1.

DPWH v Quiwa, oct 12, 2011

Contracts; It has been settled in several cases that payment for services
done on account of the government, but based on a void contract, cannot
be avoided.It was, however, undisputed that there was no certification
from the chief accountant of DPWH regarding the said expenditure. In
addition, the project manager has a limited authority to approve contracts
in an amount not exceeding P1 million. Notwithstanding these
irregularities, it should be pointed out that there is no novelty regarding
the question of satisfying a claim for construction contracts entered into
by the government, where there was no appropriation and where the
contracts were considered void due to technical reasons. It has been
settled in several cases that payment for services done on account of the
government, but based on a void contract, cannot be avoided. The Court
first resolved such question in Royal Trust Construction v. Commission on
Audit. In that case, the court issued a Resolution granting the claim of
Royal Trust Construction under a void contract. [Department of Public
Works and Highways vs. Quiwa, 659 SCRA 8(2011)]
2. Integrated packaging v CA, 333 scra 170
Same; Moral damages may be awarded when in a breach of contract the
defendant acted in bad faith, or was guilty of gross negligence amounting
to bad faith, or in wanton disregard of his contractual obligation.The
deletion of the award of moral damages is proper, since private
respondent could not be held liable for breach of contract. Moral damages
may be awarded when in a breach of contract the defendant acted in bad
faith, or was guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith, or in
wanton disregard of his contractual obligation. Finally, since the award of
moral damages is eliminated, so must the award for attorneys fees be
also deleted.
3. Chaves v Gonzales, 32 scra 547
Same; Damages; Claims for damages and attorneys fees must be alleged
and proved.Claims for damages and attorneys fees must be pleaded,

and the existence of the actual basis thereof must be proved. Where there
is no findings of fact on the claims for damages and attorneys fees in the
lower courts decision, there is no factual basis upon which to make an
award therefor. [Chaves vs. Gonzales, 32 SCRA 547(1970)]

4. Mendoza v PAL, 90 phil 836

ID.; DAMAGES; UNFORSEEN DAMAGES.The defendant company can not
be held liable for damages where it could not have forseen the damages
that would be suffered by the plaintiff upon failure to deliver the can of
film for reason that the plans of the plaintiff to exhibit that film during the
town fiesta and his preparation, specially the announcement of said
exhibition by poster and advertisement in the newspapers were not called
to the defendant's attention. [Mendoza vs. Philippine Air Lines, Inc., 90
Phil. 836(1952)]
5. PNOC shipping v CA, 297 scra 402
Damages; There are two kinds of actual or compensatory damages: One is
the loss of what a person already possesses (dao emergente), and the
other is the failure to receive as a benefit that which would have pertained
to him (lucro cesante).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. In
actions based on torts or quasi-delicts, actual damages include all the
natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of.
There are two kinds of actual or compensatory damages: one is the loss of
what a person already possesses (dao emergente), and the other is the
failure to receive as a benefit that which would have pertained to him
(lucro cesante).

Same; Evidence; 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 availabledamages 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.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. [PNOC
Shipping and Transport Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA
402(1998)]
Same; Same; Same; Damages may not be awarded on the basis of
hearsay evidence.Accordingly, as stated at the outset, damages may
not be awarded on the basis of hearsay evidence.
Same; Same; In the absence of competent proof on the actual damage
suffered, a party is entitled to nominal damages.Nonetheless, the nonadmissibility of said exhibits does not mean that it totally deprives private
respondent of any redress for the loss of its vessel. This is because in
Lufthansa German Airlines v. Court of Appeals, the Court said: In the
absence of competent proof on the actual damage suffered, private
respondent is entitled to nominal damages which, as the law says, is
adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or
invaded by defendant, may be vindicated and recognized, and not for the
purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered. [Italics
supplied].
Same; Nominal damages are damages in name only and not in fact.
Actually, nominal damages are damages in name only and not in fact.

Where these are allowed, they are not treated as an equivalent of a wrong
inflicted but simply in recognition of the existence of a technical injury.
However, the amount to be awarded as nominal damages shall be equal
or at least commensurate to the injury sustained by private respondent
considering the concept and purpose of such damages. The amount of
nominal damages to be awarded may also depend on certain special
reasons extant in the case.
Same; Pleadings and Practice; Allegations in the original and amended
complaints can be the basis for determination of a fair amount of nominal
damages inasmuch as a complaint alleges the ultimate facts constituting
the plaintiffs cause of action.Applying now such principles to the instant
case, we have on record the fact that petitioners vessel Petroparcel was
at fault as well as private respondents complaint claiming the amount of
P692,680.00 representing the fishing nets, boat equipment and cargoes
that sunk with the M/V Maria Efigenia XV. In its amended complaint,
private respondent alleged that the vessel had an actual value of
P800,000.00 but it had been paid insurance in the amount of P200,000.00
and, therefore, it claimed only the amount of P600,000.00. Ordinarily, the
receipt of insurance payments should diminish the total value of the
vessel quoted by private respondent in his complaint considering that
such payment is causally related to the loss for which it claimed
compensation. This Court believes that such allegations in the original and
amended complaints can be the basis for determination of a fair amount
of nominal damages inasmuch as a complaint alleges the ultimate facts
constituting the plaintiffs cause of action. Private respondent should be
bound by its allegations on the amount of its claims.
Same; Same; Docket Fees; A plaintiffs failure to pay the docket fee
corresponding to its increased claim for damages under the amended
complaint should not be considered as having curtailed the lower courts
jurisdictionthe unpaid docket fee should be considered as a lien on the
judgment.With respect to petitioners contention that the lower court did
not acquire jurisdiction over the amended complaint increasing the
amount of damages claimed to P600,000.00, we agree with the Court of
Appeals that the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the case when

private respondent paid the docket fee corresponding to its claim in its
original complaint. Its failure to pay the docket fee corresponding to its
increased claim for damages under the amended complaint should not be
considered as having curtailed the lower courts jurisdiction. Pursuant to
the ruling in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion, the unpaid
docket fee should be considered as a lien on the judgment even though
private respondent specified the amount of P600,000.00 as its claim for
damages in its amended complaint. [PNOC Shipping and Transport
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 402(1998)]

Same; Damages cannot be presumedthe award thereof must be based

on the evidence presented, not on the personal knowledge of the court;
and certainly not on flimsy, remote, speculative and nonsubstantial proof.
To be recoverable, actual damages must be pleaded and proven in
Court. In no instance may the trial judge award more than those so
pleaded and proven. Damages cannot be presumed. The award thereof
must be based on the evidence presented, not on the personal knowledge
of the court; and certainly not on flimsy, remote, speculative and
nonsubstantial proof. Article 2199 of the Civil Code expressly mandates
that [e]xcept 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.

6. Ong v CA, 301 scra 387

Damages; Quasi-Delicts; Torts; The fundamental principle of the law on
damages is that one injured by a breach of contract or by a wrongful or
negligent act or omission shall have a fair and just compensation,
commensurate with the loss sustained as a consequence of the
defendants acts.Granting arguendo that there was an agreement to
submit the case for decision based on the pleadings, this does not
necessarily imply that petitioners are entitled to the award of damages.
The fundamental principle of the law on damages is that one injured by a
breach of contract (in this case, the contract of transportation) or by a
wrongful or negligent act or omission shall have a fair and just
compensation, commensurate with the loss sustained as a consequence
of the defendants acts. Hence, actual pecuniary compensation is the
general rule, except where the circumstances warrant the allowance of
other kinds of damages.
Same; Except as provided by law or by stipulation, a party is entitled to
adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss as he has duly
proven.Actual damages are such compensation or damages for an injury
that will put the injured party in the position in which he had been before
he was injured. They pertain to such injuries or losses that are actually
sustained and susceptible of measurement. Except as provided by law or
by stipulation, a party is entitled to adequate compensation only for such
pecuniary loss as he has duly proven.

