should be computed with
reasonable accuracy. The fact of the other must be determined with reasonable
certainty. A less degree of accuracy is required in the former than of certainty in the
latter, but neither is required to be absolute or beyond conjectural possibilities.
Where it reasonably appears that a party has been damaged, and that such damage
is the direct result of the breach, then a recovery is justified. The next step is to
ascertain how much will reasonably compensate the injured party. This should be
computed by the plainest, easiest, and most accurate measure which will do justice
in the premises, and if from the conditions in the contract, and the nature of the
breach, it reasonably appears that the extent or amount of damages may be more
readily, easily, correctly, and justly ascertained by applying the loss of profits as a
measure, if it is evident that profits were lost and the amount thereof can be
calculated with reasonable accuracy, then such profits are the true measure to be
applied. In such cases, however, it should appear evident that profits were lost. The
amount may be estimated with only reasonable accuracy; but the fact that profits
were lost should require stricter proof.
n the case before us there seems to be as little speculation in determining the
profits which the plaintiff might have recovered as is usual in cases where the time
for which the profits are to be recovered extends over a considerable period of time.
It is undisputed that the business was a very profitable one the first year and that
the second year would have been more profitable than the first. While the estimate
of the amount of profits for the second year is an estimate of necessity, it is one
which is based upon facts testified to by the plaintiff, which were within his
knowledge and which appear to the court to sustain his contention. While the
evidence is not as conclusive as in cases where the damages are certain and
capable of accurate statement, we are satisfied with its sufficiency, particularly in
view of the fact that all that courts may require of litigants is the production of the
best evidence of which the case is susceptible.
As to whether or not the plaintiff in an action of this character may recover only that
portion of the profits which had accrued up to the time of bringing the action, or
whether he may sue for all the damages resulting from the breach in a single
action, even though that action is begun long before the period during which the
profits will accrue has expired, we may say that, in our judgment, the weight of

authority is to the effect that the plaintiff need bring but one action and that he may
recover the damages sustained for the whole period even though it be by
anticipation

PEOPLE VS RUIZ. 110 SCRA 156


Issue: WON Exemplary Damages can be awarded when Aggravating Circumstances
are not present.
Ruling: the Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The Court rationated that as to the
amount of indemnity and damages awarded, the amount of actual and
compensatory damages, represented by the loss of expected earnings, finds
support in the case of Alcantara vs. Surro, et al., G.R. No. L-4555, July 23, 1953, 59
O.G. 2769. From the physical condition of the deceased, and his social standing
when gunned down by appellant, his heirs are also entitled to moral damages as
awarded by the court a quo, but the amount so awarded may be reasonably
reduced from P50,000.00 to P20,000.00, there being no aggravating circumstance,
but there are three mitigating ones. However, as held recently in the case of Nora
Aguilar Matura vs. Hon. Alfredo C. Laya and People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. L44550-51 and L-44552-53, July 30, 1979 that there is no basis for awarding
exemplary damages when not even one aggravating circumstance was established,
no exemplary damages may be awarded. The amount of P10,000.00 for attorney's
fees may likewise be reasonably reduced to P5,000.00, the private prosecutors that
helped in the prosecution of the case being deemed to have rendered service for a
fellow member of the bar more in the spirit of professional fraternity.

GILCHRIST VS CUDDY 29 PHIL 542


FACTS:
Cuddy leased a cinematograph film Zigomar to Gilchrist who owned a theater
inIloilo for one week beginning May 26, 1913 at an agreed rental of P125.00.
DefendantsEspejo and Zaldariaga induced their co-defendant Cuddy to break his
contract of leasewith plaintiff Gilchrist by offering Cuddy a rental of P350.00.
ISSUE:

Whether or not such acts of Espejo and Zaldariaga were actionable and if so under
what legal principle.
HELD:
The liability of the appellants (Espejo and Zaldariaga) arises from unlawful actsand
not from contractual obligations, as they were under no such obligation to
induceCuddy to violate his contract with Gilchrist. So that if the action of Gilchrist
had been onefor damages, it would be governed by Chapter 2, title 16, book 4 of
the (Spanish) CivilCode. Article 1902 of that code provides that a person who, by act
or omission, causesdamage to another when there is fault or negligence, shall be
obliged to repair the damageso done. There is nothing in this article which requires
as a condition precedent to theliability of a tortfeasor that he must know the
identity of a person to whom he causesdamage. In fact, the chapter wherein this
article is found clearly shows that no suchknowledge is required in order that the
injured party may recover for the damage suffered.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi