G.R. No.

162608               July 26, 2010

ADRIAN WILSON INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATES, INC., Petitioner,

vs.
TMX PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

A claimant is entitled to be compensated reasonably and commensurately for what he or she has
lost as a result of another’s act or omission, and the amount of damages to be awarded shall be
equivalent to what have been pleaded and adequately proven. Should the claimant fail to prove with
exactitude the extent of injury he or she sustained, the court will still allow redress if it finds that the
claimant has suffered due to another’s fault.

In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioner Adrian Wilson International Associates, Inc. (AWIA)
assails the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated August 14, 2003 in CA-G.R. CV No. 49272
which affirmed with modification the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City,
Branch 150 by further ordering AWIA to pay to respondent TMX Philippines, Inc. (TMX) the amount
of ₱1,546,084.00 representing the reimbursement of salaries of TMX’s employees. AWIA now
pleads that we reinstate the RTC Decision or reduce the amount of actual damages representing the
reimbursement of the salaries of the TMX employees.

Factual Antecedents

TMX engaged the services of AWIA for the construction of its watch assembly plant located in the
EPZA3-run Mactan Export Processing Zone in Cebu (composed of twin modules and another
separately designed module).4 Their Agreement5 dated December 29, 1978 provided that AWIA
would provide basic and detailed architectural designs, plans, and specifications, as well as
structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering services.

Specifically, one of AWIA’s duties was construction administration, i.e., to guard TMX from defects
and deficiencies during the construction phase by determining the progress and quality of the work
of the general contractor, P.G. Dakay Construction Company (P.G. Dakay). This is to ensure that
this contractor works in accordance with the directed specifications.

Construction began in 1979 and was completed in 1980. After five years, however, TMX noticed
numerous cracks and beam deflections (vertical shifting)6 along the roof girders and beams in
columns B, C, F, and G of the twin modules. TMX, opining that the problem may have been due to
design errors, informed AWIA of the situation.

In its report dated April 24, 1985,7 AWIA, thru its project manager Anthony R. Stoner, maintained that
its structural roof design of the building wasmcorrect and that the building was not in danger of
collapsing.

AWIA attributed the existing cracks along column line G to the marginal strength of the concrete that
was poured during a heavy rainfall on July 18, 1979. This was based on a construction report dated
July 19, 1979, furnished to TMX, of TMXP 2 Project Inspector/AWIA site representative Engr.
Gavino Lacanilao (Engr. Lacanilao).8 In his report, Engr. Lacanilao narrated that the night before, the
concrete pouring operations on lines F and G of Bays 11-16, Section C of TMX’s main building were
temporarily suspended due to the following mistakes committed by the contractor in the pouring of
concrete: a) the presence of rainwater that diluted the concrete; b) the failure to apply grout as a
binder, and c) the use of concrete that was mixed for more than 45 minutes. To AWIA, these
mistakes had cost the quality of the roof’s concrete strength. AWIA thus suggested measures to
correct the roof problem, one of them being the installation of a lally column using steel pipe
sections.

TMX also sought the opinion of two architectural consultancy firms, the Fletcher-Thompson, Inc.
(Fletcher-Thompson) and C.N. Ramientos and Associates. Both concluded that the cracks and
displacements of the roof’s structural system were due to AWIA’s errors in the design calculations
and in the factoring of live and dead load and concrete strengths.9
Similar to the suggestion of AWIA, Fletcher-Thompson recommended the installation of lally
columns. Thus, as preventive and corrective measure, TMX shored up the beams and girders with
118 steel lally columns in all the buildings’ modules.

The major construction work was done in December 1985, during which TMX was forced to stop its
operations from December 1-18, 1985, putting its employees on forced leave with pay. All in all,
TMX spent ₱3,931,583.00,10 i.e., ₱2,385,499.00 for shoring expenses,11 and ₱1,546,084.00,
representing wages of its employees for the period December 1-18, 1985.12

Laying the blame on AWIA for the roof defects, TMX sought reimbursement of everything it had
spent for the corrective work by suing AWIA for damages before the RTC of Makati. The case was
docketed as Civil Case No. 16587 and raffled to Branch 150.13