Same; Physical Injuries; A person is entitled to the physical integrity of his

or her body, and if that integrity is violated, damages are due and
assessablethus, the usual practice is to award moral damages for
physical injuries sustained.A person is entitled to the physical integrity
of his or her body, and if that integrity is violated, damages are due and
assessable. However, physical injury, like loss or diminution of use of an
arm or a limb, is not a pecuniary loss. Indeed, it is not susceptible of exact
monetary estimation. Thus, the usual practice is to award moral damages
for physical injuries sustained. In Mayo v. People, the Court held that the
permanent scar on the forehead and the loss of the use of the right eye
entitled the victim to moral damages. The victim, in said case, was
devastated by mental anguish, wounded feelings and shock, which she
experienced as a result of her false eye and the scar on her forehead.
Furthermore, the loss of vision in her right eye hampered her
professionally for the rest of her life. [Ong vs. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA
387(1999)]
Same; Evidence; Although actual damages include indemnification for
profits which the injured party failed to obtain (lucro cesante or lucrum
cesans), the rule requires that said person produce the best evidence of
which his case is susceptible.Protesting the deletion of the award for
Francias unrealized income, petitioners contend that Francias injuries
and her oral testimony adequately support their claim. The Court

disagrees. Although actual damages include indemnification for profits

which the injured party failed to obtain (lucro cesante or lucrum cesans),
the rule requires that said person produce the best evidence of which his
case is susceptible. The bare and unsubstantiated assertion of Francia
that she usually earned P200 a day from her market stall is not the best
evidence to prove her claim of unrealized income for the eight-month
period that her arm was in plaster cast. Her testimony that it was their
lessor who filed their income tax returns and obtained business licenses
for them does not justify her failure to present more credible evidence of
her income.
Same; Attorneys Fees; Standards in Fixing Attorneys Fees; The award of
attorneys fees is payable not to the lawyer but to the client, unless the
two have agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional
compensation or as part thereof.Under the Civil Code, an award of
attorneys fees is an indemnity for damages ordered by a court to be paid
by the losing party to the prevailing party, based on any of the cases
authorized by law. It is payable not to the lawyer but to the client, unless
the two have agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as
additional compensation or as part thereof. The Court has established a
set of standards in fixing the amount of attorneys fees: (1) [T]he amount
and character of the services rendered; (2) labor, time and trouble
involved; (3) the nature and importance of the litigation or business in
which the services were rendered; (4) the responsibility imposed; (5) the
amount of money or the value of the property affected by the controversy
or involved in the employment; (6) the skill and experience called for in
the performance of the services; (7) the professional character and social
standing of the attorney; (8) the results secured, it being a recognized rule
that an attorney may properly charge a much larger fee when it is
contingent than when it is not. [Ong vs. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA
387(1999)]

7. Optimum Motor v Tan, 558 scra 267

Same; Same; Same; Damages; The mechanic is obliged to take care of the
truck with proper diligence of a good father of a family while the same is
in his possession, and failure to do so would render him liable to pay for
the value of the truck, when restitution is no longer feasible, and the value
should be based on the fair market value that the property would
command at the time it was entrusted to the mechanic, which value may
be recovered without prejudice to such other damages a claimant is
entitled to under applicable laws.From another perspective, Optimum is
obliged to take care of the truck with the proper diligence of a good father
to a family while the same is in its possession. Records show that the
subject truck had already deteriorated while in the possession of
Optimum. Taking into consideration the last known condition of the truck
in tandem with the fact that the court proceedings have spanned almost a
decade, it can be readily inferred that the truck has become wholly
useless. Since restitution is no longer feasible, Optimum is bound to pay
the value of the truck. The value of the truck should be based on the fair
market value that the property would command at the time it was
entrusted to Optimum. Such recoverable value is fair and reasonable
considering that the value of a motor vehicle depreciates. This value may
be recovered without prejudice to such other damages a claimant is
entitled to under applicable laws. [Optimum Motor Center Corporation vs.
Tan, 558 SCRA 267(2008)]

8. Tan v OMC carrier, 639 scra 471

Damages; Actual Damages; Evidence; Actual damages, to be recoverable,
must not only be capable of proof, but must actually be proved with a
reasonable degree of certaintycourts cannot simply rely on speculation,
conjecture or guesswork in determining the fact and amount of damages.

We begin by discussing the petitioners claim for actual damages arising

from the damage inflicted on petitioner Leticia Tans house and tailoring
shop, taking into account the sewing machines and various household
appliances affected. Our basic law tells us that to recover damages there
must be pleading and proof of actual damages suffered. As we explained
in Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos, 345 SCRA 509 (2000):
Actual damages, to be recoverable, must not only be capable of proof, but
must actually be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. Courts
cannot simply rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork in determining
the fact and amount of damages. To justify an award of actual damages,
there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss, credence can
be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts.
Same; Evidence; Absent competent proof on the actual damages suffered,
a party still has the option of claiming temperate damages, which may be
allowed in cases where, from the nature of the case, definite proof of
pecuniary loss cannot be adduced although the court is convinced that
the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss.Nonetheless, absent
competent proof on the actual damages suffered, a party still has the
option of claiming temperate damages, which may be allowed in cases
where, from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot
be adduced although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party
suffered some pecuniary loss. As defined in Article 2224 of the Civil Code:
Article 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 proved with certainty.
Same; Same; As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to
substantiate the claim for loss of earning capacity; Exceptions.As a rule,
documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for
loss of earning capacity. By way of exception, damages for loss of earning
capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence
when: (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the
minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case, judicial notice
may be taken of the fact that in the deceaseds line of work, no

documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a

daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current
labor laws.
Same; Temperate Damages; Temperate damages in lieu of actual
damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded where earning
capacity is plainly established but no evidence was presented to support
the allegation of the injured partys actual income.According to the
petitioners, prior to his death, Celedonio was a self-employed tailor who
earned approximately P156,000.00 a year, or P13,000.00 a month. At the
time of his death in 1995, the prevailing daily minimum wage was
P145.00, or P3,770.00 per month, provided the wage earner had only one
rest day per week. Even if we take judicial notice of the fact that a small
tailoring shop normally does not issue receipts to its customers, and would
probably not have any documentary evidence of the income it earns,
Celedonios alleged monthly income of P13,000.00 greatly exceeded the
prevailing monthly minimum wage; thus, the exception set forth above
does not apply. In the past, we awarded temperate damages in lieu of
actual damages for loss of earning capacity where earning capacity is
plainly established but no evidence was presented to support the
allegation of the injured partys actual income.
Interest Rates; Legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amounts
awarded starts to run from the time when the trial court rendered
judgment, and from the time this judgment becomes final and executory,
the interest rate shall be 12% per annum on the judgment amount and
the interest earned up to that date.Accordingly, legal interest at the rate
of 6% per annum on the amounts awarded starts to run from May 14,
2003, when the trial court rendered judgment. From the time this
judgment becomes final and executory, the interest rate shall be 12% per
annum on the judgment amount and the interest earned up to that date,
until the judgment is wholly satisfied. [Tan vs. OMC Carriers, Inc., 639
SCRA 471(2011)]

9. G.A. Machineries v Yaptinchay, 126 scra 78

Damages; Evidence; The amount representing profits which damaged

party failed to realize must be proved by the best evidence. Average
actual profits of other trucks of respondent should have been presented
rather than a mere estimate on "if-not-were-hired" basis.Applying the
foregoing test to the instant case, we find the evidence of the respondent
insufficient to be considered within the purview of "best evidence." The
bare assertion of the respondent that he lost about P54,000.00 and the
accompanying documentary evidence presented to prove the amount lost
are inadequate if not speculative. The document itself merely shows that
everytime a truck travels, Mr. Yaptinchay earns P369.88. This amount is
then multiplied by the number of trips which the truck was allegedly
unable to make. The estimates were prepared by a certain Dionisio M.
Macasieb whose identity was not even revealed by the respondent. Mr.
Yaptinchay was in the freight truck business. He had several freight trucks
among them the truck with the subject Fordson diesel engine, covering
the route from Manila to Baguio. To prove actual damages, it would have
been easy to present the average actual profits realized by the other
freight trucks plying the Manila-Baguio route. With the presentation of
such actual income the court could have arrived with reasonable certainty
at the amount of actual damages suffered by the respondent. We rule that
the award of actual damages in the amount of P54,000.08 is not
warranted by the evidence on record. [G.A. Machineries, Inc. vs.
Yaptinchay, 126 SCRA 78(1983)]

