G.R. No. L-72182 - Dee Hua Liong Electrical Equipment Company vs. Romeo Reyes

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-72182 November 25, 1986

DEE HUA LIONG ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION,petitioner,
vs.
ROMEO REYES, ET AL.,respondents.

Juanitas, Perez, Gonzales and Associates for petitioner.

Romeo P. Pineda for respondents.

NARVASA,J.:

The Court of First Instance1sentenced petitioner to pay to private respondents P50,000.00 as actual damages; P50,000.00 as moral damages; P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P10,000.00 as attomey's fees, as well as to pay treble Cost.2The Intermediate Appellate Court, on appeal,3affirmed petitioner's liability but reduced the award for moral and ex-emplary damages to P10,000.00 and P5,000.00, respectively. Petitioner seasonably appealed to this Court, impugning the award of damages and claiming that it had been denied due process in the proceedings before the Trial Court.

Following submission of the private respondents' comment on the petition for review, the Court issued a Resolution denying the petition for lack of merit.4Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was likewise denied.5A second motion for reconsideration6was, however, admitted7and the private respondents were required to comment thereon, which they did. The Court now decides the appeal on the merits.

The Intermediate Appellate Court found that private respondent Romeo Reyes operated "the once thriving and prosperous Excelite Electronic Center in San Miguel, Bulacan;"8that long prior to September,1981, he began "receiving complaints of irate and dissatisfied customers who complained over the defective repairs done on their television and stereo units;9that he repeated the repair jobs over and over but despite his best efforts, and despite losing "man hours for over a month," 'he lost the patronage of many customers (and) (h)is once thriving business was on the verge of uin;"10that he finany discovered that "the root cause of all these troubles" was the "low grade electronic filter capacitor(s) ... (h)e had been buying from ... (petitioner) for the past years;" that he "opened one of the capacitors ... (and found) that the actual label of 22 micro farad was superimposed by a fake label making it appear to be 2200 micro farad;" that although the "actual price of one capacitor with 22 micro farad is only P2.00 ... he had been paying the amount of P6.40 to P7.40 per piece of the supposed 2200 micro farad capacitor;"11that what private respondent thereafter did was to buy three (3) capacitors on September 14, 1981; that although the corresponding invoice (Exhibit A) stated the capacitors to be "with strength of 2200 ... , in truth and in fact it was discovered as shown by Exhs. B and C to be only of 22 micro farad."12It was "this massive fraudulent scheme employed by ...(Petitioner) in short selling to plaintiff the capacitors" that allegedly caused damages to private respondent.13

These findings of fact were based solely on the testimony of private respondent and his wife. No evidence was presented in behalf of petitioner because it was declared in default for failure of its counsel or other representative to appear at tile pre-trial scheduled by the Trial Court, despite notice.14

On being served with notice of the judgment by default petitioner moved for new trial alleging that it had good cause to seek postponement of the pre-trial; and claiming moreover, to have a meritorious defense to the complaint, adverting to a "Component Test Report" of the National Institute of Science and Technology" attesting to the correctness of the represented capacity of the capacitors in question, and a certification from the Japanese manufacturer to the effect that there was "merely a misprint" in the labels.15The Trial Court denied the motion. On appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court sustained that denial of the motion for new trial in view of the demonstrated falsity of the ground rehed upon for the requested postponement of the pre-trial, to wit: that Atty. Marquinez, the petitioner's counsel had personally to appear and represent another client at an earlier scheduled hearing of a case before the Municipal Court of Pasig, when in truth, as certified by the Clerk of the latter Court and as shown by the minutes of its proceedings, it was another lawyer who appeared, not Atty. Marquinez.16

It is axiomatic that the findings of fact of the Intermediate Appellate Court are conclusive and may not be reviewed by this Court.ℒαwρhi৷There is no compelling reason to deviate from this well-known rule in this case. Upon those factual findings, this Court declares that the Trial Court was justified in declaring petitioner in default and rendering judgment by default against it, for failure to appear at the pre-trial despite notice.17

However, the adjudgment of damages appears to be quite excessive in the premises. The grant of P50,000.00 as actual damages is made to rest on nothing more substantial than the sworn declarations of the private respondents (plaintiff and his wife) that one (1) of the capacitors used in repairing an appliance was of 22 micro farad capacity instead of 2200 micro farad, and that three (3) other capacitors, subsequently purchased, had "superimposed" labels. There is no proof whatever that defective capacitors were used in the other numerous repair jobs done by private respondent, or that the repairs did indeed entail the use of capacitors. There is moreover no evidence of a-defiberate intent on petitioner's part to foist a fraud on the general public, including private respondents, in the sale of capacitors. On the contrary, there are indications that there was merely a "misprint" in the labels. The award of damages to private respondent must, therefore, be struck down for want of adequate foundation. Actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed, but must be duly proved, ind proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have suffered and on evidence of the actual amount thereof. If the proof is flimsy and unsubstantial, no lamages wiu be awarded.18

Proof of equivalent character is also necessary to support an award of moral damages, and it does not appear that any such evidence, was offered here. The decision of the Trial Court, which summarizes the testimony of the only two witnesses for the private respondent, said respondent himself and his wife,19makes no mention of any testimony being given concerning moral damages, such as of wounded feelings, social humiliation, anxiety and the like, and to all appearances merely assumes the existence of moral injury from what proof of actual loss was adduced. More importantly, and as already pointed out, there is also no evidence that petitioner, in selling allegedly mislabelled capacitors, acted maliciously and with deliberate intent to defraud the private respondent and the general public.

Neither may private respondent recover exemplary damages since he is not entitled to moral or compensatory damages, and again because the petitioner is not shown to have acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless or oppressive manner.22

Upon the same consideration, and absent any proof that petitioner refused in gross and evident bad faith to satisfy the private respondent's claim. no counsel fees should be awarded.23

The Court is of the opinion that an award of nominal damages to private respondent in the amount of P5,000.00 is sufficient in the premises.24

WHEREFORE,the appealed Decision is modified an dthe liability of petitioner is hereby declared limited solely and exclusively to the payment of P5, 000.00 as nominal damages. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Yap, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz and Feliciano, JJ., concur.

Footnotes