In its Answer, AWIA insisted on the correctness of its design and that the same was approved by
TMX. It stressed that it faithfully complied with its obligation of administering the construction
contract and was not responsible for whatever mistakes the contractor made. According to AWIA,
TMX has its own staff who supervised the construction and to whom AWIA’s inspectors submitted
their reports. Conversely, AWIA blamed TMX for the cracks, alleging that the latter’s supervising
staff ignored the July 19, 1979 construction report of Engr. Lacanilao14 and that TMX refused to
conduct an in-place testing of the concrete. Defending itself against the monetary claims of TMX,
AWIA averred that the latter overreacted when it installed 118 lally columns, instead of only 11
columns as recommended by Fletcher-Thompson.15

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

After weighing the evidence submitted by the parties, the trial court noted that TMX apparently was
satisfied with AWIA’s services because after the completion of the Mactan assembly plant in 1980,
TMX rehired AWIA four years later for the design of two more separate extensions of the building. All
of AWIA’s documents, designs, drawings, plans and specifications of the building were subject to
TMX and its parent company’s approval, which both relayed their comments and instructions to
AWIA. During the construction phase, TMX had its own engineering team which actively participated
in the project. The trial court concluded that AWIA complied faithfully with its obligations in all phases
indicated in the Agreement.16

The court a quo found that only 11 shoring columns on the roof girders were necessary to remedy
the cracks and deflections in lines B and G, and thus reduced the shoring expenses AWIA incurred
on a pro-rate basis. It was also noted that the defects were not solely attributable to AWIA, because
TMX ignored Engr. Lacanilao’s July 19, 1979 construction report on the pouring of diluted concrete.
Thus:

This Court finds that there was no necessity at all for plaintiff TMX to have installed 118 shoring
columns all over its building. Except for the bare allegation of TMX president Rogelio Lim that this
was done upon the recommendation of Engr. Ramientos and its U.S.-based consultant Fletcher-
Thompson, plaintiff has not shown that it was necessary to put up more than one hundred columns
at all beam intersections with sophisticated designs using expensive materials. Admittedly, cracks
and deflections appeared in some beams and roof girders after five (5) years from the building’s
completion. The subject building or any part thereof has not collapsed nor has ever fallen down. As a
matter of fact, it was plaintiff’s own consultant Fletcher-Thompson in its Beam Deflection Check
(Exhibits "5" to "5-J") who recommended the installation of eleven (11) shoring columns on the roof
girders which had failures (T.S.N., July 3, 1990, pp. 27-34). Even plaintiff’s complaint mentions
cracks and deflections only on column lines B and G. To allow plaintiff reimbursement for putting up
118 columns all over the building would unduly favor plaintiff TMX. Only eleven (11) columns would
have been necessary to correct the crackings and deflections in column lines B and G. Any excess
of that would be considered as a renovation or added improvement of which the defendant should
not be made to shoulder.

Thus, the defendant should reimburse TMX only for eleven (11) shoring columns as its just and
equitable share in the expenses incurred by plaintiff. Taking the ratio of 11 and 118 columns and
applying the same to the total amount of ₱2,385,499.00, the expenses for installing 11 columns
would be ₱222,377.00.

As regards the claim for reimbursement of ₱1,546,084.00 representing the salaries and wages that
plaintiff allegedly paid its employees during the work stoppage from December 1 to 18, 1985, the
same should be denied.
As testified by defendant’s witness, Engineer Labrador, it was agreed that the 11 shoring columns
will be put up late December since admittedly the last two (2) weeks of December up to the first
week of January was plaintiff’s scheduled production shutdown as its employees usually go on
vacation during those days. Moreover, it is observed that plaintiff failed to present during the hearing
of this case the pertinent payroll documents to substantiate its claim. What it produced were only
computer printouts of the salaries allegedly paid to its employees for the period in question.

x x x x17

The dispositive portion of the trial court’s Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment as follows:

1. Defendant is ordered to pay plaintiff TMX the amount of ₱222,377.00 as compensatory

damages;

2. Defendant is ordered to pay ₱80,000.00 to plaintiff TMX as attorney’s fees and litigation
expenses;

3. The complaint of plaintiff EPZA against defendant is DISMISSED.

4. The counterclaim of defendant is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.18

Both parties appealed to the CA but AWIA later withdrew its appeal leaving TMX to contest the
judgment of the trial court.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA agreed with the RTC that AWIA is responsible for the payment of only 11 shoring columns.
However, the CA differed as to the RTC’s finding that AWIA completely abided by its obligations. To
the CA, AWIA failed to promptly and adequately notify its principal of the quality and progress of the
work, including the defects and deficiencies in the construction and a determination of how these will
be rectified by the contractor. It said:

