Damages

1 DAMAGES I Definition & Concept Art. 2195. The provisions of this Title shall be respectively applicable to all obligations mentioned in Article 1157. Art. 2197. Damages may be: (1) Actual or compensatory; (2) Moral; (3) Nominal; (4) Temperate or moderate; (5) Liquidated; or (6) Exemplary or corrective.

Rationale for Civil Liability Everyone has the obligation to repair or make whole the damage caused by another by reason of his act or omission, whether done intentionally or negligently and whether or not punishable by law. (Ocena v. Icamina) Kinds of Damages (MENTAL)

(1)

ACTUAL/COMPENSATORY: for primary loss actually suffered

(2) (3) (4)

MORAL: mental anguish, etc.

(5)

LIQUIDATED: compensation for stipulated damages in the contract

(6)

EXEMPLARY/CORRECTIVE: to serve as an example for the common good

NOMINAL: for rights recognized and violated TEMPERATE/MODERATE: for damages proved but the amount was not proven

People v. Ballesteros Damages may be defined as the pecuniary compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an injury sustained, or as otherwise expressed, the pecuniary consequences which the law imposes for the breach of some duty or the violation of some right. Custodio v. CA (easement, adobe fence blocked way to road): There is a material distinction between damages and injury. Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury; and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty.

II Kinds of Damages A. Actual or Compensatory Art. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages, may be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of each case.

Kinds of Actual Damages

Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] [Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

2 compensatory damages. Art. 2200. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered, but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain. Art. 2205. Damages may be recovered:

a. b.

For loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury; For injury to the plaintiff's business standing or commercial credit.

CC Art. 2200 Damnum Emergente – value of the loss suffered Lucro Cessante – unrealized profit 2205 A. Disability B. Damage to Business Standing or Commercial Credit 2206 A. Fixed indemnity for death = Php 50,000 (as of 2005) B. Loss of Earning Capacity of the Deceased 2209 Interest 2208 Attorney’s Fees & Expenses of Litigation General Principles for Recovery (1) The amount of damages must be fair and just and commensurate to the loss. (2) The damages must be proximate damages and not remote or speculative (3) The damages must be proven by competent evidence (admissible or probative)

Algarra vs. Sandejas (Plaintiff, a commission agent, received personal injuries as a result of defendant's negligent act and was incapacitated for labor for two months, only 4 out of 20 customers remained upon his recovery): Under both the Spanish Civil Code and American law of damages, actual damages for a negligent act or omission are confined to those which "were foreseen or might have been foreseen," or those which were "the natural and probable consequences" or "the direct and immediate consequences" of the act or omission. In this jurisdiction the author of a negligent act or omission which causes damage to another is obliged to repair the damage done. This is practically equivalent to compensatory or actual damages as those terms are used in American law. Loss of profits of an established business which was yielding fairly steady returns at the time of its interruption by defendant's wrongful act is not so speculative or contingent that a court of justice may refuse to allow the plaintiff any damages at all. When the evidence shows the previous average income of the plaintiff's business and the reduced receipts therefrom during or immediately after the interruption, there can be no doubt that a loss of profits has resulted. The fact that such a loss cannot be determined with exactitude is no reason for refusing to allow them at all. In such a case damages should be allowed for the diminution in profits from the time of the interruption until the business has resumed its normal proportions, based upon the time it has taken or will take the owner to rebuild it by the exercise of proper diligence.

1.

Kinds PNOC Shipping And Transport Corp. vs. CA, et al. (fishing boat collided with LUZSTEVECO vessel): Under Article 2199 of the Civil Code, actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury sustained. They proceed from a sense of natural justice and are designed to repair the wrong that has been done, to compensate for the injury inflicted and not to impose a penalty. 24 In actions based on torts or quasi-delicts, actual damages include all the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. 25 There are two kinds of actual or compensatory damages: one is the loss of what a person already possesses (daño emergente), and the other is the failure to receive as a benefit that which would have pertained to him (lucro cesante). Integrated Packaging Corp. vs. CA and Fil-Anchor Paper Co. Inc (Paper for PHILACOR Cultural Books): The rule on compensatory damages is well established. True, indemnification for damages comprehends not only the loss suffered, that is to say actual damages (damnum emergens), but also profits which the obligee failed to obtain, referred to as compensatory damages (lucrum cessans). However, to justify a grant of actual or compensatory damages, it is necessary to prove with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable by the injured party, the actual amount of loss. In the case at bar, the trial court erroneously concluded that petitioner could have sold books to Philacor at the quoted selling price of P1,850,750.55 and by deducting the production cost of P1,060,426.20, petitioner could have earned profit of P790,324.30. Admittedly, the evidence relied upon by the trial court in arriving at the amount are mere estimates prepared by petitioner. Said evidence is highly speculative and manifestly hypothetical. It could not provide sufficient legal and factual basis for the award of P790,324.30 as compensatory damages representing petitioner's self-serving claim of unrealized profit.

2.

Extent

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] [Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

3 Art. 2201. 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, and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted. In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. Art. 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.

3.

Liability for breach in Contracts & Quasicontracts (1) Obligor in Good Faith = only liable for foreseeable natural and probable consequences of breach. (2) Obligor in Bad Faith = liable for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the breach

Liability in Crimes and Quasi- Delicts For all natural and probable consequences, forseeability is irrelevant.

Certainty PNOC v. CA: As stated at the outset, to enable an injured party to recover actual or compensatory damages, he is required to prove the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence available. The burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence would be presented on either side. He must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence which means that the evidence, as a whole, adduced by one side is superior to that of the other. In other words, damages cannot be presumed and courts, in making an award must point out specific facts that could afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne. In this case, actual damages were proven through the sole testimony of private respondent's general manager and certain pieces of documentary evidence (HOWEVER, the SC considered that the documentary proofs were hearsay because the GM is not the author of the documents, and that the authors should have been made to testify as well to give probative value to said documents). DBP v. CA (Fishpond Lease Agreement from the Government): Article 2199 provides: Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an 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. Actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed, but must be proved with reasonable degree of certainty. A 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. We find that the alleged loss of personal belongings and equipment was not proved by clear evidence. Other than the testimony of CUBA and her caretaker, there was no proof as to the existence of those items before DBP took over the fishpond in question. With regard to the award of P517,000 representing the value of the alleged 230,000 pieces of bangus which died when DBP took possession of the fishpond in March 1979, the same was not called for. Such loss was not duly proved; besides, the claim therefor was delayed unreasonably. Nowhere in the said letter, which was written seven months after DBP took possession of the fishpond, did CUBA intimate that upon DBP's take-over there was a total of 230,000 pieces of bangus, but all of which died because of DBP's representatives prevented her men from feeding the fish (letter from CUBA to DBP). Fuentes v. CA (Murder): In crimes and quasi-delict's, the defendant is liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. To seek recovery for actual damages it is essential that the injured party proves the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence available. Courts cannot simply rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork in determining the fact and amount of damages. The award by the court a quo of P8,300.00 as actual damages is not supported by the evidence on record. We have only the testimony of the victim's elder sister stating that she incurred expenses of P8,300.00 in connection with the death of Malaspina. However, no proof of the actual damages was ever presented in court. Of the expenses alleged to have been incurred, the Court can only give credence to those supported by receipts and which appear to have been genuinely expended in connection with the death of the victim Talisay-Silay v. Associacion (transfer of sugar quota allotments or production allowance from Talisay to First Farmers Milling): The evidence of damages must be clear. Manresa expresses the rule on the quantum of proof of 'ganancias frustradas. At once apparent is that the pronouncement of the court [a quo] on the quantum of damages x x x does not distinctly state the factors and the law on which it is based. It simply concluded - 'unrealized profits.' The familiar rule is that damages consisting of unrealized profits, frequently referred as 'ganancias frustradas' or "lucrum cessans," are not to be granted on the basis of mere speculation, conjecture or surmise but rather by reference to some reasonably definite standard

