G.R. No. 188072 - De Guzman vs. Tomulva

Emerita M. De Guzman (petitioner) and Antonio M. Tumolva (respondent) entered into a Construction Agreement for an orphanage in Cavite.
The contract price was P15,982,150.39, which included plans for a perimeter fence.
Deviations from the agreed plan occurred during construction, particularly concerning the perimeter fence.
After project completion, De Guzman issued a Certificate of Acceptance, and Tumolva acknowledged full compliance with the contract.

In November 2006, a portion of the perimeter fence collapsed during Typhoon "Milenyo."
De Guzman demanded repairs from Tumolva, who attributed the damage to an act of God and expressed willingness to discuss the matter.
De Guzman insisted on restoration without additional costs or compensation for damages, but her demands were ignored.

On February 14, 2008, De Guzman filed a Request for Arbitration with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC).
She alleged that Tumolva committed fraud by using inferior materials and failing to adhere to the construction specifications.
De Guzman sought actual, moral, and exemplary damages, along with attorney's fees and expenses.

CIAC ruled in favor of De Guzman on July 17, 2008, awarding her P187,509.00 for actual damages, P100,000.00 for moral damages, P100,000.00 for exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 for attorney's fees.
The total amount awarded was P437,509.00, with interest provisions.

Tumolva appealed the CIAC's decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), which modified the award on February 24, 2009.
The CA deleted the awards for actual, moral, and exemplary damages, substituting them with P100,000.00 in temperate damages.
The CA justified its decision by stating that De Guzman failed to establish the extent of actual damages with reasonable certainty.

De Guzman filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied on May 26, 2009.
She subsequently filed a petition before the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in its assessment of damages.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that De Guzman suffered damages due to the Contractor's negligence.
However, it concurred with the CA that the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish the amount of actual damages.
The Court emphasized that actual damages must be proven with competent evidence, which De Guzman failed to provide.

The Court found that De Guzman was entitled to temperate damages due to the pecuniary loss suffered from the fence's collapse.
It increased the award for temperate damages from P100,000.00 to P150,000.00, recognizing the loss incurred.

The Court upheld the CA's decision to deny moral damages, citing a lack of evidence demonstrating De Guzman's emotional suffering.
It also ruled out exem...continue reading