To excuse AWIA from any liability for the contractor’s failure to carry out the work in accordance with
the contract documents, it is required, under their Agreement, to "have kept the OWNER currently
and adequately informed in writing of the progress and quality of the work." In the case at bar, We
hold that the written report given by AWIA to TMX of the incident could not be the proper notice
contemplated in the Agreement. Notably, the report merely contains statements and account of
events that transpired during such pouring operations. It did not contain any warning or
recommendation as to put TMX on notice that something has to be done. Nor did it inform TMX that
said incident threatened the strength of concrete or structural integrity of the roof. For this, AWIA is
liable. x x x19

The CA further modified the RTC’s Decision by ordering AWIA to reimburse TMX the amount of
₱1,546,084.00 representing the salaries TMX had paid to its employees during the involuntary work
stoppage. The appellate court found the check vouchers and financial schedule of payments as
sufficient proofs.

Issues

Hence, AWIA filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari,20 raising the following issues: a) whether
AWIA properly discharged its duty as construction administrator and b) whether there is a valid basis
for the reimbursement of the salaries paid to the employees of TMX.

Petitioner’s Arguments

AWIA’s arguments are summed up as follows:

 a) It complied with its obligation to keep TMX adequately informed about the progress and
quality of the work of the contractor. Engr. Lacanilao, AWIA’s site representative, even
delayed the pouring of the concrete and rejected the concrete that had been mixed for more
than 45 minutes during the July 18, 1979 incident. These actions were immediately reported
to TMX the following day. TMX’s staff of engineers however found no cause for alarm to take
remedial measures after being informed. On the contrary, TMX accepted the work done on
the building without objections and considered Engr. Lacanilao’s report as sufficient
compliance with AWIA’s responsibility of submitting a report.

b) Assuming that AWIA failed to keep TMX adequately informed of the ill-effects of the July
18, 1979 incident, still, AWIA cannot be held liable for all the salaries allegedly paid to TMX
employees during December, 1985. The factory shutdown for the whole month of December
cannot be solely attributed to AWIA’s inadequate reporting of weak cement mixture, but was
also due to TMX’s decision to install 118 permanent shoring columns instead of only 11
columns as recommended by Fletcher-Thompson.

Moreover, AWIA contends that TMX failed to prove its claim of payment of alleged salaries during
the shutdown period because the pieces of evidence it presented are mere summaries of salaries
paid and vouchers for checks deposited in a bank for the alleged salaries. There are no proofs that
TMX employees actually received their salaries during said shutdown period. And even if it could be
held responsible for reimbursing the employees’ salaries, AWIA claims that it should not be held
liable for the TMX employees’ salaries during the entire period of installation. Had only 11 columns
been installed, the period of shutdown due to remedial work would have been shorter. AWIA thus
asks for a reduction of the award, computed at a formula used by the trial court as basis for
awarding TMX the cost of installing only 11 columns. Hence, the salary should be computed at
11/118 of ₱1,546,084.00, or ₱144,210.37.

Respondent’s Arguments

On the other hand, TMX maintains that:

a) AWIA can no longer challenge the finding of the RTC and the CA of its liability. The fact
that the trial court ordered the payment of the costs of the 11 columns is an implicit
recognition that AWIA was responsible for the roof damage. AWIA did not appeal this
judgment and thus this decision had become final and executory. At most, AWIA can only
challenge the CA Decision insofar as the additional award of reimbursement of the
employees’ salaries is concerned.

b) The CA was correct in its finding that AWIA breached the Agreement. The report of Engr.
Lacanilao had misled TMX into believing that no problem existed and that nothing was to be
rectified when it was AWIA’s duty under the Agreement to notify and promptly alert TMX of
remedial measures that must be taken when there are defects in the work of the contractor.

c) The breach warrants a full reimbursement of salaries TMX claims. AWIA cannot use as
defense the adequacy of Engr. Lacanilao’s report when this contradicts its own answer to the
complaint, stating therein that the cause of the roof failure was the "marginal strength of the
concrete during a rainfall." The construction and repair of certain portions of the roof system
forced TMX to undergo work stoppage and pay its employees wages during the repair
period, the ultimate cause of which was AWIA’s failure to warn TMX of the possible
consequences of the July 18, 1979 incident. Furthermore, the pieces of documentary
evidence TMX submitted to support a claim of reimbursement, which included the names of
employees, their gross pay and deductions, were never contested during the trial and were
appreciated by the CA. The evidence, coupled by the testimony of TMX President Rogelio
Lim that the amounts stated in the documents were actually paid to the employees,
constituted competent and admissible evidence.

