Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83782:58275&catid=1589&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:01:50+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 192446, November 19, 2014 - SNOW MOUNTAIN DAIRY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. GMA VETERANS FORCE, INC., Respondent.
SNOW MOUNTAIN DAIRY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. GMA VETERANS FORCE, INC., Respondent.
Before us is a petition for review filed by petitioner Snow Mountain Dairy Corporation seeking to modify the amount of actual damages awarded in the Decision1 dated May 31, 2010, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. CV No. 91725.
On April 13, 2005, petitioner, through its President Teodoro T. Po, wrote a letter9 to respondent's General Manager, Domingo de Guzman, informing the latter of the former's decision to replace the security personnel effective April 15, 2005; and that all monies due respondent as provided in the contract shall be settled.
On even date, respondent, through its counsel, wrote petitioner a letter10 reiterating that their service agreement was good for one year, which could only be terminated for a just cause and a 30-day prior notice; that the termination of the security contract even in the absence of just cause and the lack of due notice may only be accepted provided that petitioner would pay the remaining contract period of 8-1/2 months equivalent to P952,833.00; and that they were open to amicable settlement at just and reasonable terms.
On June 30, 2005, respondent, represented by De Guzman, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City a complaint11 for damages against petitioner, represented by Amancio Ronquillo, and President Po. The complaint was raffled off to Branch 268 and docketed as Civil Case No. 70429. Respondent alleged that it had entered in a security service agreement with petitioner; that it had recruited seven security guards and posted them to petitioner's premises in compliance with the service agreement and in the process, incurred expenses for training, physical and medical examinations, documentations, procurement of equipments like service firearms, uniform and related expenses; that on April 15, 2005, respondent's security guards were barred by petitioner from entering the service area and prevented from performing their contractual obligation; that it did not commit any violation of the service contract; and that it incurred income opportunity loss worth P952,833.00 which it could have earned if the agreement was faithfully honored up to the end of the contract period. Respondent prayed for actual, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
In their Answer with Counterclaim,12 petitioner denied the material allegations in the complaint and contended that a corporation has a personality separate and distinct from its officers; thus, the inclusion of President Po as defendant was baseless; that the termination of the agreement was justified and well within its prerogative; that there was no basis for the claim of actual damages in the form of unrealized income as said claim was premised on a contingent circumstance, which was the fulfillment and completion of the security agreement; and that respondent's claim for moral and exemplary damages should be denied for lack of basis. Petitioner counterclaimed for damages.
The case was referred to mediation, but no agreement was reached thus, trial on the merits thereafter ensued.
To pay to the plaintiff the sum of PI 00,000.00 for attorney's fees and appearances, and the cost of the litigation.
The RTC ruled that the parties agreed that the contract cannot be terminated except for a just cause and only after a 30-day notice; that respondent did not assent to the pre-termination; and that there was no valid cause shown for such termination and the provision of 30-day notice was not complied with. The RTC found that respondent was compelled to incur expenses for attorney's fees and cost of litigation.
Petitioner appealed the RTC decision to the CA. After the filing of the respective pleadings, the case was submitted for decision.
In so ruling, the CA found that the focal issue in the appeal was whether petitioner's pre-termination of the service contract was valid. The CA ruled in the negative as petitioner miserably failed to show the cause of such pre-termination. It found that petitioner's claim that respondent's service was below the standard required by the contract was not substantiated, hence, a mere afterthought; and that petitioner's termination letter of the service contract made no mention of the alleged security lapses. It then affirmed the RTC's award of actual damages in the amount of P952,833.50 which respondent failed to receive as benefit which would have pertained to it had petitioner not illegally terminated the service contract.
The CA deleted the award of attorney's fees since no evidence was presented to support the same. Lastly, the CA found that President Po cannot be held personally liable for the pre-termination of the service contract, since as President, he was duly authorized to act on behalf of the corporation; and the pre-termination was done in his official capacity and there was no evidence showing that he had acted in bad faith.
thus, the contract amount per guard per month would not constitute actual income or profit for respondent because only a portion of that amount would go to the latter by way of income as agency fee; that the rest of the said compensation amount would be for the security guard who would render services to petitioner. Petitioner went on with its own computation as to the amount each guard would receive.
Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages.
Article 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.
Temperate damages may be allowed in cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss. We also take into consideration that respondent certainly spent for the security guard's training, firearms with ammunitions, uniforms and other necessary things before their deployment to petitioner.
In Adriano v. Lasala,24 we found that respondents suffered pecuniary loss because of petitioners' untimely termination of the former's security services for no cause at all. We then affirmed the CA's award of temperate damages in the amount of P200,000.00 in lieu of actual damages awarded by the RTC since there was no proof capable of ascertaining the actual loss.
In this case, we find it just and proper to award temperate damages in the amount of P200,000.00 in lieu of actual damages.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated May 31, 2010, of the Court of Appeals, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The award of actual damages is deleted and, in lieu thereof, temperate damages amounting to P200,000.00 is awarded with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the time this Decision attains finality until its full satisfaction.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, with Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Manuel M. Barrios, concurring; rollo, pp. 9-33.
13Id. at 260-265; Per Judge Amelia Manalastas.
18 See Filipinas Synthetic Fiber Corporation v. Delos Santos, G..R. No. 152033, March 16, 2011, 645 SCRA 463, 476.
21 See Bank of the Philippine Islands v. ALS Management & Development Corporation, 471 Phil. 544, 568 (2004).
22Canada v. All Commodities Marketing Corporation, 390 Phil. 342, 350 (2008).
24 Adriano v. Lasala, G.R. No. 197842, October 9, 2013, 707 SCRA 346.

References: v. 
 v. 

Art. 2199
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.