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] [Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

4 such as market value, established experience or direct inference from known circumstances. Uncertainty as to whether or not a claimant suffered unrealized profits at all - i.e., uncertainty as to the very fact of injury will, of course, preclude recovery of this species of damages. Where, however, it is reasonably certain that injury consisting of failure to realize otherwise reasonably expected profits had been incurred, uncer ainty as to the precise amount of such unrealized profits will not prevent recovery or the award of damages. We do not believe that the data embodied in Exhibits "P-1 " to "P-8" and "W- I" to "W-6" can be dismissed as merely speculative; the data, in fact, appears to rest on fairly definite standards utilized by the governmental agency having relevant administrative Jurisdiction (i.e., the Sugar Quota Administration) and accounting standards widely employed in the world of business and commerce. Nevertheless, a review of the damages actually awarded to TSMC and TSICA by the trial court on the one hand and the Court of Appeals on the other, reveals the need for a more careful and thorough examination of the matterFor instance, the award of damages rendered by the trial court took into account the loss of income suffered by TSMC and TSICA when AATSI, et al. transferred two (2) types of sugar quota: the "domestic quota" and the "export quota." Transfer of domestic sugar quotas are valid and therefore damages in the form of lost income as a result of such should be deducted from the total award. Therefore, the case should be remanded.

4.

Damage to Property PNOC Shipping And Transport Corp. vs. CA, et al. (fishing boat collided with LUZSTEVECO vessel): A party is entitled to adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss actually suffered and duly proved. 1 Indeed, basic is the rule that to recover actual damages, the amount of loss must not only be capable of proof but must actually be proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or best evidence obtainable of the actual amount thereof. 2 The claimant is duty-bound to point out specific facts that afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory damages are borne. 3 A court cannot merely rely on speculations, conjectures, or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages 4 as well as hearsay 5 or uncorroborated testimony whose truth is suspect. Daywalt vs. Recoletos et al. (priests advising a lady on her contracts re: land): Whatever may be the character of the liability, if any, which a stranger to a contract may incur by advising or assisting one of the parties to evade performance, he cannot become more extensively liable in damages for the nonperformance of the contract than the party in whose behalf he inter meddles. The damages recoverable upon breach of contract are, primarily, the ordinary, natural and in a sense the necessary damage resulting from the breach. Other damages, known as special damages, are recoverable where it appears that the particular conditions which made such damages a probable consequence of the breach were known to the delinquent party at the time the contract was made. This proposition must be understood with the qualification that, if the damages are in the legal sells remote or speculative, knowledge of the special conditions which render such damages possible will not make them recoverable. Special damages of this character cannot be recovered unless made the subject of special stipulation. The damages ordinarily recoverable against a vendor for failure to deliver land which he has contracted to deliver is the value of the use and occupation of the land for the tune during which it is wrongfully withheld. Ching vs. Court of Appeals (ex parte the cancellation of title registered in the name of Ching Lang in favor of Pedro Asedillo): Ching Leng is an innocent purchaser for value as shown by the evidence adduced in his behalf by petitioner herein, tracing back the roots of his title since 1960, from the time the decree of registration was issued. The sole remedy of the landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's nameafter one year from the date of the decree-is not to set aside the decree, but respecting the decree as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court of justice for damages if the property has passed unto the hands of an innocent purchaser for value.

5.

Personal Injury & Death Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. In addition:

a.)

The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death;

b.)

If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of Article 291, the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession, may demand support from the person

Amount of Fixed Indemnity This is fixed according to the prevailing jurisprudence. As of 2005, it is Php50,000.

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] [Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

5 c.)

6.

causing the death, for a period not exceeding five years, the exact duration to be fixed by the court; The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.

Attorney’s Fees Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except: (1) When exemplary damages are awarded; (2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest; (3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff; (4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff; (5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable claim; (6) In actions for legal support; (7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers; (8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws; (9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime; (10)When at least double judicial costs are awarded; (11)In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered. In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable.

2 Concepts of Attorney’s Fees (1) Retainer’s agreement between the lawyer and the client (in writing). (2) Award as an indemnity to the client. (BELONGS to the client) Requirements (1) There must be a stipulation (2) Such must fall into one of the cases in Art. 2208. NOTE Attorney’s Fees is the exception NOT the general rule.

Quirante vs. Intermediate Appellate Court: Well settled is the rule that counsel's claim for attorney's fees may be asserted either in the very action in which the services in question have been rendered, or in a separate action. If the first alternative is chosen, the Court may pass upon said claim, even if its amount were less than the minimum prescribed by law for the jurisdiction of said court, upon the theory that the right to recover attorney's fees is but an incident of the case in which the services of counsel have been rendered." It also rests on the assumption that the court trying the case is to a certain degree already familiar with the nature and extent of the lawyer's services. The rule against multiplicity of suits will in effect be subserved. What is being claimed here as attorney's fees by petitioners is, however, different from attorney's fees as an item of damages provided for under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, wherein the award is made in favor of the litigant, not of his counsel, and the litigant, not his counsel, is the judgment creditor who may enforce the judgment for attorney's fees by execution.14 Here, the petitioner's claims are based on an alleged contract for professional services, with them as the creditors and the private respondents as the debtors. In filing the motion for confirmation of attorney's fees, petitioners chose to assert their claims in the same action. This is also a proper remedy under our jurisprudence. Nevertheless, we agree with the respondent court that the confirmation of attorney's fees is premature. As it correctly pointed out, the petition for review on certiorari filed by PHILAMGEN in this Court (G.R. No. 64334) "may or may not ultimately result in the granting to the Isasola (sic) family of the total amount of damages" awarded by the trial court, This especially true in the light of subsequent developments in G.R. No. 64334. Since the main case from which the petitioner's claims for their

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] [Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

6 fees may arise has not yet become final, the determination of the propriety of said fees and the amount thereof should be held in abeyance. This procedure gains added validity in the light of the rule that the remedy for recovering attorney's fees as an incident of the main action may be availed of only when something is due to the client.

7.

Interest Art. 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six per cent per annum. (1108) Art. 2210. Interest may, in the discretion of the court, be allowed upon damages awarded for breach of contract. Art. 2211. In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as a part of the damages may, in a proper case, be adjudicated in the discretion of the court. Art. 2212. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded, although the obligation may be silent upon this point. (1109a) Art. 2213. Interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages, except when the demand can be established with reasonably certainty.