TMX also contends that it was baseless and speculative for AWIA to assume that the time
necessary to install 11 columns would not require a period of two weeks, considering that the
construction work for installing permanent shoring columns was disruptive. Certain factors, such as
pre-installation activities (e.g. careful individual packing of hundreds of TMX’s sensitive equipment
and materials necessary for watch-making and the painstaking excavation of areas where the new
columns were to be attached, which may take long depending on the difficulty and the location), and
faster pace of work as time progresses, should be taken into account. Nonetheless, for TMX, AWIA’s
proposed computation of 11/118 multiplied by the amount of salaries claimed was erroneous,
because AWIA assumed that all the 118 columns had been installed from December 1-18, 1995,
when the installation was completed in four weeks. Even if it would be assumed that AWIA’s
mathematical formula was correct, and assuming that half of the 118 columns were installed from
December 1-18, 1995, the proper calculation should be 11/50 multiplied by ₱1,546,084.00, or
₱288,253.00.

Our Ruling

AWIA failed in its duty to guard TMX against the contractor’s work deficiencies

AWIA persistently faults TMX for its alleged neglect of Engr. Lacanilao’s report. But according to the
parties’ Agreement, the duty of alerting TMX of the problems in the construction of the building
behooves entirely on AWIA. The following provisions in the December 29, 1978 Agreement state
what AWIA’s specific responsibilities are in contract administration:

CONSTRUCTION PHASE – ADMINISTRATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT

xxxx

1.1.14. The CONSULTANT, shall make periodic and regular visits to the site to determine
the progress and quality of the Work and to determine if the Work is proceeding in
accordance with the Contract Documents. On the basis of his on-site observations as a
CONSULTANT, he shall guard the owner against, and shall promptly notify the OWNER in
writing of, defects and deficiencies in the Work of the Contractor and non-compliance with
the Contract Documents. The CONSULTANT shall be required to make such on-site
inspections as may be reasonably determined by the OWNER to be necessary. Provided
that the CONSULTANT shall have kept the OWNER currently and adequately informed in
writing of the progress and quality of the work, the CONSULTANT shall not be responsible
for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety
precautions in connection with the Work, and he shall not be responsible for the Contractor’s
failure to carry out the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents.

1.1.15 Based on such observations at the site and on the Contractor’s Applications for
Payment, the CONSULTANT shall determine the amount owing to the Contractor and shall
issue Certificates for Payment in such amounts. The issuance of a Certificate for Payment
shall constitute a representation by the CONSULTANT to the OWNER, based on the
CONSULTANT’s observations at the site as provided in Subparagraph 1.1.14 and on the
data comprising the Application for Payment, that the Work has progressed to the point
indicated; that to the best of the CONSULTANT’s knowledge, information and belief, the
quality of the Work is in accordance with the Contract Documents (subject to an evaluation of
the Work for conformance with the Contract Documents upon Substantial Completion to the
results of any subsequent tests required by the Contract Documents, to minor deviations
from the Contract Documents correctable prior to completion, and to any specific
qualifications stated in the Certificate for Payment); and that the Contractor is entitled to
payment in the amount certified. By issuing a Certificate for Payment, the CONSULTANT
shall not be deemed to represent that he has made any examination to ascertain how and
for what purpose the Contractor has used the moneys paid on account of the Contract Sum.

1.1.16 The CONSULTANT shall be, in the first instance, the interpreter of the requirements
of the Contract Documents and the impartial judge of the performance thereunder by the
Contractor. The CONSULTANT shall make decisions on all claims of the Contractor relating
to the execution and progress of the Work and all other matters or questions related thereto.

1.1.17 The CONSULTANT shall have authority to reject Work which does not conform to the
Contract Documents. Whenever, in his reasonable opinion, he considers it necessary or
advisable to insure the proper implementation of the intent of the Contract Documents, he
will have authority, with the OWNER’s approval, to require special inspection or testing of
any Work in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Documents whether or not such
Work be then fabricated, installed or completed.

xxxx
 1.1.20 The CONSULTANT shall conduct inspections to determine the Dates of Substantial
Completion and final completion, shall receive and review written guarantees and related
documents assembled by the Contractor, and shall issue a final Certificate for Payment. The
CONSULTANT shall use its best efforts to enforce warranties and guarantees furnished by
the Contractor or by suppliers of materials or equipment to the extent of assisting OWNER in
any arbitration or court action if necessary.