10. Lim v CA, 373 scra 394

Civil Law; Damages; Interest; It is axiomatic that if the suit were for
damages, unliquidated and not known until definitely ascertained,
assessed and determined by the courts after proof, interest at the rate of
six percent (6%) per annum should be from the date the judgment of the
court is made.We are constrained to depart from the conclusion of the
lower courts that upon the award of compensatory damages legal interest
should be imposed beginning 22 July 1990, i.e. the date of the accident.
Upon the provisions of Art. 2213 of the Civil Code, interest cannot be
recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages, except when the demand

can be established with reasonable certainty. It is axiomatic that if the

suit were for damages, unliquidated and not known until definitely
ascertained, assessed and determined by the courts after proof, interest
at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum should be from the date the
judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of
damages may be deemed to be reasonably ascertained).
Same; Same; One who is injured by the wrongful or negligent act of
another should exercise reasonable care and diligence to minimize the
resulting damage.We have observed that private respondent left his
passenger jeepney by the roadside at the mercy of the elements. Article
2203 of the Civil Code exhorts parties suffering from loss or injury to
exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the
damages resulting from the act or omission in question. One who is
injured then by the wrongful or negligent act of another should exercise
reasonable care and diligence to minimize the resulting damage. Anyway,
he can recover from the wrongdoer money lost in reasonable efforts to
preserve the property injured and for injuries incurred in attempting to
prevent damage to it.
Same; Same; It is a fundamental principle in the law on damages that a
defendant cannot be held liable in damages for more than the actual loss
which he has inflicted and that a plaintiff is entitled to no more than the
just and adequate compensation for the injury suffered.In awarding
damages for tortuous injury, it becomes the sole design of the courts to
provide for adequate compensation by putting the plaintiff in the same
financial position he was in prior to the tort. It is a fundamental principle in
the law on damages that a defendant cannot be held liable in damages for
more than the actual loss which he has inflicted and that a plaintiff is
entitled to no more than the just and adequate compensation for the
injury suffered. His recovery is, in the absence of circumstances giving rise
to an allowance of punitive damages, limited to a fair compensation for
the harm done. The law will not put him in a position better than where he
should be in had not the wrong happened.
Same; Same; Indemnification for damages is not limited to damnum
emergens or actual loss but extends to lucrum cessans or the amount of

profit lost.In the present case, petitioners insist that as the passenger
jeepney was purchased in 1982 for only P30,000.00 to award damages
considerably greater than this amount would be improper and unjustified.
Petitioners are at best reminded that indemnification for damages
comprehends not only the value of the loss suffered but also that of the
profits which the obligee failed to obtain. In other words, indemnification
for damages is not limited to damnum emergens or actual loss but
extends to lucrum cessans or the amount of profit lost. [Lim vs. Court of
Appeals, 373 SCRA 394(2002)]

11. OMC Carrier v Nabau, 622 scra 624

Same; Damages; Moral Damages; Moral damages are not intended to
enrich a plaintiff at the expense of the defendantthey are awarded to
allow the plaintiff to obtain means, diversion or amusements that will
serve to alleviate the moral suffering he/she has undergone due to the
defendants culpable action and must, perforce, be proportional to the
suffering inflicted.Death indemnity has been fixed by jurisprudence at
P50,000.00. Hence, the amount awarded by the RTC and the CA must be
reduced accordingly. On the issue of moral damages, prevailing
jurisprudence fixes moral damages of P50,000.00 for death. It must be
stressed that moral damages are not intended to enrich a plaintiff at the
expense of the defendant. They are awarded to allow the plaintiff to
obtain means, diversion or amusements that will serve to alleviate the
moral suffering he/she has undergone due to the defendants culpable
action and must, perforce, be proportional to the suffering inflicted. Thus,
given the circumstances of the case at bar, an award of P50,000.00 as
moral damages is proper.
Same; Same; Attorneys Fees; The rule on the award of attorneys fees is
that there must be a justification for the same. In the absence of a
statement why attorneys fees were awarded, the same should be
disallowed.The rule on the award of attorneys fees is that there must be
a justification for the same. In the absence of a statement why attorneys
fees were awarded, the same should be disallowed. On this note, after

reading through the text of the CA decision, this Court finds that the same
is bereft of any findings of fact and law to justify the award of attorneys
fees. While it may be safe to surmise that the RTC granted attorneys fees
as a consequence of its grant of exemplary damages, such cannot be said
for the CA, since the same deleted the award of exemplary damages after
finding that petitioner Aalucas was not grossly negligent. The CA did not
explain why it was still awarding attorneys fees to respondents, therefore,
such an award must be deleted.
Same; Same; Actual Damages; Appeals; To justify an award of actual
damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss; An
appellate court is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if
they are not assigned as errors, especially so if the court finds that their
consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case before
it.While petitioners did not put in error the award of actual damages,
this Court feels that the same should nevertheless be reviewed as an
appellate court is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if
they are not assigned as errors. This is especially so if the court finds that
their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case
before it. For one to be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove
the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised
upon competent proof and the best evidence obtainable by the injured
party. Actual damages are such compensation or damages for an injury
that will put the injured party in the position in which he had been before
he was injured. They pertain to such injuries or losses that are actually
sustained and susceptible of measurement. To justify an award of actual
damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss.
Credence can be given only to claims which are duly supported by
receipts.
Same; Same; Loss of Earning Capacity; Award of compensation for loss of
earning capacity is not granted to the heirs of a college freshman where
there is no sufficient evidence on record to show that the victim would
eventually become a professional.Although respondents did not appeal
the CA Decision, they now pray in their Memorandum that this Court
reinstate the RTC award of P2,000,000.00 as compensatory damages

which was deleted by the CA. Respondents point out that the victim,
Reggie Nabua, was 18 years old and at the time of his death, a freshman
taking up Industrial Engineering. On this point, Metro Manila Transit
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 495 (1998), is instructive, to
wit: x x x Art. 2206 of the Civil Code provides that in addition to the
indemnity for death caused by a crime or quasi delict, 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; . . . Compensation of
this nature is awarded not for loss of earnings but for loss of capacity to
earn money. Evidence must be presented that the victim, if not yet
employed at the time of death, was reasonably certain to complete
training for a specific profession. In People v. Teehankee, no award of
compensation for loss of earning capacity was granted to the heirs of a
college freshman because there was no sufficient evidence on record to
show that the victim would eventually become a professional pilot. But
compensation should be allowed for loss of earning capacity resulting
from the death of a minor who has not yet commenced employment or
training for a specific profession [OMC Carriers, Inc. vs. Nabua, 622 SCRA
624(2010)]

12. Metro Manila Transit v CA, 298 scra 495

Civil Law; Negligence; Damages; The responsibility of employers for the
negligence of their employees in the performance of their duties is
primary, that is, the injured party may recover from the employers
directly, regardless of the solvency of their employees.Rather, the issue
in this case turns on Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, which provides that
employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even
though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. The
responsibility of employers for the negligence of their employees in the
performance of their duties is primary, that is, the injured party may
recover from the employers directly, regardless of the solvency of their
employees. [Metro Manila Transit Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 298
SCRA 495(1998)]

Same; Same; Same; Indemnity for death fixed at P50,000.00.Indemnity

for Death. Art. 2206 provides for the payment of indemnity for death
caused by a crime or quasi-delict. Initially fixed in said article of the Civil
Code at P3,000.00, the amount of the indemnity has through the years
been gradually increased based on the value of the peso. At present, it is
fixed at P50,000.00. To conform to this new ruling, the Court of Appeals
correctly increased the indemnity it had originally ordered the spouses
Rosales to be paid from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 in its resolution, dated
September 12, 1996.
Same; Same; Same; If the judgment for damages is satisfied by the
common carrier, the latter has a right to recover what it has paid from its
employee who committed the fault or negligence which gave rise to the
action based on quasi-delict.As already stated, MMTC is primarily liable
for damages for the negligence of its employee in view of Art. 2180.
Pursuant to Art. 2181, it can recover from its employee what it may pay.
This does not make the employees liability subsidiary. It only means that
if the judgment for damages is satisfied by the common carrier, the latter
has a right to recover what it has paid from its employee who committed
the fault or negligence which gave rise to the action based on quasi-delict.
Hence, the spouses Rosales have the option of enforcing the judgment
against either MMTC or Musa. [Metro Manila Transit Corporation vs. Court
of Appeals, 298 SCRA 495(1998)]