Rules on Interest (1) If there is a stipulation as to the rate of interest, apply the rate. (2) If only interest but no rate is stipulated, or when there is delay, apply the legal rate of interest (6% or 12% per annum) a) When the obligation involves the payment of indemnities in the concept of damages, the legal rate is 6% computed as follows: (i) from the date of demand is the amount of indemnities can be established with reasonable certainty; if not (ii) from the date of the judgment of the trial court b) When the obligation consists of a loan or forbearance of money, goods, or credits as well as judgment involving such loan or forbearance, rate shall be 12% computed from default (judicial or extrajudicial demant) c) In both (a) and (b), the legal rate of interest shall be 12% from the finality of the judgment until it is paid. Start of Delay (1) Extrajudicial: demand letter (2) Judicial: Filing of complaint

Crismina Garments v CA: “Forbearance” in the context of the usury law is a contractual obligation of lender or creditor to refrain during a given time period from requiring payment of a loan then due and payable. In this case, the contract is for a “piece of work,” hence not a forbearance of money, goods or credit, and therefore the interest should only be 6% from the date of demand or TC judgment and 12% from the finality of the SC judgment until it is paid.

8.

Mitigation of Liability Art. 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question.

The inordinate amount of damages calls for the moderating hand of the court, that justice may be tempered with reason instead of being tainted when it appears to be a result of ruthless vindictiveness.

Art. 2204. In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] [Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

7 Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover. Art. 2215. In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts, the court may equitably mitigate the damages under circumstances other than the case referred to in the preceding article, as in the following instances:

B. Moral 1.

Concept Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act for omission.

Principles of Recovery (1) Prove the factual basis. (2) Such must be the proximate result of the injury. (3) The person who suffered must give testimony.

Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act for omission.

Principles of Recovery (1) Prove the factual basis. (2) Such must be the proximate result of the injury. (3) The person who suffered must give testimony.

Factors for the Amount of Moral Damages (1) Political, social, financial status, of the person offended as well as the business and financial standing of the offender. (2) Degree of anguish (3) Sentimental value where applicable

Factors for the Amount of Moral Damages (1) Political, social, financial status, of the person offended as well as the business and financial standing of the offender. (2) Degree of anguish (3) Sentimental value where applicable

Kierulf et. al. vs. CA (vehicular accident; husband claims loss of consortium) The moral damages as awarded by the CA were not enough, but not for the reasons given by the complainants (Loss of consortium, social & financial standing) but for the trauma suffered by Lucila and the span of time between this decision and the accident(See below, after 3 rd issue). Victor's claim for deprivation of his right to consortium, although argued before Respondent Court, is not supported by the evidence on record. His wife might have been badly disfigured. But he had not testified that, in consequence thereof, his right to marital consortium was affected. Clearly, Victor (and for that matter, Lucila) had failed to make out a case for loss of consortium, unlike the Rodriguez spouse. Again, we emphasize that this claim is factual in origin and must find basis not only in the evidence presented but also in the findings of the Respondent Court. For lack of factual basis, such claim cannot be ruled upon by this Court at this time. The social and financial standing of Lucila cannot be considered in awarding moral damages. The factual circumstances prior to the accident show that no "rude and rough" reception, no menacing attitude," no supercilious manner," no "abusive language and highly scornful reference" was given her. The social and financial standing of a claimant of moral damages may be considered in awarding moral damages only if he or she was subjected to contemptuous conduct despite the offender's knowledge of his or her social and financial standing. Be that as it may, it is still proper to award moral damages to Petitioner Lucila for her physical sufferings, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety and wounded feelings. She sustained multiple injuries on the scalp, limbs and ribs. She lost all her teeth. She had to undergo several corrective operations and treatments. Despite treatment and

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] [Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

8 surgery, her chin was still numb and thick. She felt that she has not fully recovered from her injuries. She even had to undergo a second operation on her gums for her dentures to fit. She suffered sleepless nights and shock as a consequence of the vehicular accident.25 In this light and considering further the length of time spent in prosecuting the complaint and this appeal, we find the sum of P400,000.00 as moral damages for Petitioner Lucila to be fair and just under the circumstances. Visayan Sawmill vs. CA (sale of scrap iron, problem with letter of credit): This Court notes the palpably excessive and unconscionable moral and exemplary damages awarded by the trial court to the private respondent despite a clear absence of any legal 1 and factual basis therefor. In contracts, such as in the instant case, moral damages may be recovered if defendants acted fraudulently and in bad faith, while exemplary damages may only be awarded if defendants acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. In the instant case, the refusal of the petitioners to deliver the scrap iron was founded on the non-fulfillment by the private respondent of a suspensive condition. It cannot, therefore, be said that the herein petitioners had acted fraudulently and in bad faith or in a wanton, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. What this Court stated in Inhelder Corp. vs. CA needs to be stressed anew: "At this juncture, it may not be amiss to remind Trial Courts to guard against the award of exhorbitant (sic) damages that are way out of proportion to the environmental circumstances of a case and which, time and again, this Court has reduced or eliminated. Judicial discretion granted to the Courts in the assessment of damages must always be exercised with balanced restraint and measured objectivity." For, indeed, moral damages are emphatically not intended to enrich a complainant at the expense of the defendant. They are awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversion or amusements that will serve to obviate the moral suffering he has undergone, by reason of the defendant's culpable action. Its award is aimed at the restoration, within the limits of the possible, of the spiritual status quo ante, and it must be proportional to the suffering inflicted. People vs. Aringue (murder): We find the award of P2,000,000.00 as moral damages to be excessive. Although no proof of pecuniary loss is required in the assessment of moral damages, the award is essentially by way of indemnity or reparation. Moral damages are not awarded to punish the defendant but to compensate the victim. The award is not meant to enrich the victim at the expense of the defendant. We find that an award of P50,000.00 is commensurate to the emotional suffering of the victim's heirs. Additionally, we award P50,000.00 as indemnity by reason of the death of the victim in accord with Article 2206 of the Civil Code and prevailing jurisprudence.51 The award of attorney's fees is set at P25,000.00 which is reasonable considering that the proceedings at the lower court lasted four years.

2.

Proof & Proximate Cause Compania Maritima vs. Allied Free Workers Union, et al. (arrastre & stevedoring work): Considering that the company's claim for moral damages was based on the same facts on which it predicated its claim for actual damages, which we have found to be groundless, it follows that the company, a juridical person, is not entitled to moral damages. Anyway, the company did not plead and prove moral damages. It merely claimed moral damages in the prayer of its complaint. That is not sufficient (Darang vs, Ty Belizar, L-19487, January 31, 1967, 19 SCRA 214, 222). Miranda-Ribaya vs. Bautista (swindler posing as millionaire fools jeweler): We do not share respondent court's narrow view that petitioner Niceta's failure to use in her testimony the precise legal terms or "sacramental phrases" of "mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, wounded feelings or moral shock" and the like justifies the denial of the claim for damages. It is sufficient that these exact terms have been pleaded in the complaint and evidence has been adduced, as cited above, amply supporting the averments of the complaint. Indeed, petitioner Niceta vividly portrayed in simple terms the moral shock and suffering she underwent as a result of respondents' wanton abuse of her good faith and confidence. Thus, petitioners' testimonial evidence to the effect that petitioner Niceta suffered "extremely" and that for three months she could not sleep was a clear demonstration of her physical suffering, mental anguish and serious anxiety and similar injury, resulting from respondents' malevolent acts that show her to be clearly entitled to moral damages. Del Rosario vs. CA (“Banawe Shingles”): That MFC did in truth act with bad faith, in flagrant breach of its express warranties made to the general public and in wanton disregard of the rights of the Del Rosarios who relied on those warranties, is adequately demonstrated by the recorded proofs. The law explicitly authorizes the award of moral damages "in breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith." There being, moreover, satisfactory evidence of the psychological and mental trauma actually suffered by the Del Rosarios, the grant to them of moral damages is warranted. Over a period of about a month, they experienced "feelings of shock, helplessness, fear, embarrassment and anger. "As declared by this Court in Makabili v. Court of Appeals, among other precedents: It is essential . . . in the award of damages that the claimant must have satisfactorily proven during the trial the existence of the factual basis of the damages and its causal connection to defendant's acts. This is so because moral damages though incapable of pecuniary estimation are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer (Enervida v. De la Torre, 55 SCRA 340 [1974]) and are allowable only when specifically prayed for in the complaint (San Miguel Brewery, Inc. v. Magno, 21 SCRA 292 [1968]). As reflected in the records of the case, the Court of Appeals was in agreement with the findings of the trial court that petitioners suffered