1.1.21 The CONSULTANT shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of the
Contractor, or any Subcontractors, or any of the Contractor’s or Subcontractor’s agents or
employees, or any other persons performing any of the Work but will promptly inform
OWNER thereof in writing and determine how such acts or omissions will be rectified by the
Contractor prior to issuing a final Certificate of Payment.

x x x x21

As can be inferred from the contract, TMX could solely and absolutely rely on the assessments and
recommendations of AWIA. Under the aforementioned provisions, AWIA was tasked to guard TMX
against construction problems and to ensure the quality of P.G. Dakay’s performance. It also had the
authority to approve or reject the contractor’s work, and it could issue certificates of payments for the
progress billings of the contractor only if it found the latter’s job as covered by each of the billings
satisfactory. Thus, it is irrelevant whether TMX has its own engineering staff to evaluate the reports
about the construction work. Taking together Sections 1.1.14 and 1.1.21, AWIA is not liable for the
contractor’s construction errors on the following conditions: a) that it promptly and adequately
informs TMX of whatever defects and deficiencies in the construction are and b) that it determines
how these problems could be repaired. AWIA should not release a final certification of payment in
favor of the contractor unless these had been done.

The July 19, 1979 report22 of Engr. Lacanilao is quoted below:

TO MR. ROGELIO Q. LIM

FROM GAVINO S. LACANILAO

DATE 19 JULY 1979

TMXP 2, General Manager TMXP 2, Project Inspector

SUBJECT HEAVY RAINS DURING THE POURING

Last night at 22:45 hours while we were continuously pouring (Monolythic Concreting) on lines F and
G of Bays 11 to 16 Section C of Main Building a signal for heavy rains coming was noted, so all the
personnel involved in the pouring covered the newly poured concrete with polyethylene (Plastic)
sheets to protect from the rain. When the rain started the newly poured concrete were protected.

During the heavy rain the pouring was temporarily suspended. Since I was the only one who has a
rain coat, I inspected the whole top area and found out that rain water accumulated which was
approximately thirteen (13) inches deep, because the water line was just below one (1) inch of my
rubber boots.

So I removed all the temporary plugs of the C.I. downspouts to prevent accumulated rain water from
destruction, and that was the only time that the water dispersed little by little.

When the rain stopped, Engineers Ramon Aseniero and E. Gahi told me that they will continue the
pouring. I advised that they must first remove the water on top of both the plastic sheets and the
newly poured concrete so that the concrete to be poured will not be diluted.

While men working between bays 15 and 16 were busy applying air pressure on the surface of the
fresh concrete with water and the forms to be poured, I suddenly saw the contents in the bucket of
one of the overhead cranes was about to be poured out on the newly poured concrete. So I ran and
told Engr. E. Gahi why he is already pouring the concrete in the bucket while the rain water is still
there? And Engr. Gahi told me that he was just following the order of Mr. John Y. Lim who just
arrived and without assessing the situation and asking my decision being the inspector of the
project.
So I approached Mr. Lim and asked him why he gave the order of pouring the concrete? He told me
right away and pointing at the stopped poured concrete is already sitting. So I told him that if he
continue [sic] pouring the concrete, I will go out of the construction site or I will not certify the said
area. That was the time our argument stopped.

The following are my reasons why I delay the pouring:

*The poured concrete before the rain was with standing water.

*All the forms to be concreted were covered with water.

Note: If they will pour concrete on the above reasons, the mixed concrete will be diluted too much
with water that it will lessen the strength of the roofing slab.

*They were pouring the concrete without first applying grout to act as binder on the
surface of the washed concrete.

*They [sic] concrete they were trying to pour was already more than 45 minutes in
the mixer, because the rain stopped at 01:15 hrs of July 20, 1979.

Specification manual page 02800-6 Section 1.04.04 truck mixing second to the last paragraph says:

"Concrete not in place within 45 minutes from the time the ingredients were charged into the mixing
drum or that has developed initial sitting should not be used. No exemption. So I rejected the two (2)
batches."

