THE HIGH COURT OF CASSATION AND JUSTICE, CIVIL SECTION II, RULED BY DECISION NO. 824 OF THE 20TH OF APRIL 2016 THAT THE PENAL CLAUSE INSERTED IN THE CONTRACT ONLY DISPENSES THE CREDITOR FROM PROVING THE AMOUNT OF THE PREJUDICE, AND NOT FROM PROVING ITS EXISTENCE.

Rightly, the Court of Appeal had interpreted and applied the legal provisions that the requested reparations as the penal clause stated are due when all the conditions awarding compensation are met: the existence of the wrongful act, the damage, the causal link between the wrongful act and the damage, the guilt of the debtor and that, in the respective case brought to trial, the applicant has not shown what is the damage that was suffered, thus not proving its existence.