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] [Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

9 anguish, embarrassment and mental sufferings due to the failure of private respondent to perform its obligation to petitioners. According to the Court of Appeals, private respondent acted in wanton disregard of the rights of petitioners. These pronouncements lay the basis and justification for this Court to award petitioners moral and exemplary damages." Raagas, et al. vs. Traya et al. (truck ran over 3 yr old boy): The vital issue, therefore, to which the other issues are subsidiary or interstitial, is whether the court a quo acted correctly when it rendered judgment on the pleadings, It is our view that the court erred. The plaintiffs' claim for actual, moral, nominal and corrective damages, was controverted by the averment in the answer to the effect that the defendants "have no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations" as to such damages, "the truth of the matter being that the death of Regino Raagas was occasioned by an unforeseen event and/or by the fault of the small boy Regino Raagas or his parents." Such averment has the effect of tendering a valid issue. XXX we held that even if the allegations regarding the amount of damages in the complaint are not specifically denied in the answer, such damages are not deemed admitted. XXX Although an allegation is not necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded, "it is, nevertheless, essential that the claimant satisfactorily prove the existence of the factual basis of the damage and its causal relation to defendant's acts. The preceding disquisition points up the inescapable need of a full-blown trial on the merits at which the parties will be afforded every opportunity to present evidence in support of their respective contentions and defenses. Accordingly, the judgment on the pleadings of June 24, 1960 is set aside, and this case is hereby remanded to the court of origin for trial on the merits. No pronouncement as to costs. Enervida vs. De la Torre (Sale of land; homestead patent): "Furthermore, while no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded, the amount of indemnity being left to the discretion of the court (Art. 2216), it is, nevertheless, essential that the claimant satisfactorily prove the existence of the factual basis of the damage (Art. 2217) and its causal relation to defendant's acts. This is so because moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer (Algara vs. Sandejas, 27 Phil. 284). The trial court and the Court of Appeals both seem to be of the opinion that the mere fact that respondent were sued without any legal foundation entitled them to an award of moral damages, hence they made no definite finding as to what the supposed moral damages suffered consist of. Such a conclusion would make of moral damages a penalty, which they are not, rather than a compensation for actual injury suffered, which they are intended to be. Moral damages, in other words, are not corrective or exemplary damages." People vs. Bugayong (rape; 11 yr old victim): The trial court correctly awarded P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto, an amount which is automatically granted to the offended party without need of further evidence other than the fact of the commission of rape. Consistent with recent jurisprudence, appellant should also be ordered to pay the victim the additional amount of P50,000 as moral damages. In People v. Prades, the Court resolved that "moral damages may additionally be an awarded to the victim in the criminal proceeding, in such amount as the Court deems just, without the need for pleading, or proof of the basis thereof as has heretofore been the practice.

3.

Cases Where Allowed Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries; (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; (3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts; (4) Adultery or concubinage; (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest; (6) Illegal search; (7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation; (8) Malicious prosecution; (9) Acts mentioned in Article 309; (10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35. The parents of the female seduced, abducted,

Malicious Prosecution; Elements (1) The fact of prosecution (2) Defendant was the prosecutor (3) Action was dismissed for being without probable cause in the preliminary investigation (4) Defendant was actuated or impelled by legal malice Labor Cases Moral damages are recoverable only where the dismissal of the employee: (1) was attended by bad faith or fraud (2) constituted an act oppressive to labor (3) done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy.

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] [Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

10 raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral damages. The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named. Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:

(1)

A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

(2) (3)

Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;

Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts; (4) Adultery or concubinage;

(5)

Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest; (6) Illegal search; (7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;

(8)

Malicious prosecution; (9) Acts mentioned in Article 309; (10)Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35. The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral damages. The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named.

Malicious Prosecution; Elements (1) The fact of prosecution (2) Defendant was the prosecutor (3) Action was dismissed for being without probable cause in the preliminary investigation (4) Defendant was actuated or impelled by legal malice Labor Cases Moral damages are recoverable only where the dismissal of the employee: (1) was attended by bad faith or fraud (2) constituted an act oppressive to labor (3) done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy.

Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.

Castillo v. Castillo (daughter vs mother, inheritance): We are in full agreement with the ruling laid down by the lower court that absent any showing that the complaint was malicious and that in fact said court found the complaint meritorious to a reasonable extent, damages may not be claimed by defendants. As to the moral damages of defendant siblings, there is no showing that the complaint was malicious, in fact the court has found it meritorious to a reasonable extent; as to the counterclaims of the mother, Enriqueta, while it must be admitted that this case is peculiar in that it is one filed by a daughter against her own mother, that alone does not justify any counterclaim, specifically for the exemplary damages and moral damages sought to be collected since the complaint as has been said has been found to have some merit. The finding of the TC that the filing of the complaint in the case at bar was not malicious is a finding of fact which is binding and conclusive, thereby negating any award of damages against plaintiffs, following the ruling that it is not a sound policy to place a penalty on the right to litigate, and that in order that a person may be made liable to the payment of moral damages, the law requires that his act be wrongful. The adverse result of an action does not per se make the act wrongful and subject the actor to the payment of moral damages. The law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate; such right is so precious that moral damages may not be charged on those who may exercise it erroneously." Francisco v. GSIS (father tries to fix daughter’s mortgage): There was NO error in the appealed decision in denying moral damages, not only on account of plaintiff's failure to take the witness stand and testify to her social humiliation, wounded feelings,

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] [Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

11 anxiety, etc., as the decision holds, but primarily because a breach of contract like that of defendant, not being malicious or fraudulent, does not warrant the award of moral damages under Article 2220. Expertravel & Tours v. CA (payment remitted to Expertravel through its then Chairperson): Moral damages are not punitive in nature but are designed to compensate and alleviate in some way the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury unjustly caused to a person. 1. Although incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages, nevertheless, must somehow be proportional to and in approximation of the suffering inflicted. 2. Such damages, to be recoverable, must be the proximate result of a wrongful act or omission the factual basis for which is satisfactorily established by the aggrieved party. 3. An award of moral damages would require certain conditions: (a) there must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant; (b) there must be a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and

(c)

the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219

4.