Respectfully,

(Signed) G.S. LACANILAO

TMXP 2, Project Inspector

The subject report is merely a narration of what Engr. Lacanilao had done and the justifications why
he delayed the pouring of concrete and why he rejected two batches of concrete mix. Engr.
Lacanilao explained that P.G. Dakay’s representative did not proceed with the pouring of the
substandard concrete mix, after he was informed that he (Engr. Lacanilao) would not certify the
area. TMX then was led to believe that this incident was no cause for alarm since apparently, Engr.
Lacanilao had prevented a possible problem. The report did not in any way warn TMX that the
quality of the roof may be in jeopardy and that it had to be rectified. AWIA even approved all of P.G.
Dakay’s progress billings and issued a final certification of payment, an assurance that it found no
problems at all with the construction work. Ironically though, when the cracks and deflections in
certain sections of the roof had appeared, AWIA cited the marginal strength of the concrete as a
result of the July 18, 1979 incident as the most probable cause of the cracks in TMX’s roof.

AWIA’s failure to adequately inform TMX of the possible implications of the contractor’s mistake in
the concrete pouring was a crucial factor that had cost the former to spend for the repairs.

AWIA breached its responsibility to inform TMX of the contractor’s mistake. TMX may demand for
damages duly proven as a natural consequence of the roof failures it has suffered. If the amount it
claims cannot be proven with certainty, temperate damages may be awarded instead.

In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable
shall be those that are the ‘natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation’.23

Both the trial court and the CA held AWIA liable for the cost of 11 shoring columns. AWIA no longer
challenged this ruling when it withdrew its appeal to the appellate court, rendering the judgment final
and executory.24 We also found that AWIA had breached its duty of contract administration. Had the
effects on the marginal strength of the concrete been promptly disclosed to TMX, the cracks and
deflections could have been rectified by the contractor before it was issued its final certification of
payment and the owner could have been spared from further expenses. There is a causal
connection between AWIA’s negligence and the expenses incurred by TMX. The latter was
compelled to shutdown the plant during the workdays in December to repair the roof. In the process,
it incurred expenses for the repairs, including the salaries of its workers who were put on forced
leave, for which it can ask for reimbursement as actual damages.
Actual damages puts the claimant in the position in which he had been before he was injured. The
award thereof must be based on the evidence presented, not on the personal knowledge of the
court; and certainly not on flimsy, remote, speculative and nonsubstantial proof.25 Under the Civil
Code, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as
he has duly proved.26 1avvphi1

After an exhaustive perusal of the records pertaining to the claim of the salaries covering December
1-18, 1985 allegedly paid to TMX employees, we find that TMX’s pieces of evidence do not
substantiate such plea for the full reimbursement of the salaries. To prove that salaries have been
paid, TMX has the burden to show that payments have actually been made to its employees.
However, the documents it submitted were composed only of a master list of daily and monthly paid
employees, summarized and itemized lists and computations of payroll costs during the covered
period of shoring installation, salary structures, and vouchers prepared by the accounting
department. These pieces of evidence, as well as the bare assertion of the TMX President, do not
show a reasonable degree of certainty of actual payment to and actual receipt by its workers but
only reflect the list of disbursements. No other witnesses who could corroborate the actual payment
of the salaries of the employees during the shutdown period were presented. Vouchers are not
receipts. A receipt is a written and signed acknowledgment that money has been received or goods
have been delivered, while a voucher is documentary record of a business transaction.27 Hence, the
RTC correctly preferred the payroll documents (which contain the signatures of employees), implying
that these are the primary/best evidence of payment, or "that which [afford] the greatest certainty of
the fact in question".28

While TMX failed to prove the exact amount of the salaries it had paid, we however acknowledge
that TMX had to pay its employees during the shutdown and had suffered pecuniary loss for the
structural problem. Moreover, we concede to AWIA’s stance that the installation of only 11 shoring
columns, instead of 118, would significantly reduce the number of days allotted for the repairs. As a
matter of equity, therefore, a relief to TMX in the form of temperate damages29 is warranted. We find
the amount of ₱500,000.00 reasonable and sufficient under the circumstances.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CV No. 49272 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of ₱1,546,084.00
as part of actual damages is deleted, and in lieu thereof, temperate damages amounting to
₱500,000.00 are awarded. Costs against AWIA.

SO ORDERED.

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Footnotes

 Rollo, pp. 7-25; penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes and concurred in by
1

Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Hakim S. Abdulwahid.