13. Cariaga v Laguna Tayabas Bus, 110 phil 346

DAMAGES; MORAL DAMAGES; RECOVERABLE ONLY IN INSTANCES
ENUMERATED IN ART. 2219 OF THE CIVIL CODE.Article 2219 of the Civil
Code enumerates the instances when moral damages may be recovered.
Plaintiffs' claim for moral damages not falling under any one of them, the
same cannot be granted.
2.ID.; ID.; WHEN RECOVERABLE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT UNDER ART.
2220 OF THE CIVIL CODE.Neither could defendant LTB be held liable to
pay moral damages to plaintiffs under Art. 2220 of the Civil Code on

account of breach of its contract of carriage because said defendant did

not act fraudulently or in bad faith in connection therewith.
3.ID.; ACTUAL AND COMPENSATORY DAMAGES; ONLY PARTIES TO
CONTRACTS BREACHED ARE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
RESULTING THEREFROMSince the present action is based upon a breach
of contract of carriage and plaintiff's parents were not a party thereto and
were not themselves injured as a result of the collision, their claim for
actual and compensatory damages is without merit.
4.ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW ; ATTORNEY'S FEES; CASE NOT FALLING UNDER ANY
OF THE INSTANCES ENUMERATED IN ART. 2208 OF THE ClVIL CODE.The
present case not falling under any of the instances enumerated in Article
2208 of the Civil Code, plaintiffs are not entitled to recover attorney's fees
[Cariaga vs. Laguna Tayabas Bus Company, 110 Phil. 346(1960)]

another factor considered in determining the award of loss of earning

capacity is the life expectancy of the deceased which takes into account
his work, lifestyle, age and state of health prior to the accident.
Same; Same; Same; When there is no showing that the living expenses
constituted a smaller percentage of the gross income, Court fix the living
expenses at half of the gross income.A survey of more recent
jurisprudence shows that the Court consistently pegged the amount at
50% of the gross annual income. We held in Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping
Agency Corp. vs. Borja that when there is no showing that the living
expenses constituted a smaller percentage of the gross income, we fix the
living expenses at half of the gross income. [Magbanua vs. Tabusares, Jr.,
431 SCRA 99(2004)]

14. Magbanua v Tabasuares, 431 scra 99

15. Victory Liner v Gammad, 444 scra 355

Civil Law; Damages; Loss of Earnings; The loss is not equivalent to the
entire earnings of the deceased but only that portion that he would have
used to support his dependents or heirs.Article 2205 of the New Civil
Code allows the recovery of damages for loss or impairment of earning
capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury. Such
damages covers the loss sustained by the dependents or heirs of the
deceased, consisting of the support they would have received from him
had he not died because of the negligent act of another. The loss is not
equivalent to the entire earnings of the deceased, but only that portion
that he would have used to support his dependents or heirs. Hence, we
deduct from his gross earnings the necessary expenses supposed to be
used by the deceased for his own needs.

Same; Same; Same; Damages; Damages a common carrier bound to pay

in breach of its contract of carriage that results in the death of a
passenger.Article 1764 in relation to Article 2206 of the Civil Code, holds
the common carrier in breach of its contract of carriage that results in the
death of a passenger liable to pay the following: (1) indemnity for death,
(2) indemnity for loss of earning capacity, and (3) moral damages.

Same; Same; Same; Another factor considered in determining the award

of loss of earning capacity is the life expectancy of the deceased which
takes into account his work, lifestyle, age and state of health prior to the
accident.Aside from the loss sustained by the heirs of the deceased,

Same; Same; Same; Same; Loss of Earning Capacity; As a rule,

documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for
damages for loss of earning capacity, exceptions.The award of
compensatory damages for the loss of the deceaseds earning capacity
should be deleted for lack of basis. As a rule, documentary evidence
should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of
earning capacity. By way of exception, damages for loss of earning
capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence
when (1) the deceased is self-employed earning less than the minimum
wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the

fact that in the deceaseds line of work no documentary evidence is

available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning
less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Moral damages cannot be lumped with
exemplary damages because they are based on different jural
foundations.Anent the award of moral damages, the same cannot be
lumped with exemplary damages because they are based on different
jural foundations. These damages are different in nature and require
separate determination. 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 contractual obligations and, as in this case, when the act of breach of
contract itself constitutes the tort that results in physical injuries. By
special rule in Article 1764 in relation to Article 2206 of the Civil Code,
moral damages may also be awarded in case the death of a passenger
results from a breach of carriage. On the other hand, exemplary damages,
which are awarded by way of example or correction for the public good
may be recovered in contractual obligations if the defendant acted in
wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.
Same; Same; Same; Same; In case of actual damages, only substantiated
and proven expenses or those that appear to have been genuinely
incurred in connection with the death, wake or burial of the victim will be
recognized.The actual damages awarded by the trial court reduced by
the Court of Appeals should be further reduced. In People v. Duban, it was
held that only substantiated and proven expenses or those that appear to
have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake or burial
of the victim will be recognized. A list of expenses (Exhibit J), and the
contract/receipt for the construction of the tomb (Exhibit F) in this case,
cannot be considered competent proof and cannot replace the official
receipts necessary to justify the award. Hence, actual damages should be
further reduced to P78,160.00, which was the amount supported by
official receipts. [Victory Liner, Inc. vs. Gammad, 444 SCRA 355(2004)]

16. J. Marketing Corp v Sia, 285 scra 580

Remedial Law; Actions; Damages; Attorneys Fees; A persons right to
litigate should not be penalized by holding him liable for damages.A
persons 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 latters 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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; No damages can be charged on those who
may exercise such precious right in good faith, even if done erroneously.
Moreover, the adverse result of an actiondismissal of petitioners
complaintdoes 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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; It is a requisite to award exemplary damages
that the act must be accompanied by bad faith or done in wanton,
fraudulent or malevolent manner.The award of exemplary damages has
likewise no factual basis. It is a requisite that the act must be
accompanied by bad faith or done in wanton, fraudulent or malevolent
mannercircumstances which are absent in this case. In addition,
exemplary damages cannot be awarded as the requisite element of
compensatory damages was not present.
Same; Same; Same; Same; An adverse decision does not ipso facto justify
the award of attorneys fees to the winning party.With respect to the

attorneys fees, an adverse decision does not ipso facto justify the award
thereof to the winning party. All indications point to the fact that petitioner
honestly thought that they had a good cause of action, so that
notwithstanding the dismissal of their case, no attorneys fees can be
granted to private respondent. Considering that the latter claims to be the
owner of the motorcycle, petitioner was compelled to sue him. When the
former necessarily became a party defendant no attorneys fees and
litigation expenses can automatically be recovered even if he should win,
as it is not the fact of winning alone that entitles recovery of such items
but rather the attendance of special circumstancesthe enumerated
exceptions in Article 2208 of the New Civil Code. There being no bad faith
reflected in petitioners persistence in pursuing its case, other than an
erroneous conviction of the righteousness of its cause, attorneys fees
cannot be recovered as cost. [J Marketing Corp. vs. Sia, Jr., 285 SCRA
580(1998)]

intolerable transgression of the policy that no one should be penalized for

exercising the right to have contending claims settled by a court of law. In
fact, even a clearly untenable defense does not justify an award of
attorneys fees unless it amounts to gross and evident bad faith.
Exemplary Damages; Temperate Damages; No exemplary damages may
be awarded without the plaintiffs right to moral, temperate, liquidated or
compensatory damages having first been established.With respect to
the award of exemplary damages, the rule in this jurisdiction is that the
plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or
compensatory damages before the court may even consider the question
of whether exemplary damages should be awarded. In other words, no
exemplary damages may be awarded without the plaintiffs right to moral,
temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages having first been
established. Therefore, in view of our ruling that Petron cannot be made
liable to NCBA for compensatory damages (i.e., attorneys fees), Petron
cannot be held liable for exemplary damages either. [Petron Corporation
vs. National College of Business and Arts, 516 SCRA 168(2007)]

17. Petron corp v national college, 516 scra 168

18. Liga v allegro, 575 scra 310
Civil Law; Damages; Attorneys Fees; Article 2208(5) contemplates a
situation where one refuses unjustifiably and in evident bad faith to satisfy
anothers plainly valid, just and demandable claim, compelling the latter
needlessly to seek redress from the courts; Even a clearly untenable
defense does not justify an award of attorneys fees unless it amounts to
gross and evident bad faith.Article 2208(5) contemplates a situation
where one refuses unjustifiably and in evident bad faith to satisfy
anothers plainly valid, just and demandable claim, compelling the latter
needlessly to seek redress from the courts. In such a case, the law allows
recovery of money the plaintiff had to spend for a lawyers assistance in
suing the defendantexpenses the plaintiff would not have incurred if not
for the defendants refusal to comply with the most basic rules of fair
dealing. It does not mean, however, that the losing party should be made
to pay attorneys fees merely because the court finds his legal position to
be erroneous and upholds that of the other party, for that would be an

Ejectment; Judgments; Execution; The Supreme Court has previously

sanctioned partial execution of the trial courts decision awarding
damages in an ejectment suit at the instance of the plaintiffnot only is
such an act procedurally sound, it also serves the ends of justice.The
Court has previously sanctioned a similar partial execution of the trial
courts decision awarding damages in an ejectment suit at the instance of
the plaintiff. Not only is such an act procedurally sound, it also serves the
ends of justice. As the Court succinctly held in Sps. Catungal v. Hao, 355
SCRA 29 (2001): Finally, respondent questions why petitioners would want
to reinstate the RTC decision when in fact they had already applied for a
writ of execution of the 8 March 1997 Decision. Respondent is of the view
that since petitioners had already moved for the execution of the decision
awarding a smaller amount of damages or fair rental value, the same is
inconsistent with a petition asking for a greater fair rental value and,

therefore, a possible case of unjust enrichment in favor of the petitioners.