in culpa contractual or breach of contract, moral damages may be recovered when the defendant acted in bad faith or was guilty of gross negligence (amounting to bad faith) or in wanton disregard of his contractual obligation and, exceptionally, when the act of breach of contract itself is constitutive of tort resulting in physical injuries. 5. By special rule in Article 1764, in relation to Article 2206, moral damages may also be awarded in case the death of a passenger results from a breach of carriage. 6. In culpa aquiliana, or quasi-delict, (a) when an act or omission causes physical injuries, or (b) where the defendant is guilty of intentional tort, [in this latter case, moral damages may be recovered even in loss of or damage to property] moral damages may aptly be recovered. This rule also applies to contracts when breached by tort. 7. In culpa criminal, moral damages could be lawfully due when the accused is found guilty of physical injuries, lascivious acts, adultery or concubinage, illegal or arbitrary detention, illegal arrest, illegal search, or defamation. 8. Malicious prosecution can also give rise to a claim for moral damages. The term "analogous cases," referred to in Article 2219, following the ejusdem generis rule, must be held similar to those expressly enumerated by the law. 9. Although the institution of a clearly unfounded civil suit can at times be a legal justification for an award of attorney's fees, such filing, however, has almost invariably been held not to be a ground for an award of moral damages. The rationale for the rule is that the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate. The anguish suffered by a person for having been made a defendant in a civil suit would be no different from the usual worry and anxiety suffered by anyone who is haled to court, a situation that cannot by itself be a cogent reason for the award of moral damages. If the rule were otherwise, then moral damages must every time be awarded in favor of the prevailing defendant against an unsuccessful plaintiff.

a.

Unfounded Suits Mijares vs. CA (drug store supply purchases): In Malicious prosecutions, both in criminal and civil cases, requires the presence of two elements, to wit: a) malice; b) absence of probable cause. Moreover, there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person, and that it was initiated deliberately knowing that the chargewas false and baseless. Hence, mere filing of a suit does not render a person liable for malicious prosecution should he be unsuccessful, for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate. Settled in our jurisprudence is the rule that moral damages cannot be recovered from a person who has filed a complaint against another in good faith, or without malice or bad faith. If damage results from the filing of the complaint, it is daninum absque injuria. De La Peña vs. CA (3/4 portion of land belonged to another; fenced): It is well-settled that reconveyance is a remedy granted only to the owner of the property alleged to be erroneously titled in another's name. In the case at bench, petitioner does not claim to be the owner of the disputed portion. However, we are inclined to delete the award for attorney's fees, moral damages and expenses of litigation. As correctly argued by petitioner, an award for attorney's fees and moral damages on the sole basis of an action later declared to be unfounded in the absence of a deliberate intent to cause prejudice to the other party is improper. The right to litigate is so precious that a penalty should not be charged on those who may exercise it erroneously. “J” Marketing Corp. vs. Sia, Jr

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] [Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

12 (stolen Kawasaki bike): A person's right to litigate should not be penalized by holding him liable for damages. This is especially true when the filing of the case is to enforce what he believes to be his rightful claim against another although found to be erroneous. In this case, petitioner precisely instituted the replevin case against private respondent based on the latter's own challenge to the former that if they really had a right on the motorcycle, then they should institute the necessary case in court. When petitioner did sue private respondent and filed a third party complaint against the person from whom private respondent claims to have bought the motorcycle, it cannot be said that the institution of the replevin suit was tainted with gross and evident bad faith or was done maliciously to harass, embarrass, annoy or ridicule private respondent. Moreover, the adverse result of an action - dismissal of petitioner's complaint - does not per se make an act unlawful and subject the actor to the payment of moral damages. It is not a sound public policy to place a premium on the right to litigate. No damages can be charged on those who may exercise such precious right in good faith, even if done erroneously.

Cometa, et al. vs. CA (faked signature in a HLURB requirement; affidavit re: mortgage): The mere allegation in a complaint for malicious prosecution that an information was filed after preliminary investigation and that a warrant of arrest was thereafter issued does not by itself negate allegations in the same complaint that the prosecution was malicious. To sustain petitioners’ stand would result in the dismissal of every action for malicious prosecution. Industrial Insurance Co. Inc. vs. Bondad et al. (auto mishap; fellow victims fixing a flat tire of bus sued): No person should be penalized for the exercise of the right to litigate. This right, however, must be exercised in good faith. Absence of good faith in the present case is shown by the fact that petitioner clearly has no cause of action against respondents but it recklessly filed suit anyway and wantonly pursued pointless appeals, thereby causing the latter to spend valuable time, money and effort in unnecessarily defending themselves, incurring damages in the process. The award of moral damages is affirmed. To sustain this award, it must be shown that (1) the claimant suffered injury, and (2) such injury sprung from any of the cases listed in Articles 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code. It is not enough that the claimant alleges mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, social humiliation, and the like as a result of the acts of the other party. It is necessary that such acts be shown to have been tainted with bad faith or ill motive. In the case at bar, it has been shown that the petitioner acted in bad faith in compelling respondents to litigate an unfounded claim. As a result, Respondent Ligorio Bondad "could no longer concentrate on his job." Moreover, Pablo Bondad became sick and even suffered a mild stroke. Indeed, respondents' anxiety is not difficult to understand. They were innocently attending to a flat tire on the shoulder of the road; the next thing they knew, they were already being blamed for an accident. Worse, they were forced to commute all the way from Laguna to Makati in order to attend the hearings. Under the circumstances of this case, the award of moral damages is justified.

(1) Labor Cases Triple Eight Integrated Services, INC. vs. NLRC, et al. (OFW to Saudi; contracted as waitress but worked as dishwasher, janitor, labor abuse): Now, with respect to the award of moral and exemplary damages, the same is likewise proper but should be reduced. Worth reiterating is the rule that moral damages are recoverable where the dismissal of the employee was attended by bad faith or fraud or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. Likewise, exemplary damages may be awarded if the dismissal was effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner. According to the facts of the case as stated by public respondent, Osdana was made to perform such menial chores, as dishwashing and janitorial work, among others, contrary to her job designation as waitress. She was also made to work long hours without overtime pay. Because of such arduous working conditions, she developed Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. Her illness was such that she had to undergo surgery twice. Since her employer determined for itself that she was no longer fit to continue working, they sent her home posthaste without as much as separation pay or compensation for the months when she was unable to work because of her illness. Since the employer is deemed to have acted in bad faith, the award for attorney's fees is likewise upheld.

(2) Criminal Taking of Life People vs. Teodorico Cleopas and Pirame (victim killed via iron pipes and wood): The award of P50,000.00 from each accused as moral and exemplary damages, however, is unsupported. The widow of the victim did not testify on any mental anguish or emotional distress, which she suffered as a result of her husband's death. Arcona v CA (victim killed via knife stabbing, victim had bolo): Likewise, the Court of Appeals was correct in increasing the amount of civil indemnity to P50,000.00, in line with existing jurisprudence. In cases of murder,

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] [Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

13 homicide, parricide and rape, civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 is automatically granted to the offended party or his heirs in case of his death, without need of further evidence other than the fact of the commission of the crime. On the other hand, the award of moral damages in the sum of P 10,000.00 must be increased to P50,000.00. As borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim’s family. It is inherently human to suffer sorrow, torment, pain and anger when a loved one becomes the victim of a violent or brutal killing. Such violent death or brutal killing not only steals from the family of the deceased his precious life, deprives them forever of his love, affection and support, but often leaves them with the gnawing feeling that an injustice has been done to them. For this reason, moral damages must be awarded even in the absence of any allegation and proof of the heirs’ emotional suffering.

b.

