SPOUSES BENJAMIN C. MAMARIL AND SONIA P. MAMARIL VS. THE BOY SCOUT OF THE PHILIPPINES, AIB SECURITY AGENCY, INC., CESARIO PEÑA,* AND VICENTE GADDI, G.R. No. 179382, January 14, 2013
“x x x.
Anent Sps. Mamaril’s claim that the exculpatory clause: “Management shall not be responsible for loss of vehicle or any of its accessories or article left therein” 17 contained in the BSP issued parking ticket was void for being a contract of adhesion and against public policy, suffice it to state that contracts of adhesion are not void per se. It is binding as any other ordinary contract and a party who enters into it is free to reject the stipulations in its entirety. If the terms thereof are accepted without objection, as in this case, where plaintiffs-appellants have been leasing BSP’s parking space for more or less 20 years,18 then the contract serves as the law between them.19 Besides, the parking fee of P300.00 per month or P10.00 a day for each unit is too minimal an amount to even create an inference that BSP undertook to be an insurer of the safety of plaintiffs-appellants’ vehicles.
On the matter of damages, the Court noted that while Sonia P. Mamaril testified that the subject vehicle had accessories worth around P50,000.00, she failed to present any receipt to substantiate her claim.20 Neither did she submit any record or journal that would have established the purported P275.0021 daily earnings of their jeepney. It is axiomatic that actual damages must be proved with reasonable degree of certainty and a party is entitled only to such compensation for the pecuniary loss that was duly proven. Thus, absent any competent proof of the amount of damages sustained, the CA properly deleted the said awards.22
Similarly, the awards of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees were properly disallowed by the CA for lack of factual and legal bases. While the RTC granted these awards in the dispositive portion of its November 28, 2001 decision, it failed to provide sufficient justification therefor.23
X x x.”