We are not persuaded. In order to avoid further injustice to a lawful
possessor, an immediate execution of a judgment is mandated and the
courts duty to order such execution is practically ministerial. In City of
Manila, et al. v. CA, et al., 149 SCRA 183 (1987) We held that Section 8
(now Section 19), Rule 70, on execution pending appeal, also applies even
if the plaintiff-lessor appeals where, as in that case, judgment was
rendered in favor of the lessor but it was not satisfied with the increased
rentals granted by the trial court, hence the appeal xxx.
Same; Damages; Attorneys Fees; Attorneys fees and costs of litigation
are awarded in instances where the defendant acted in gross and evident
bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiffs plainly valid, just and
demandable claim.Liga also ends up at the shorter end. Law and
jurisprudence support the award of attorneys fees and costs of suit in
favor of Allegro. The award of damages and attorneys fees is left to the
sound discretion of the court, and if such discretion is well exercised, as in
this case, it will not be disturbed on appeal. Attorneys fees and costs of
litigation are awarded in instances where the defendant acted in gross
and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiffs plainly valid, just
and demandable claim. Having delivered possession over the leased
property to Liga, Allegro had already performed its obligation under the
lease agreement. Liga should have exercised fairness and good judgment
in dealing with Allegro by religiously paying the agreed monthly rental of
P40,000.00.
Same; Same; Interests; The back rentals in the instant case being
equivalent to a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due thereon is
twelve percent (12%) per annum from the time of extrajudicial demand.
The Court deems it proper to award interest in favor of Allegro. In Eastern
Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 78 (1994) we gave the
following guidelines in the award of interest: II. With regard particularly to
an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages,
the rate of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed, as follows:
1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a
sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due

should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore,

the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially
demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12%
per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial
demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil
Code. The back rentals in this case being equivalent to a loan or
forbearance of money, the interest due thereon is twelve percent (12%)
per annum from the time of extrajudicial demand on 15 December 2001.
[Liga vs. Allegro Resources Corp., 575 SCRA 310(2008)]

19. Pilipinas bank v CA, 225 scra 269

20. Crismina v CA, 304 scra 356
Civil Law; Interest; Instances where the interest rate under CB Circular No.
416 applies; Cases beyond the scope of the said circular are governed by
Article 2209 of the Civil Code which considers interest a form of indemnity
for the delay in the performance of an obligation.In Reformina v. Tomol,
Jr., this Court stressed that the interest rate under CB Circular No. 416
applies to (1) loans; (2) forbearance of money, goods or credits; or (3) a
judgment involving a loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits.
Cases beyond the scope of the said circular are governed by Article 2209
of the Civil Code, which considers interest a form of indemnity for the
delay in the performance of an obligation.
Same; Same; Same; The monetary award shall earn interest at twelve
percent (12%) per annum from the date of the finality of the judgment
until its satisfaction, regardless of whether or not the case involves a loan
or forbearance of money.In Keng Hua Paper Products Co., Inc. v. CA, we
also ruled that the monetary award shall earn interest at twelve percent
(12%) per annum from the date of the finality of the judgment until its
satisfaction, regardless of whether or not the case involves a loan or
forbearance of money. The interim period is deemed to be equivalent to a
forbearance of credit.

Same; Same; Same; In Eastern Shipping, the Court observed that a

forbearance in the context of the usury law is a contractual obligation
of lender or creditor to refrain, during a given period of time, from
requiring the borrower or debtor to repay a loan or debt then due and
payable.Private respondent maintains that the twelve percent (12%)
interest should be imposed, because the obligation arose from a
forbearance of money. This is erroneous. In Eastern Shipping, the Court
observed that a forbearance in the context of the usury law is a
contractual obligation of lender or creditor to refrain, during a given
period of time, from requiring the borrower or debtor to repay a loan or
debt then due and payable. Using this standard, the obligation in this
case was obviously not a forbearance of money, goods or credit. [Crismina
Garments, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 304 SCRA 356(1999)]
21. People v billaber, 421 scra 27
22. Lim v CA, 373 scra 394
Civil Law; Damages; Interest; It is axiomatic that if the suit were for
damages, unliquidated and not known until definitely ascertained,
assessed and determined by the courts after proof, interest at the rate of
six percent (6%) per annum should be from the date the judgment of the
court is made.We are constrained to depart from the conclusion of the
lower courts that upon the award of compensatory damages legal interest
should be imposed beginning 22 July 1990, i.e. the date of the accident.
Upon the provisions of Art. 2213 of the Civil Code, interest cannot be
recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages, except when the demand
can be established with reasonable certainty. It is axiomatic that if the
suit were for damages, unliquidated and not known until definitely
ascertained, assessed and determined by the courts after proof, interest
at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum should be from the date the
judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of
damages may be deemed to be reasonably ascertained).
Same; Same; One who is injured by the wrongful or negligent act of
another should exercise reasonable care and diligence to minimize the
resulting damage.We have observed that private respondent left his

passenger jeepney by the roadside at the mercy of the elements. Article

2203 of the Civil Code exhorts parties suffering from loss or injury to
exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the
damages resulting from the act or omission in question. One who is
injured then by the wrongful or negligent act of another should exercise
reasonable care and diligence to minimize the resulting damage. Anyway,
he can recover from the wrongdoer money lost in reasonable efforts to
preserve the property injured and for injuries incurred in attempting to
prevent damage to it.
Same; Same; It is a fundamental principle in the law on damages that a
defendant cannot be held liable in damages for more than the actual loss
which he has inflicted and that a plaintiff is entitled to no more than the
just and adequate compensation for the injury suffered.In awarding
damages for tortuous injury, it becomes the sole design of the courts to
provide for adequate compensation by putting the plaintiff in the same
financial position he was in prior to the tort. It is a fundamental principle in
the law on damages that a defendant cannot be held liable in damages for
more than the actual loss which he has inflicted and that a plaintiff is
entitled to no more than the just and adequate compensation for the
injury suffered. His recovery is, in the absence of circumstances giving rise
to an allowance of punitive damages, limited to a fair compensation for
the harm done. The law will not put him in a position better than where he
should be in had not the wrong happened.
Same; Same; Indemnification for damages is not limited to damnum
emergens or actual loss but extends to lucrum cessans or the amount of
profit lost.In the present case, petitioners insist that as the passenger
jeepney was purchased in 1982 for only P30,000.00 to award damages
considerably greater than this amount would be improper and unjustified.
Petitioners are at best reminded that indemnification for damages
comprehends not only the value of the loss suffered but also that of the
profits which the obligee failed to obtain. In other words, indemnification
for damages is not limited to damnum emergens or actual loss but
extends to lucrum cessans or the amount of profit lost. [Lim vs. Court of
Appeals, 373 SCRA 394(2002)]

some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the
nature of the case, be proved with certainty.
23. LBC express v Ado, 468 scra 216
Actions; Damages; One is entitled to actual or compensatory damages in
form of an adequate compensation for such preliminary losses suffered as
has been duly proved.One is entitled to actual or compensatory
damages in the form of an adequate compensation for such pecuniary
losses suffered as has been duly proved. In contracts, the damages for
which the obligor who acted in good faith 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 the case where the obligor acted in
bad faith, the obligor shall be responsible for all the damages which may
be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation.
Same; Same; Damages are not presumed but must be duly proved with
reasonable degree of certainty.It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that
actual or compensatory damages is not presumed, but must be duly
proved with reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on
speculation, conjecture or guesswork as to the fact and amount of
damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have suffered
and on evidence of the actual amount thereof. Indeed, the party alleging a
fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.
Same; Same; Quantum of Proof; Where there is preponderant evidence
that the respondents indeed suffered some pecuniary loss due to the loss
of the passport but failed to adduce preponderant evidence of the
passports value, they are entitled only to temperate damages.There is
preponderant evidence that the respondents indeed suffered some
pecuniary loss due to the loss of Eubertos passport. However, the
respondents failed to adduce preponderant evidence of the passports
value. Nevertheless, they are entitled to temperate damages of
P10,000.00 under Article 2224 of the New Civil Code which provides:
[t]emperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less
than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that