Factors in Determining Amount PNB v. CA (MR; Flores bought 1M worth of manager’s checks from PNB, 100k of which was dishonored): Petitioner's allegation that it is allowed by Sec. 11, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence to impeach the adverse party's witness "by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad" is undeserving of merit. Petitioner has not presented adequate evidence to show that private respondent is indeed a big time gambler. Mere allegations are not equivalent to proof. Petitioner has besmirched private respondent's reputation and has considerably caused him undue humiliation. The records further show that plaintiff is a prominent businessman, licensed and engaged in the real estate business, buying and selling houses and lots under the business name and style CMS Commercial. He is at the same time a consultant of Dizon-Esguerra Real Estate Company. Defendant treated him as a valued and VIP client. Because of the bank's refusal to encash the entire one million face amount of his manager's checks, he was so embarrassed for he was not able to purchase a house and lot in Monterroza Subdivision, Baguio City. Significantly, the foregoing undisputed facts made even more untenable defendant's implicit supposition that the subject manager's checks were not intended for the purchase of a house or for any business transaction but for gambling. Accordingly, the moral and exemplary damages awarded to private respondent are increased by P100,000.00 and P25,000.00, respectively. Fule v. CA (jewelry traded for land; one party later claims fakery after 2 hrs from swapping): Being an experienced banker and a businessman himself who deliberately skirted a legal impediment in the sale of the Tanay property and to minimize the capital gains tax for its exchange, it was actually gross recklessness for him to have merely conducted a cursory examination of the jewelry when every opportunity for doing so was not denied him. Apparently, he carried on his person a tester which he later used to prove the alleged fakery but which he did not use at the time when it was most needed. Furthermore, it took him two more hours of unexplained delay before he complained that the jewelry he received were counterfeit. Thus, it is our considered view that if this slew of circumstances were connected, like pieces of fabric sewn into a quilt, they would sufficiently demonstrate that his acts were not merely negligent but rather studied and deliberate. Instead, the cause of action of the instant case appears to have been contrived by petitioner himself. In other words, he was placed in a situation where he could not honestly evaluate whether his cause of action has a semblance of merit, such that it would require the expertise of the courts to put it to a test. His insistent pursuit of such case then coupled with circumstances showing that he himself was guilty in bringing about the supposed wrongdoing on which he anchored his cause of action would render him answerable for all damages the defendant may suffer because of it. This is precisely what took place in the petition at bar and we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the courts below that respondents in this case suffered considerable damages due to petitioner's unwarranted action. Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. CA (passenger; city prosecutor not given accommodations/reimbursements during typhoon, good Samaritan had to help him): The discriminatory act of petitioner against respondent ineludibly makes the former liable for moral damages under Article 21 in relation to Article 2219 (10) of the Civil Code.9 As held in Alitalia Airways vs. CA, et al., 10 such inattention to and lack of care by petitioner airline for the interest of its passengers who are entitled to its utmost consideration, particularly as to their convenience, amount to bad faith which entitles the passenger to the award of moral damages. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, we are convinced that the awards for actual, moral and exemplary damages granted in the judgment of respondent court, for the reasons meticulously analyzed and thoroughly explained in its decision, are just and equitable. It is high time that the travelling public is afforded protection and that the duties of common carriers, long detailed in our previous laws and jurisprudence and thereafter collated and specifically catalogued in our Civil Code in 1950, be enforced through appropriate sanctions. Valenzuela v. CA (victim was fixing car, hit by another, massive damage): we find no reason to overturn the amount of damages awarded by the respondent court, except as to the amount of moral damages. In the case of moral damages, while the said damages are not intended to enrich the plaintiff at the expense of a defendant, the award should nonetheless be commensurate to the suffering inflicted. In the instant case we are of the opinion that the reduction in moral

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] [Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

14 damages from an amount of P1,000,000.00 to P800,000,00 by the Court of Appeals was not justified considering the nature of the resulting damage and the predictable sequelae of the injury. As a result of the accident, Ma. Lourdes Valenzuela underwent a traumatic amputation of her left lower extremity at the distal left thigh just above the knee. Because of this, Valenzuela will forever be deprived of the full ambulatory functions of her left extremity, even with the use of state of the art prosthetic technology. Well beyond the period of hospitalization (which was paid for by Li), she will be required to undergo adjustments in her prosthetic devise due to the shrinkage of the stump from the process of healing. These adjustments entail costs, prosthetic replacements and months of physic al and occupational rehabilitation and therapy. During her lifetime, the prosthetic devise will have to be replaced and re-adjusted to changes in the size of her lower limb effected by the biological changes of middle-age, menopause and aging. Assuming she reaches menopause, for example, the prosthetic will have to be adjusted to respond to the changes in bone resulting from a precipitate decrease in calcium levels observed in the bones of all post-menopausal women. In other words, the damage done to her would not only be permanent and lasting, it would also be permanently changing and adjusting to the physiologic changes which her body would normally undergo through the years. The replacements, changes, and adjustments will require corresponding adjustive physical and occupational therapy. All of these adjustments, it has been documented, are painful. The foregoing discussion does not even scratch the surface of the nature of the resulting damage because it would be highly speculative to estimate the amount of psychological pain, damage and injury which goes with the sudden severing of a vital portion of the human body. A prosthetic device, however technologically advanced, will only allow a reasonable amount of functional restoration of the motor functions of the lower limb. The sensory functions are forever lost. The resultant anxiety, sleeplessness, psychological injury, mental and physical pain are inestimable. Sumalpong vs. CA The petitioner belabors the increase in the amount of moral damages to P10,000.00 and the award of nominal damages in an equivalent amount when the complainant did not appeal the decision of the trial court to the Court of Appeals. This contention deserves scant consideration. An appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for review and this 'includes the review of the penalty, indemnity and damages. Squarely applicable to the instant case is this Court's pronouncement in Quemel vs. Court of Appeals, that "[a]lthough the authority to assess damages or indemnity in criminal cases is vested in trial courts, it is so only in the first instance. On appeal, such authority passes to the appellate court. Thus, this Court has, in many cases, increased the damages awarded by the trial court, although the offended party had not appealed from said award, and the only party who sought a review of the decision of said court was the accused." Anent the increase in the amount of moral damages awarded, suffice it to state that the nature of the injuries and the degree of physical suffering endured by the complainant warrants the same. The tragic incident caused a mutilation of complainant's left ear and a permanent scar on his right forearm. These injuries have left indelible marks on the complainant's body and will serve as a constant reminder of this traumatic experience. Lopez, et al. vs. Pan American World Airways (Senator and family had 1st class tickets but bumped down to tourist class): Senator Lopez was then Senate President Pro Tempore. International carriers like defendant know the prestige of such an office. For the Senate is not only the Upper Chamber of the Philippine Congress, but the nation's treaty-ratifying body. It may also be mentioned that in his aforesaid Office Senator Lopez was in a position to preside in impeachment cases should the Senate sit as impeachment Tribunal. And he was former Vice-President of the Philippines. Senator Lopez was going to the United States to attend a private business conference of the Binalbangan-Isabela Sugar Company; but his aforesaid rank and position were by no means left behind, and in fact he had a second engagement awaiting him in the United States; a banquet tendered by Filipino friends in his honor as Senate President Pro Tempore. For the moral damages sustained by him, therefore, an award of P100,000,000 is appropriate. Mrs. Maria J. Lopez, as wife of Senator Lopez, shared his prestige and therefore his humiliation. In addition, she suffered physical discomfort during the 13-hour trip (5 hours from Tokyo to Honolulu and 8 hours from Honolulu to San Francisco). Although Senator Lopez stated that "she was quite well", he obviously meant relatively well, since the rest of his statement is that two months before, she was attacked by severe flu and lost 10 pounds of weight and that she was advised by Dr. Sison to go to the United States as soon as possible for medical check-up and relaxation. Mr. and Mrs. Alfrcedo Montelibano, Jr. were traveling as immediate members of the family of Senator Lopez. They formed part of the Senator's party as shown also by the reservation cards of PAN AM. As such they likewise shared his pretige and humiliation. Producer’s Bank v. CA The dishonor of private respondents' checks and the foreclosure initiated by petitioner adversely affected the credit standing as well as the business dealings of private respondents as their suppliers discontinued credit lines resulting in the collapse of their businesses. In the case of Leopoldo Araneta vs. Bank of America (40 SCRA 144 [1971]), we held that: "The financial credit of a businessman is a prized and valuable asset, it being a significant part of the foundation of his business. Any adverse reflection thereon constitutes some financial loss to him.” The damage to private respondents' reputation and social standing entitles them to moral damages. Article 2217, in relation to Article 2220, of the Civil Code explicitly provides that "moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury." Obviously, petitioner bank's wrongful act caused serious anxiety, embarrassment, and humiliation to private respondents for which they are entitled to recover moral damages in the amount of P300,000.00 which we deem to be reasonable.

