Algarra v. Sandejas

 Algarra v. v. Sandejas Doctri Doctrine: ne: Actual Actual or Compen Compensat satory ory Damages include not only loss alread already y sufere sufered d but loss loss o prots prots which may not have been realized. re alized. March !" #$#! %.&. no.'(') Facts: *laintif Facts: *laintif Algarra was involved in a car collision due to the deendant+s negligence causing him to be hospitalized or #,days. *lai *laint ntif if said said that that he had had done done no worwo r- sinc since e the the acci accide dent nt.. Alga Algarr rra a sells products o distillery on a #, commission commission and made an average o  *), per month. /e had , regular customers which too- him !yrs. to build up but ater the accident only ! remained. 0he lower court reused to allow him to claim or in1ury to his business due to his enorced abse absenc nce e ther there ero rom m on the the grou ground nd that hat the doct doctri rine ne o Marc Marcel elo o v.  2elasco  2elasco is opposed to such allowance. Issue: whether Issue: whether or not damage to his busi busine ness ss can can be awar awarde ded d by the court3 Held: 4 Held: 4es. es.  Actual damages is given to repair the the wr wron ong g that that has has been been done done"" to compens compensate ate or the in1ury in1ury in5ict in5icted ed and not to impose impose a penalt penalty y. 0hey 0hey are compensatory only. Compensatory damages simply ma-e good or replace the loss caused by the wrong. Compensatory damages are awarded to compensate the in1ured party or in1ury caused by the wrong and must be only such as ma-e 1ust and air compensation and are due when the wrong is established" whether it was committed maliciously or not.  Actual damages include not only loss alread already y sufere sufered d but loss loss o prots prots which may not have been realized. 0he case at bar involv involves es actual actual inca incapa paci city ty o the the plai plaint ntif if or or tw two o

mon months" ths" and and loss oss o the grea greatter port portio ion n o his his busi busine ness ss.. As to the the damage damages s result resulting ing rom rom the actual actual incapacity o the plaintif to attend to his business there is no 6uestion. 0hey are" o course" to be allowed on the the basi basis s o his his earni earning ng capa capaci city ty"" which in this case" is *), per month. 7t is proper to consider the business the pla plaintif is engaged in" the nature and e8tent o such business" the impo import rtan ance ce o his his pers person onal al over oversi sigh ghtt and and supe superi rint nten ende denc nce e in conduc conducti ting ng it" and the conse6 conse6uen uentt loss loss aris arisin ing g rom rom his his inab inabil ilit ity y to prosecute it. 0he business o the plaintif re6uired his immedi immediate ate supervi supervisio sion. n. All the pro prots ts deri derive ved d there herer rom om were were wholly due to his own e8ertions. /e coul could d not not resu resume me his his worwor- at the the same prot he was ma-ing when the accident occurred. 9o doubt that a loss o prots has resulted rom the wrong wrongul ul act o the deenda deendant. nt. e not only have the value o plaintif;s busi busine ness ss to him him 1ust 1ust prio priorr to the the accident" but we also have its value to him him ate aterr the the acci accide dent nt.. At the the trial" he testied that his wie had earn earned ed abou aboutt te teen en pesos pesos duri during ng the two months that he was disa disabl bled ed.. 0hat 0hat this his almo almost st total otal dest destru ruct ctio ion n o his his busi busine nes ss was was direct directly ly charge chargeabl able e to deend deendant ant;s ;s wrongul act" there can be no manner o doubt< and the mere act that the loss cannot be ascertained with absolute accuracy" is no reason or denying plaintif;s claim altogether. 0he lower court had beore it suficient evidence o the damage to plai plaint ntif if;s ;s busi busine ness ss in the the way way o  prospective loss o prots to 1ustiy it in calculating his damages as to his item. 0he 0he eviden evidence ce pres presen ente ted d as to the the damage done to plaintif;s business is credib credible le and that it is sufici suficient ent and and clea clearr enou enough gh upon upon wh whic ich h to base a 1udgmen ment or damages.

*laintif having had our years; e8perience in selling goods on commission" it must be presumed that he will be able to rebuild his business to its ormer proportions< so that at some time in the uture his commissions will e6ual those he was receiving when the accident occurred. Aided by his e8perience" he should be able to rebuild this business to its ormer proportions in much less time than it too- to establish it as it stood 1ust prior to the accident. =ne year should be suficient time in which to do this. 0he prots which plaintif will

receive rom the business in the course o its reconstruction will gradually increase. 0he in1ury to plaintif;s business begins where these prots leave of" and" as a corollary" there is where deendant;s liability begins. >pon this basis" we 8 the damages to plaintif;s business at *),. *laintif is awarded the ollowing damages< *#, or medical e8penses< *#,, or the  months o his enorced absence rom his business< and *), or the damage done to his business in the way o loss o prots ? *(@,