Same; Same; While the failure to deliver the respondents passport does
not per se amount to willful misconduct or bad faith, the evidence on
record shows that the petitioners indeed acted in bad faith and in wanton
disregard of their contractual obligation to the respondents.The rulings
of the trial and appellate courts that the respondent spouses are entitled
to moral damages are correct. While the failure to deliver Eubertos
passport does not per se amount to willful misconduct or bad faith, the
evidence on record shows that the petitioners indeed acted in bad faith
and in wanton disregard of their contractual obligation to the respondents.
The respondents made numerous inquiries from the petitioners on the
whereabouts of Eubertos passport, and repeatedly made requests for its
return; the petitioners dilly-dallied and gave various excuses. The
petitioners told the respondents that the passport may have been
inadvertently transported to their other branches. Exasperated, the
respondents had to secure the services of counsel. Their demands for the
production of the passport (made through counsel) were ignored by the
petitioners. Worse still, the petitioners alleged in their answer to the
complaint that the van carrying Eubertos passport, while parked
somewhere along 14th Street, Port Area, South Harbor, Manila, was
forcibly opened by unidentified person/s who pilfered its contents,
probably including the said passport. [LBC Express, Inc. vs. Ado, 468 SCRA
216(2005)]

24. Ramos v CA, 321 scra 584

Hospitals; Damages; Proximate Cause Defined.Proximate cause has
been defined as that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
by any efficient intervening cause, produces injury, and without which the
result would not have occurred. An injury or damage is proximately
caused by an act or a failure to act, whenever it appears from the
evidence in the case, that the act or omission played a substantial part in
bringing about or actually causing the injury or damage; and that the

injury or damage was either a direct result or a reasonably probable

consequence of the act or omission. It is the dominant, moving or
producing cause. [Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 584(1999)]
Same; Same; Amount of damages awarded may be a continuing one
where the injury is chronic and continuing, as when the patient is
comatose.In these cases, the amount of damages which should be
awarded, if they are to adequately and correctly respond to the injury
caused, should be one which compensates for pecuniary loss incurred and
proved, up to the time of trial; and one which would meet pecuniary loss
certain to be suffered but which could not, from the nature of the case, be
made with certainty. In other words, temperate damages can and should
be awarded on top of actual or compensatory damages in instances where
the injury is chronic and continuing. And because of the unique nature of
such cases, no incompatibility arises when both actual and temperate
damages are provided for. The reason is that these damages cover two
distinct phases. [Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 584(1999)]

instance, injury to ones commercial credit or to the goodwill of a business

firm is often hard to show with 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 defendants wrongful act.
Same; Court may increase amount of attorneys fees.Considering the
nature and extent of the services rendered by the petitioners counsel
both in the trial and appellate courts, the amount should be increased to
P4,000. This may be done motu proprio by this Court under Article 2208 of
the Civil Code, which provides that attorneys fees may be recovered in
the instances therein enumerated and in any other case where the Court
deems it first and equitable that attorneys fees. . . should be recovered,
provided the amount thereof be reasonable in all cases.
Remedial law; Review of the evidence and reappraisal of its probative
value is not within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.A
review of the evidence and a reappraisal of its probative value is not
within the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. [Araneta vs. Bank of
America, 40 SCRA 144(1971)]

25. Araneta v bank of America, 40 scra 144

Civil Code; Adverse reflection against financial credit is a material loss;
Temperate damages are awarded.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 material
loss to him. As stated in the case of Atlanta National Bank vs. Davis, 96 Ga
334, 23 SE 190, citing 2 Morse Banks, Sec. 458, it can hardly be possible
that a customers check can be wrongfully refused payment without some
impeachment of his credit, which must in fact be an actual injury, though
he cannot, from the nature of the case, furnish independent, distinct proof
thereof.
Same; Concept of temperate damages.In some States of the American
Union, temperate damages are allowed. 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

26. Francisco v ferrer, 353 scra 261

Civil Law; Damages; Moral damages may be awarded in breaches of
contracts where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.To
recover moral damages in an action for breach of contract, the breach
must be palpably wanton, reckless, malicious, in bad faith, oppressive or
abusive. Under the provisions of this law, 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. Moral damages may be awarded in breaches of
contracts where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.

Same; Same; Same; Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or
negligence.Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or
negligence, it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and
conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty through some motive
or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud.
Same; Same; Same; The person claiming moral damages must prove the
existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always
presumes good faith; It must be shown that the proximate cause thereof
was the unlawful act or omission of the wrongdoer.Moral damages 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.
The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad
faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good
faith. It is not enough that one merely suffered sleepless nights, mental
anguish, serious anxiety as the result of the actuation of the other party.
Invariably such action must be shown to have been willfully done in bad
faith or with ill motive. Mere allegations of besmirched reputation,
embarrassment and sleepless nights are insufficient to warrant an award
for moral damages. It must be shown that the proximate cause thereof
was the unlawful act or omission of the [private respondent] petitioners.
Same; Same; Same; Certain Conditions Required in Awarding Moral
Damages.An award of moral damages would require certain conditions
to be met, to wit: (1) first, there must be an injury, whether physical,
mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) second,
there must be culpable act or omission factually established; (3) third, the
wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the
injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) fourth, the award of damages is
predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.
Same; Same; To warrant the award of exemplary damages, the wrongful
act must he accompanied by bad faith and the guilty party acted in a
wanton, fraudulent, reckless or malevolent manner; Requirements of an
Award of 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. The

requirements of an award of exemplary damages are: (1) they may be
imposed by way of example in addition to compensatory damages, and
only after the claimants right to them has been established; (2) that they
can not be recovered as a matter of right, their determination depending
upon the amount of compensatory damages that may be awarded to the
claimant; (3) the act must be accompanied by bad faith or done in a
wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner. [Francisco vs.
Ferrer, Jr., 353 SCRA 261(2001)]

27. Herbosa v CA, 374 scra 578

Same; Damages; It is basic that the claim for actual, moral and exemplary
damages as well as attorneys fees must each be independently identified
and justified.However, the award of damages to the petitioners cannot
be lumped together as was done by the trial court. It is basic that the
claim for actual, moral and exemplary damages as well as attorneys fees
must each be independently identified and justified. In this connection,
Article 1170 of the New Civil Code provides that those who in the
performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay,
and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for
damages. For failure of PVE, a division of respondent Solid Distributors,
Inc., to comply with its obligation under the video tape coverage contract,
petitioners are entitled to actual damages at least in the amount of One
Thousand Four Hundred Twenty-Three Pesos (P1,423.00) representing their
downpayment in that contract.
Same; Same; Moral damages are recoverable for breach of contract where
the breach was wanton, reckless, malicious or in bad faith, oppressive or
abusive.Ordinarily, moral damages cannot be recovered in an action for
breach of contract because such an action is not among those expressly
mentioned in Article 2219 of the New Civil Code. However, moral damages
are recoverable for breach of contract where the breach was wanton,
reckless, malicious or in bad faith, oppressive or abusive. The wanton and
reckless failure and neglect to timely check and remedy the video tape

recorder by the PVE crew who are all employees of respondent Solid
Distributors, Inc. indicates a malicious breach of contract and gross
negligence on the part of said respondent in the discharge of its
contractual obligations. Consequently, the petitioners who suffered mental
anguish and tortured feelings thereby, are entitled to an award of One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as moral damages.
Same; Same; Marriage; Wedding Ceremonies; In our society, the
importance of a wedding ceremony cannot be underestimated as it is the
matrix of the family and, therefore, an occasion worth reliving in the
succeeding years.In the case of Go v. Court of Appeals, we emphasized
that (i)n our society, the importance of a wedding ceremony cannot be
underestimated as it is the matrix of the family and, therefore, an
occasion worth reliving in the succeeding years. Further, we reiterate the
following pronouncements therein where we also awarded moral damages
on account of a malicious breach of contract similar to the case at bar, to
wit: Considering the sentimental value of the tapes and the fact that the
event therein recordeda wedding which in our culture is a significant
milestone to be cherished and rememberedcould no longer be
reenacted and was lost forever, the trial court was correct in awarding the
appellees moral damages albeit in the amount of P75,000.00 xxx in
compensation for the mental anguish, tortured feelings, sleepless nights
and humiliation that the appellees suffered and which under the
circumstances could be awarded as allowed under Articles 2217 and 2218
of the Civil Code. [Herbosa vs. Court of Appeals, 374 SCRA 578(2002)]
28. Manuel v people, 476 scra 461
Same; Same; Same; Same; Damages; Requisites; Moral damages may be
awarded in favor of the offended party only in criminal cases enumerated
in Article 2219, paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Civil Code and
analogous cases.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 defendants wrongful act or omission. An award for
moral damages requires the confluence of the following conditions: first,