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] [Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

15 c.

Who may recover Strebel vs. Figueras, et al: As a general rule, the right of recovery for mental suffering resulting from bodily injuries is restricted to the person who has suffered the bodily hurt, and there can be no recovery for distress caused by sympathy for another's suffering, or for fright due to a wrong against a third person. So the anguish of mind arising as to safety of others who may be in personal peril from the same cause cannot be taken into consideration. "In law, mental anguish is restricted as a rule, to such mental pain or suffering as arises from an injury or wrong to the person himself, as distinguished from that form of mental suffering which the accompaniment of sympathy or sorrow for another's suffering or which arises from a contemplation of wrongs committed on the person of another. Pursuant to the rule stated, a husband or wife cannot recover for mental suffering caused by his sympathy for the other's suffering. ABS-CBN v. CA: The award of moral damages cannot be granted in favor of a corporation because, being an artificial person and having existence only in legal contemplation, it has no feelings, no emotions, no senses, It cannot, therefore, ex perience physical suffering and mental anguish, which call be experienced only by one having a nervous system. The statement in People v. Manero and Mambulao Lumber Co. v. PNB that a corporation may recover moral damages if it "has a good reputation that is debased, resulting in social humiliation" is an obiter dictum. On this score alone the award for damages must be set aside, since RBS is a corporation. NAPOCOR v. Philipp Brothers: The award of moral damages is improper. To reiterate, NAPOCOR did not act in bad faith. Moreover, moral damages are not, as a general rule, granted to a corporation. While it is true that besmirched reputation is included in moral damages, it cannot cause mental anguish to a corporation, unlike in the case of a natural person, for a corporation has no reputation in the sense that an individual has, and besides, it is inherently impossible for a corporation to suffer mental anguish.

C. Nominal Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. Art. 2222. The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source enumerated in Article 1157, or in every case where any property right has been invaded.

Requisites (1) A legal right has been violated. (2) There is no loss or damage suffered or such cannot be proven or was not proved. (3) The award is to vindicate the right violated. General Rule One does not ask for nominal damages and it is in lieu of the actual, moral, temperate, or liquidated damages.

Art. 2223. The adjudication of nominal damages shall preclude further contest upon the right involved and all accessory questions, as between the parties to the suit, or their respective heirs and assigns. Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. Art. 2222. The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source enumerated in Article 1157, or in every case where any property right has been invaded.

Requisites (1) A legal right has been violated. (2) There is no loss or damage suffered or such cannot be proven or was not proved. (3) The award is to vindicate the right violated. General Rule One does not ask for nominal damages and it is in lieu of the actual, moral, temperate, or liquidated damages.

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] [Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

16 Art. 2223. The adjudication of nominal damages shall preclude further contest upon the right involved and all accessory questions, as between the parties to the suit, or their respective heirs and assigns.

Ventanilla vs. Centeno (counsel’s neglect in perfecting within the reglementary period his appeal from an adverse judgment): Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. The assessment of nominal damages is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of the case. 7 Considering the circumstances, as found by the trial court, and the degree of negligence committed by the appellee, a lawyer, in not depositing on time the appeal bond and filing the record on appeal within the extension period granted by the court, which brought about the refusal by the trial court to allow the record on appeal, the amount of P200 awarded by the trial court to the appellant as nominal damages may seem exiguous. Nevertheless, considering that nominal damages are not for indemnification of loss suffered but for the vindication or recognition of a right violated or invaded; and that even if the appeal in civil case No. 18833 had been duly perfected, it was not an assurance that the appellant would succeed in recovering the amount he had claimed in his complaint, the amount of P2,000 the appellant seeks to recover as nominal damages is excessive. After weighing carefully all the considerations, the amount awarded to the appellant for nominal damages should not be disturbed. Robes-Francisco Realty vs. CFI Rizal (Realty Co. failed to convey transfer certificate of title after lapse of almost three years since buyer made last payment): Petitioner corporation questions the award for nominal damages of P20,000.00 and attorney's fee of P5.000.00 which are allegedly excessive and unjustified. Held: The amount of P20,000.00 is excessive. The admitted fact that petitioner corporation failed to convey a transfer certificate of title to respondent Milian because the subdivision property was mortgaged to the GSIS does not in itself show that there was bad faith or fraud. Bad faith is not to be presumed. Moreover, there was the expectation of the vendor that arrangements were possible for the GSIS to make partial releases of the subdivision lots from the overall real estate mortgage. It was simply unfortunate that petitioner did not succeed in that regard. To conclude, We hold that the sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) by way of nominal damages is fair and just. Nominal damages are not intended for indemnification of loss suffered but for the vindication or recognition of a right violated or invaded. They are recoverable where some injury has been done the amount of which the evidence fails to show, the assessment of damages being left to the discretion of the court according to the circumstances of the case. People v. Gopio (statutory rape): The award of damages by the trial court in favor of the victim should, however, be modified. The award of actual damages, in the sum of P3,727.00, must be deleted in the absence of proof required by Art. 2199 of the Civil Code. To be entitled to actual and compensatory damages, there must be competent proof constituting evidence of the actual amount thereof, such as receipts showing the expenses incurred on account of the rape incident. In this case, only the laboratory fee issued by Our Lady of Salambao Hospital in Bulacan amounting to P350.00 was duly receipted. The rest of the documents, which the prosecution presented to prove the actual expenses incurred by the victim, were merely a doctor’s prescription and a handwritten list of food expenses. Nevertheless, under Article 2221 of the Civil Code, nominal damages are adjudicated in order that the right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. As has been held, “whenever there has been a violation of an ascertained legal right, although no actual damages resulted or none are shown, the award of nominal damages is proper.” In this case, the victim’s family clearly incurred medical expenses due to the rape committed by accused-appellant. The victim suffered from pains in her navel which required her physical examination. An award of P2,000.00 as nominal damages is thus appropriate under the circumstances. Armovit vs. CA (Filipino physician and his family residing in the US who came home to the RP on a X’mas visit. They were bumped off at the Manila Inter-national Airport on their return flight to the U.S. because of an erroneous entry in their plane tickets relating to their time of departure): TC awarded actual AND nominal damages. CA reduced the moral damages and deleted the nominal damages. Held: The deletion of the nominal damages by the appellate court is well-taken since there is an award of actual damages. Nominal damages cannot co-exist with actual or compensatory damages. Francisco v. Ferrer (late wedding cake): TC awarded 30,000php in moral damages. Held: (1)No moral damages - "Moral damages may be awarded in breaches of contracts where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith." In this case, "[w]e find no such fraud or bad faith." (2) No exemplary damages - In the same fashion, to warrant the award of exemplary damages, "[t]he wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith, and an award of damages would be allowed only if the guilty party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless or malevolent manner." >>>(3) Nevertheless, the facts show that when confronted with their failure to deliver on the wedding day the wedding cake ordered and paid for, petitioners gave the lame excuse that delivery was probably delayed because of the traffic, when in truth, no cake could be delivered because the order slip got lost. For such prevarication, petitioners must be held liable for nominal damages for insensitivity, inadvertence or inattention to their customer's anxiety and need of the hour. Nominal damages in the amount of 10,000php awarded.

