Facts:

• On September 6, 2004, Emerita M. De Guzman, represented by her attorneys-in-fact Lourdes Rivera and Dhonna Chan, entered into a Construction Agreement with Antonio M. Tumolva for the construction of an orphanage in Silang, Cavite.
• The project included several buildings and covered walkways, with a contract price of P15,982,150.39, incorporating the plan and specifications of the perimeter fence.
• The Contractor deviated from the agreed plan concerning the perimeter fence.
• On September 6, 2005, after the project's completion, De Guzman issued a Certificate of Acceptance, and the Contractor issued a quitclaim acknowledging the contract's termination and full compliance by De Guzman.
• In November 2006, during typhoon "Milenyo," a portion of the perimeter fence collapsed, and other portions tilted.
• De Guzman demanded the repair of the fence in accordance with the plan, but the Contractor claimed the destruction was an act of God and expressed willingness to discuss the matter to avoid litigation.
• De Guzman reiterated her demand for restoration without additional cost or compensation for damages, but her demand was not heeded.
• On February 14, 2008, De Guzman filed a Request for Arbitration before the CIAC, alleging deliberate fraud by the Contractor in undersizing column rebars, using inferior concrete hollow blocks, and failing to place weepholes.
• The CIAC ruled in favor of De Guzman, awarding P187,509.00 as actual damages, P100,000.00 each for moral and exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 for attorney's fees. The Contractor's counterclaim was dismissed.
• The Contractor appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which modified the CIAC's award by deleting the actual, moral, and exemplary damages but awarding P100,000.00 as temperate damages.
• De Guzman's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

1. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision that the evidence on record did not sufficiently establish the amount of actual damages that De Guzman could recover.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the CA...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court found no compelling reason to deviate from the factual findings of the CIAC, as affirmed by the CA, regarding the Contractor's negligence in failing to place weepholes on the collapsed portion of the perimeter fence.
• The Court emphasized that findings of fact by quasi-judicial bodies, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally accorded finality.
• The Court agreed with the CA that the award of actual damages was improper due to the lack of concrete evidence. The handwritten calculation of reconstruction costs by Engineer Santos, attached to his affidavit, was deemed hearsay and lacked probative value as he did not testify in court.
• The Court concurred with the CA's decision to award temperate damages instead of actual damages, recognizing that De Guzman suffered pecuniary loss due to the Contractor's negligence. The amount of P100,000.00 awarded by the CA was increased to P150,000.00, considering the cost of rebuilding the damaged portions of the perimeter fence.
• Regarding moral damages, the Court agreed with the CA that De Guzman failed to pro...continue reading