Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    MICHAEL C. GUY v. RAFFY TULFO

    Uploaded by

    Rizza Angela Mangalleno
    This case involves a petition for review of a libel conviction against a journalist and newspaper. The journalist had published an article claiming a businessman under tax investigation had sought help from the Finance Secretary. The businessman sued for libel and was awarded damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but reduced damages. The petitioner argued he was entitled to actual damages, but the Supreme Court disagreed, finding no evidence was presented to prove actual financial loss, as required. The Court affirmed that actual damages must be proven with evidence, not just alleged, in order to be awarded.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    MICHAEL C. GUY v. RAFFY TULFO

    Uploaded by

    Rizza Angela Mangalleno
    1K views2 pages
    This case involves a petition for review of a libel conviction against a journalist and newspaper. The journalist had published an article claiming a businessman under tax investigation had sought help from the Finance Secretary. The businessman sued for libel and was awarded damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but reduced damages. The petitioner argued he was entitled to actual damages, but the Supreme Court disagreed, finding no evidence was presented to prove actual financial loss, as required. The Court affirmed that actual damages must be proven with evidence, not just alleged, in order to be awarded.

    Original Description:

    case digest on actual damages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a petition for review of a libel conviction against a journalist and newspaper. The journalist had published an article claiming a businessman under tax investigation had sought help from the Finance Secretary. The businessman sued for libel and was awarded damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but reduced damages. The petitioner argued he was entitled to actual damages, but the Supreme Court disagreed, finding no evidence was presented to prove actual financial loss, as required. The Court affirmed that actual damages must be proven with evidence, not just alleged, in order to be awarded.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    MICHAEL C. GUY v. RAFFY TULFO

    Uploaded by

    Rizza Angela Mangalleno
    This case involves a petition for review of a libel conviction against a journalist and newspaper. The journalist had published an article claiming a businessman under tax investigation had sought help from the Finance Secretary. The businessman sued for libel and was awarded damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but reduced damages. The petitioner argued he was entitled to actual damages, but the Supreme Court disagreed, finding no evidence was presented to prove actual financial loss, as required. The Court affirmed that actual damages must be proven with evidence, not just alleged, in order to be awarded.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    THIRD DIVISION

    MICHAEL C. GUY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. RAFFY TULFO, ALLEN MACASAET,


    NICOLAS V. QUIJANO, JR., JANET BAY, JESUS P. GALANG, RANDY HAGOS, JEANY
    LACORTE, AND VENUS TANDOC, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. G.R. No. 213023, April 10, 2019
    LEONEN, J.

    NATURE OF THE ACTION:


    Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Amended Decision of Court of Appeals (CA).

    FACTS:
    An article entitled "Malinis ba talaga o naglilinis-linisan lang (Sino si Finance Sec. Juanita Amatong?)"
    was published in Abante Tonite, a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, written by Tulfo.
    The article reported that a certain Guy, who was then being investigated by the Department of Finance for
    tax fraud, went to former the Revenue Integrity Protection Service (RIPS) of the Department of Finance
    (DF) Secretary Juanita Amatong’s (Secretary Amatong) house to ask for help. Secretary Amatong then
    purportedly called the head of the RIPS and directed that all the documents that it had obtained on Guy's
    case be surrendered to her.

    Claiming that the article had tainted his reputation, Guy filed a Complaint-Affidavit against Tulfo and the
    the representatives of Abante Tonite's Monica Publishing Corporation: Macaseat et.al. The Regional
    Trial Court (RTC) convicted Tulfo and Macasaet, et al. of the crime of libel. The trial court ordered Tulfo
    and Macasaet, et al. to pay Guy: P5M as actual damages; P5M as moral damages; and P211k as attorney's
    fees.

    The CA affirmed the trial court's Judgment convicting Tulfo and Macasaet, et al. of libel. Nonetheless, it
    reduced the award moral damages into P500k and ordered them to pay P500k as exemplary damages. But
    the CA modified the said decision and deleted the award of exemplary damages. The actual damages was
    also deleted for lack of factual basis

    Petitioner maintains that contrary to the Court of Appeals' findings, there is factual and legal basis for the
    award of actual damages. He avers that it had been established in the trial court proceedings that he may
    be able to earn P50M in 10 years. This possibility, he points out, constitutes the factual basis for the
    award of actual damages.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Petitioner can be awarded actual damages, notwithstanding that the CA found no basis for
    the same? – (NO)

    RULING:
    Actual damages are "compensation for an injury that will put the injured party in the position where it
    was before the injury. They pertain to such injuries or losses that are actually sustained and susceptible of
    measurement." Actual damages constitute compensation for sustained pecuniary loss. Nevertheless, a
    party may only be awarded actual damages when the pecuniary loss he or she had suffered was duly
    proven. Thus:
    Except as provided by law or by stipulation, a party is entitled to adequate compensation only for
    such pecuniary loss as is duly proven. Basic is the rule that to recover actual damages, not only must the
    amount of loss be capable of proof; it must also be actually proven with a reasonable degree of certainty,
    premised upon competent proof or the best evidence obtainable.

    This Court has, time and again, emphasized that actual damages cannot be presumed and courts, in
    making an award, must point out specific facts which could afford a basis for measuring whatever
    compensatory or actual damages are borne. An award of actual damages is "dependent upon competent
    proof of the damages suffered and the actual amount thereof. The award must be based on the evidence
    presented, not on the personal knowledge of the court; and certainly not on flimsy, remote, speculative
    and unsubstantial proof."

    As the Court of Appeals correctly found, petitioner failed to substantiate the loss he had allegedly
    sustained. Save for his testimony in court, he presented no evidence to support his claim. His allegation of
    possibly earning P50,000,000.00 in 10 years is a mere assumption without any foundation. This bare
    allegation is insufficient to prove that he has indeed lost P5,000,000.00 as earnings. As this Court has
    previously held, "the award of unrealized profits cannot be based on the sole testimony of the party
    claiming it."

    You might also like