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] [Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

17 D. Temperate Art. 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of the case, be provided with certainty.

Requisites (1) There is actual damage. (2) The pecuniary amount of the damage cannot be proved.

Art. 2225. Temperate damages must be reasonable under the circumstances. Pleno v. CA (collision between a delivery truck of Philippine Paper Products, Inc and a volkswagen kombi along the service road of the South Super Highway): The trial court's findings of facts are clear and well-developed. Each item of damages is adequately supported by evidence on record. CA has shown no sufficient reasons for altering factual findings which appear correct. SC affirms the lower court's awards of damages and hold that the appellate court's reduction of the amounts of temperate and moral damages is not justified. Temperate damages are included within the context of compensatory damages (RCPI v. CA). In arriving at a reasonable level of temperate damages to be awarded, trial courts are guided by our ruling that: ". . . There are cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered, although the court is convinced that there has been such loss. For instance, injury to one's commercial credit or to the goodwill of a business firm is often hard to show certainty in terms of money. Should damages be denied for that reason? The judge should be empowered to calculate moderate damages in such cases, rather than that the plaintiff should suffer, without redress from the defendant's wrongful act." (Araneta v. Bank of America) His actual income however has not been sufficiently established so that this Court cannot award actual damages, but, an award of temperate or moderate damages may still be made on loss or impairment of earning capacity. That Pleno sustained a permanent deformity due to a shortened left leg and that he also suffers from double vision in his left eye is also established. Because of this, he suffers from some inferiority complex and is no longer active in business as well as in social life. NOTE: In this case actual and temperate damages were awarded. It is postulated that the actual damages is for the car while the temperate damages is for the lost actual income not sufficiently proved. People v. Singh (murder): TC awarded P5,760,000.00 for lost earnings/income and P400.00 for hospitalization expenses. Held: For his hospitalization and medical expenses, the receipts submitted to support said claim amounted only to P370.50. Hence, complainant is entitled only to the said amount. P5,760,000 as compensation for loss of earning capacity, are deleted for lack of basis. Awards for loss of earning capacity partake of damages which must be proven not only by credible and satisfactory evidence, but also by unbiased proof. The testimony of the first cousin of the deceased, on the alleged income of the deceased while in the Philippines, is not enough. The best evidence to substantiate income earned by foreigners while in the Philippines is the payment of taxes with the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Absent such proof, bare allegation is insufficient. Nevertheless, considering that the definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered, and the fact of loss has been established, appellants shall pay the heirs of Surinder Singh temperate damages of P200,000. People v. Plazo (murder): However, the award of actual damages of P15,712 was based solely on the bare assertions of the mother of the victim. The Court can only grant such amount for expenses if they are supported by receipts. In the absence thereof, no actual damages can be awarded. In lieu of actual damages, temperate damages under Art. 2224 may be recovered where it has been shown that the victim’s family suffered some pecuniary loss but the amount thereof cannot be proved with certainty. We find the award of P15,000 as temperate damages reasonable.

E. Liquidated Art. 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof. Art. 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable. Art. 2228. When the breach of the contract committed by the defendant is not the one contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon

Notes (1) These damages are agreed upon in a contract in case of breach thereof. (2) There is no need to prove the amount, only the fact of the breach. (3) The amount can be reduced in unconscionable as determined by the court. General Rule The penalty shall substitute the indemnity for damages and the payment of the interests in case or breach.

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] [Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

18 the liquidated damages, the law shall determine the measure of damages, and not the stipulation.

F.

Exceptions (1) When there is stipulation to the contrary. (2) When the obligor is sued for refusal to pay the agreed penalty. (3) When the obligor is guilty of fraud.

Exemplary or Corrective Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party. Art. 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence. Art. 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. Art. 2233. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right; the court will decide whether or not they should be adjudicated.

Requirements (1) There is actual, moral, temperate or liquidated damages.

(2) If arising from: (a) Crime – When there is one or more aggravating circumstances [regardless of mitigating].

(b)

Quasi-delict – When the defendant acted with gross negligence.

(c)

Contract or Quasi-contract – When the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.

Notes (1) Amount need not be proven. (2) Cannot be recovered as a matter or right; may be waived. (3) An employer may be subsidiarily liable to pay moral, actual, temperate or liquidated damages arising from an employee’s criminal offense, but NOT as to exemplary damages because aggravating circumstances are personal to the accused.

Art. 2234. While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved, the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded. In case liquidated damages have been agreed upon, although no proof of loss is necessary in order that such liquidated damages may be recovered, nevertheless, before the court may consider the question of granting exemplary in addition to the liquidated damages, the plaintiff must show that he would be entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages were it not for the stipulation for liquidated damages. Art. 2235. A stipulation whereby exemplary damages are renounced in advance shall be

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] [Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

19 null and void.

PNB v. CA (Flores bought 1M worth of manager’s checks from PNB, 100k of which was dishonored): TC awarded 1M for moral damages and 1M for exemplary damages. Held: SC reduces the amount. We find PNB’s act of issuing the manager's checks and corresponding receipt before payment thereof was completely counted reckless and grossly negligent. It is an appalling breach of bank procedures and must never be repeated. However, the award of P1,000,000.00 exemplary damages is also far too excessive and should likewise be reduced to an equitable level. Exemplary damages are imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish another but to serve as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions. Therefore, based on the foregoing discussion, the award of moral damages is reduced to P 100,000.00 and the exemplary damages is likewise reduced to P25,000.00. Del Rosario vs. CA (“Banawe Shingles”): TC awarded 500k for moral damages and 300k for exemplary damages, CA reversed. Held: SC reinstates TC decision but reduces the amounts; 300k for moral damages and 50k for exemplary damages. This Court also agrees with the Trial Court that exemplary damages are properly exigible of MFC, "Article 2229 of the Civil Code provides that such damages may be imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. While exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right, they need not be proved, although plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded." There is, to be sure, no hard and fast rule for determining what would be a fair amount of moral (or exemplary) damages, each case having to be governed by its attendant particulars. Generally, the amount of moral damages should be commensurate with the actual loss or injury suffered. . Exemplary damages are imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish another but to serve as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions."

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] [Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]