2
 Id. at 117-118; penned by Judge Erna Falloran Aliposa.

3
 EPZA stands for Export Processing Zone Authority.

4
 Two of the buildings, called ‘twin modules,’ are of the same design for watch assembly and
office spaces, while the other one is differently designed to be used as a warehouse.

5
 Rollo, pp. 84-100.

6
 Id. at 56-59, 71-79.

7
 Id. at 428-430.

8
 Records, pp. 499-500.

9
 RTC Exhibits, pp. 44-47 and Records, pp. 181-182. Fletcher-Thompson, Inc. enumerated
the following errors:

A. Superimposed dead load used in the calculations was less than that
actually imposed on the structure.

B. Load distribution from roof beams to roof girders was erroneously

assumed to be a uniform loading in lieu of a correct concentrated load
distribution.

C. Load redistribution caused by stiffness variations in the structural system

was not accounted for.

D. Allowable stresses were calculated assuming the concrete would attain a

compressive strength of 5,000 psi in 28 days whereas the project
specifications call for a strength attainment of 4,000 psi in 28 days.

E. A live load of 20 psi, as used in the calculations, is not consistent with the
drainage system. This live load assumption would be valid only if the roof
drainage system would limit rainwater accumulations to 3.85 inches. x x x

On the other hand, Engr. Capistrano Ramientos of C.N. Ramientos and Associates
enumerated the following errors:

1. A. Wilson’s structural engineers failed to factor in all live and deadloads in

their computations/designs which A. Wilson’s own architects, mechanical and
electrical engineers had designed into the three buildings. This resulted in A.
Wilson’s structural designs/computations being engineered for load of 95
lbs/square foot, which is 23.70% lower than the correct/actual load of 117.50
per lb/square foot.

2. A. Wilson made a mistake in assuming the loads to be

distributed uniformly throughout the length of girders when, in fact, the loads
were actually a combination of concentrated and distributed loads in the
girders. This resulted in A. Wilson’s underestimating the girder’s bending
moment by 14.38% or fully 95,546 lbs-foot.

3. A. Wilson forgot to take into account the effect of rib-shortening due to

post-tensioning of beams and girders. This resulted in A. Wilson mistakenly
believing that no additional loads/stress had to be considered in its design,
when actually there was an incremental load/stress resulting from rib-
 shortening of no less than an additional 47,828 lbs load/stress on each
Beam-Girder intersection of the ridge girders (lines B and G).

The combined effect of errors 1 to 3 above resulted in A. Wilson underestimating the

actual total load in each of the ridge girders (lines B and G) of the 3 buildings by
97.6%. This resulted in A. Wilson mistakenly designing girders for a maximum
bending moment or load of only 664,044 foot-pounds when the actual bending
moment or load is 1,312,360 foot pounds, 97.6% more (or almost 100% or double) A.
Wilson’s computation.

A. Wilson failed to considered [sic] that 5,000 psi concrete strength is not normally
achievable in Cebu using Cebu aggregates.

xxxx

10
 Exhibit "H", folder of exhibits, p. 88.

11
 Folder of exhibits, pp. 89-391.

12
 Id. at 408-427.

 EPZA was a co-plaintiff in the case, but for lack of cause of action, the court eventually
13

dismissed its complaint against AWIA.

14
 Rollo, pp. 129-130.

15
 Records, pp. 504-515.

 The December 29, 1978 Agreement specified the duties of AWIA during the Schematic
16

Design Phase, the Design Development Phase, the Construction Documents Phase, the
Bidding or Negotiation Phase, and the Construction Phase-Administration of the
Construction Contract.

17
 Rollo, p. 127.

18
 Id. at 128.

19
 Id. at 68-69.

 TMX likewise elevated the case before us, docketed as G.R. No. 159580, but we denied its
20

petition on October 22, 2003 for want of reversible error.

21
 Rollo, pp. 87-89.

22
 Records, pp. 504-515.

 Civil Code, Article 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the
23

obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable
consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or could
have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted.

 Development Bank of the Philippines v. Pingol Land Transport System Company, Inc., 465
24

Phil. 641, 650 (2004).

25
 Spouses Ong v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 338, 353 (1999).

 Civil Code, Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an
26

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.

27
 Towne and City Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 478 Phil. 466, 475 (2004).
28
 Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 326 Phil. 326, 337 (1996).

 Civil Code, Article 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal
29

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
provided with certainty.