there must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly

sustained by the claimant; second, there must be culpable act or omission
factually established; third, the wrongful act or omission of the defendant
is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and fourth,
the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article
2219 or Article 2220 of the Civil Code. Moral damages may be awarded in
favor of the offended party only in criminal cases enumerated in Article
2219, paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Civil Code and analogous cases.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; While bigamy is not one of those
specifically mentioned in Article 2219 of the Civil Code in which the
offender may be ordered to pay moral damages to the private
complainant/offended party, the guilty party is liable to the offended party
for moral damages under Article 2219 in relation to Articles 19, 20 and 21
of the Civil Code.The law does not intend that moral damages should be
awarded in all cases where the aggrieved party has suffered mental
anguish, fright, moral anxieties, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings,
moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury arising out of an act or
omission of another, otherwise, there would not have been any reason for
the inclusion of specific acts in Article 2219 and analogous cases (which
refer to those cases bearing analogy or resemblance, corresponds to some
others or resembling, in other respects, as in form, proportion, relation,
etc.) Indeed, bigamy is not one of those specifically mentioned in Article
2219 of the Civil Code in which the offender may be ordered to pay moral
damages to the private complainant/offended party. Nevertheless, the
petitioner is liable to the private complainant for moral damages under
Article 2219 in relation to Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code. [Manuel
vs. People, 476 SCRA 461(2005)]

29. Verules v posada, 522 scra 518

Same; Same; Damages; There is nothing in law or jurisprudence that
entitles the parents of a consenting adult who begets a love child to
damages.We, however, cannot rule that respondents are entitled to
damages. Article 2219 of the Civil Code which states moral damages may

be recovered in cases of seduction is inapplicable in this case because

Clarissa was already an adult at the time she had an affair with petitioner.
Neither can her parents be entitled to damages. Besides, there is nothing
in law or jurisprudence that entitles the parents of a consenting adult who
begets a love child to damages. Respondents Constantino and Francisca
Posada have not cited any law or jurisprudence to justify awarding
damages to them. [Verceles vs. Posada, 522 SCRA 518(2007)]

controversy, of the professional standing of the attorney for plaintiffsappellants, and of the extent of the services rendered by him, shows that
the amount provided for in the written agreement is reasonable.
Same; Factors considered in fixing damages.In the case at bar the
damages were determined by considering the official, political, social and
financial standing of the offended parties on one hand and the business
and financial position of the offender on the other (Dominding vs. Ng, 55
O.G. 10). [Lopez, et al. vs. Pan American World Airways, 16 SCRA
431(1966)]

30. Lopez v pan am, 16 scra 431

Same; Moral damages and exemplary are recoverable for breach of
contract of carriage in bad faith.As a proximate result of defendants
breach in bad faith of its contracts with plaintiffs, the latter suffered social
humiliation, wounded feelings, serious anxiety and mental anguish. For
plaintiffs were travelling with first class tickets issued by defendant and
yet they were given only the tourist class. At stopovers, they were
expected to be among the first-class passengers by those awaiting to
welcome them, only to be found among the tourist passengers. It may not
be humiliating to travel as tourist passengers; it is humiliating to be
compelled to travel as such, contrary to what is rightfully to be expected
from the contractual undertaking.
The rationale behind exemplary or corrective damages is, as the name
implies, to provide an example or correction for public good. Defendant
having breached its contracts in bad faith, the court may award exemplary
damages in addition to moral damages (Articles 2229, 2232, New Civil
Code). In view of its nature, it should be imposed in such amount as to
sufficiently and effectively deter similar breach of contracts in the future
by defendant or other airlines.
Same; Attorneys fees; When written contract for attorneys fees controls
the amount to be paid therefor is a case of breach of contract of carriage.
A written contract for attorneys services shall control the amount to be
paid therefor unless found by the court to be unconscionable or
unreasonable. A consideration of the subject matter of the present

31. Cathay pacific v Vasquez, 399 scra 207

Same; Same; Same; Damages; Requisites for Award of Moral Damages.
Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious
anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation, and similar injury. Although incapable of pecuniary
computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate
result of the defendants wrongful act or omission. Thus, case law
establishes the following requisites for the award of moral damages: (1)
there must be an injury clearly sustained by the claimant, whether
physical, mental or psychological; (2) 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 (4) the award for damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in
Article 2219 of the Civil Code.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Moral damages predicated upon a breach of
contract of carriage may only be recoverable in instances where the
carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith or where the mishap resulted in the
death of a passenger.Moral damages predicated upon a breach of
contract of carriage may only be recoverable in instances where the
carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith or where the mishap resulted in the
death of a passenger. Where in breaching the contract of carriage the
airline is not shown to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith, liability for

damages is limited to the natural and probable consequences of the

breach of the obligation which the parties had foreseen or could have
reasonably foreseen. In such a case the liability does not include moral
and exemplary damages.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Attorneys Fees; It is a requisite in the grant of
exemplary damages that the act of the offender must be accompanied by
bad faith or done in wanton, fraudulent or malevolent manner; Where the
awards for moral and exemplary damages are eliminated, so must the
award for attorneys fees.The deletion of the award for exemplary
damages by the Court of Appeals is correct. It is a requisite in the grant of
exemplary damages that the act of the offender must be accompanied by
bad faith or done in wanton, fraudulent or malevolent manner. Such
requisite is absent in this case. Moreover, to be entitled thereto the
claimant must first establish his right to moral, temperate, or
compensatory damages. Since the Vazquezes are not entitled to any of
these damages, the award for exemplary damages has no legal basis. And
where the awards for moral and exemplary damages are eliminated, so
must the award for attorneys fees.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The amount of damages awarded should not
be palpably and scandalously excessive as to indicate that it was the
result of prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial court; Passengers
must not prey on international airlines for damages awards, like trophies
in a safari, after all neither the social standing nor prestige of the
passenger should determine the extent to which he would suffer because
of a wrong done, since the dignity affronted in the individual is a quality
inherent in him and not conferred by these social indicators.Before
writing finis to this decision, we find it well-worth to quote the apt
observation of the Court of Appeals regarding the awards adjudged by the
trial court: We are not amused but alarmed at the lower courts
unbelievable alacrity, bordering on the scandalous, to award excessive
amounts as damages. In their complaint, appellees asked for P1 million as
moral damages but the lower court awarded P4 million; they asked for
P500,000.00 as exemplary damages but the lower court cavalierly
awarded a whooping P10 million; they asked for P250,000.00 as attorneys

fees but were awarded P2 million; they did not ask for nominal damages
but were awarded P200,000.00. It is as if the lower court went on a
rampage, and why it acted that way is beyond all tests of reason. In fact
the excessiveness of the total award invites the suspicion that it was the
result of prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial court. The
presiding judge of the lower court is enjoined to hearken to the Supreme
Courts admonition in Singson vs. CA (282 SCRA 149 [1997]), where it
said: The well-entrenched principle is that the grant of moral damages
depends upon the discretion of the court based on the circumstances of
each case. This discretion is limited by the principle that the amount
awarded should not be palpably and scandalously excessive as to indicate
that it was the result of prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial
court. . . . and in Alitalia Airways vs. CA (187 SCRA 763 [1990]), where it
was held: Nonetheless, we agree with the injunction expressed by the
Court of Appeals that passengers must not prey on international airlines
for damage awards, like trophies in a safari. After all neither the social
standing nor prestige of the passenger should determine the extent to
which he would suffer because of a wrong done, since the dignity
affronted in the individual is a quality inherent in him and not conferred by
these social indicators. [Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Vasquez, 399
SCRA 207(2003)]

