FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239395. August 15, 2018.]
ESTRELLA C. CORPUZ, petitioner, vs.ALPINE LENDING INVESTOR/ROGELIO ONG, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 15, 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 239395 — Estrella C. Corpuz, Petitioner, v. Alpine Lending Investor/Rogelio Ong, Respondents.
Acting on petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to GRANT her thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on June 13, 2018 within which to file a petition.
Considering the allegations, arguments, and issues raised in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court further resolves to DENY the same for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV 106214 committed any reversible error in affirming with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 121 (RTC) in Civil Case No. C-20124 for "Replevin."
As properly held by the CA, petitioner's claim for reasonable monthly rental fees cannot be granted as the same was unsupported by competent evidence. Settled is the rule that actual or compensatory damages "cannot be presumed. Absent proof of the amount of actual damages sustained, the Court cannot rely on speculations, conjectures, or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have been suffered by the injured party and on the best obtainable evidence of the actual amount thereof." 1 However, considering that petitioner sustained pecuniary loss but its amount cannot be determined, then the CA correctly awarded temperate damages in favor of petitioner. 2
There is also no merit in petitioner's claim for moral and exemplary damages as well as costs of suit. This is because there was no clear showing that respondents acted in bad faith or with malice when they agreed to the mortgage of the subject vehicle. 3 As stressed by the RTC, it was Zenaida Lipata who committed misrepresentation and that the damages incurred by petitioner arising from the mortgage could not be attributed to respondents. 4 DETACa
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed April 19, 2017 Decision and May 9, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 106214.
SO ORDERED." Peralta, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2582 (Revised) dated August 8, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Spouses Saguid v. Security Finance, Inc., 513 Phil. 369, 388-389 (2005).
2. See Spouses Yu v. Ngo Yet Te, 543 Phil. 389, 403 (2007).
3.Id. at 403-404.
4.Rollo, p. 132.