32. Cathay pacific v ca, 219 scra 520

Civil Law; Common Carriers; Contract of Carriage; Failure of common
carrier to deliver luggage of passenger at designated place and time
constitutes a breach of contract of carriage.Petitioner breached its
contract of carriage with private respondent When it failed to deliver his
luggage at the designated place and time, it being the obligation of a
common carrier to carry its passengers and their luggage sefely to their
destination, which includes the duty not to delay their transportation, and
the evidence shows that petitioner acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Moral Damages; When recoverable.Moral
damages predicated upon a breach of contract of carriage may only be

recoverable in instances where the mishap results in death of a

passenger, or where the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Discourteous and arbitrary conduct of
common carrier's personnel amounts to bad faith entitling passenger's
recovery for moral damages.While the mere failure of CATHAY to deliver
respondent's luggage at the agreed place and time did not ipso facto
amount to willful misconduct since the luggage was eventually delivered
to private respondent, albeit belatedly, We are persuaded that the
employees of CATHAY acted in bad faith. xxx The language and conduct of
petitioner's representative towards respondent Alcantara was
discourteous or arbitrary to justify the grant of moral damages. The
CATHAY representative was not only indifferent and impatient; he was also
rude and insulting.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; In the absence of fraud or bad faith in
breaching contract of carriage, liability of common carrier limited to
natural and probable consequences of said breach, otherwise, moral and
exemplary damages are recoverable.Where in breaching the contract of
carriage the defendant airline is not shown to have acted fraudulently or
in bad faith, liability for damages is limited to the natural and probable
consequences of the breach of obligation which the parties had foreseen
or could have reasonably foreseen. In that case, such liability does not
include moral and exemplary damages. Conversely, if the defendant
airline is shown to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith, the award of
moral and exemplary damages is proper. [Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs.
Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 520(1993)]

33. Sabena v ca, 171 scra 620

Common Carriers; Damages; Misconduct on the part of the carriers
employees toward a passenger gives the latter an action for damages
against the carrier.The issue, however, is not what was written in French
in the document but what Yancha represented to Mrs. Fule when he
induced her to sign it. As stated by the Court of Appeals, citing Air France

v. Carrascoso (18 SCRA 155 [1966]), the misconduct on the part of the
carriers employees toward a passenger gives the latter an action for
damages against the carrier.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Rule with respect to recovery of moral
damages in a damage suit predicated upon a breach of contract of
carriage.In the same case, however, the Court ruled that [W]ith respect
to moral damages, the rule is that the same are recoverable in a damage
suit predicated upon a breach of contract of carriage only where (1) the
mishap results in the death of a passenger and (2) it is proved that the
carrier was guilty of fraud and bad faith, even if death does not result.
(Ibid, at p. 13) As the appellate court found the petitioner guilty of bad
faith in letting the respondent sign a quitclaim without her knowledge or
understanding and contrary to what she was planning to do, the reduced
award of moral and exemplary damages is proper and legal. [Sabena
Belgian World Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, 171 SCRA 620(1989)]

34. Bagumbayan corp v IAC, 132 scra 441

Civil Law; Damages; Grant of moral and exemplary damages has no basis
if not predicated upon any of the cases enumerated in the Civil Code.
While the award for actual damages has some basis, the grant of moral
and exemplary damages is devoid of legal justification because it was not
predicated upon any of the cases enumerated in the Civil Code (Ventanilla
vs. Centeno, 110 Phil. 811, 816). Generally, there can be no recovery of
moral damages if the case is not mentioned in articles 2219 and 2220
(Malonzo vs. Galang, 109 Phil. 16; Ventanilla vs. Centeno, 110 Phil. 811).
Same; Same; Moral damages treated in American jurisprudence on
compensatory damages.What we call moral damages are treated in
American jurisprudence as contemporary damages awarded for mental

pain and suffering or mental anguish resulting from a wrong (25 C.J.S.
815).
Same; Same; Alleged embarrassment by customers due to alleged
negligence of a hotel waiter, not the mental anguish contemplated in Art
2217 of the Civil Code which allows recovery of moral damages.We hold
that the embarrassment to which Mrs. Sea was exposed by the
incident is not the mental anguish contemplated in article 2217 for which
moral damages can be recovered.
Same; Same; Exemplary or corrective damages, not recoverable, absent
gross negligence; Case at bar.In this case, it would not be just and
proper to include moral damages in the corporations vicarious liability as
employer. The award of P5,000 as exemplary or corrective damages
cannot also be sustained because there was no gross negligence in this
case. [Bagumbayan Corp. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 132 SCRA
441(1984)]

35. Guanio v makati Shangri-la, 641 scra 591

Civil Law; Contracts; Breach of Contract; Words and Phrases; Breach of
contract is defined as the failure without legal reason to comply with the
terms of a contract.Breach of contract is defined as the failure without
legal reason to cmmomply with the terms of a contract. It is also defined
as the [f]ailure, without legal excuse, to perform any promise which forms
the whole or part of the contract. The appellate court, and even the trial
court, observed that petitioners were remiss in their obligation to inform
respondent of the change in the expected number of guests. The
observation is reflected in the records of the case. Petitioners failure to
discharge such obligation thus excused, as the above-quoted paragraph
4.5 of the parties contract provide, respondent from liability for any
damage or inconvenience occasioned thereby. [Guanio vs. Makati
Shangri-La Hotel and Resort, Inc., 641 SCRA 591(2011)]

36. Mabinay v velasquez, 419 scra 118

Civil Law; Damages; In order that moral damages may be awarded, there
must be pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and
the like; Mere allegations do not suffice; they must be substantiated by
clear and convincing proof.In order that moral damages may be
awarded, there must be pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental
anguish, fright and the like. While respondent alleged in his complaint that
he suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and moral
shock, he failed to prove them during the trial. Indeed, respondent should
have taken the witness stand and should have testified on the mental
anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and other emotional and
mental suffering he purportedly suffered to sustain his claim for moral
damages. Mere allegations do not suffice; they must be substantiated by
clear and convincing proof. No other person could have proven such
damages except the respondent himself as they were extremely personal
to him.
Same; Same; The award of moral damages must be anchored to a clear
showing that respondent actually experienced mental anguish,
besmirched reputation, sleepless nights, wounded feelings or similar
injury.The testimony of Machete was not enough evidence of the moral
damages that the respondent supposedly suffered. Machete may have
clearly testified on the specific words uttered by petitioner against
respondent but he could not have testified on the wounded feelings
respondent allegedly went through by reason of petitioners slanderous
remark. The award of moral damages must be anchored to a clear
showing that respondent actually experienced mental anguish,
besmirched reputation, sleepless nights, wounded feelings or similar
injury. There was no better witness to this experience than respondent
himself. Since respondent failed to testify on the witness stand, the trial
court did not have any factual basis to award moral damages to him.
Same; Same; No exemplary damages can be awarded unless the claimant
first establishes his clear right to moral damages.Neither is respondent
entitled to exemplary damages. If the court has no proof or evidence
upon which the claim for moral damages could be based, such indemnity

could not be outrightly awarded. The same holds true with respect to the
award of exemplary damages where it must be shown that the party acted
in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner. Furthermore, this specie
of damages is allowed only in addition to moral damages such that no
exemplary damages can be awarded unless the claimant first establishes
his clear right to moral damages. [Mahinay vs. Velasquez, Jr., 419 SCRA
118(2004)]

37. Filipino broadcasting v Ago, 448 scra 13

Libel; Damages; Corporations; Obiter Dictum; The Courts statement in
Mambulao Lumber Co. v. PNB, 22 SCRA 359 (1968), that a corporation
may have a good reputation which, if besmirched, may also be a ground
for the award of moral damages is an obiter dictum.A juridical person is
generally not entitled to moral damages because, unlike a natural person,
it cannot experience physical suffering or such sentiments as wounded
feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish or moral shock. The Court of
Appeals cites Mambulao Lumber Co. v. PNB, et al. to justify the award of
moral damages. However, the Courts statement in Mambulao that a
corporation may have a good reputation which, if besmirched, may also
be a ground for the award of moral damages is an obiter dictum.
Same; Same; Same; Since Article 2219(7) of the Civil Code does not
qualify whether the plaintiff is a natural or juridical person, a juridical
person such as a corporation may validly complain for libel or any other
form of defamation and claim for moral damages. AMECs claim for
moral damages falls under item 7 of Article 2219 of the Civil Code. This
provision expressly authorizes the recovery of moral damages in cases of
libel, slander or any other form of defamation. Article 2219(7) does not
qualify whether the plaintiff is a natural or juridical person. Therefore, a
juridical person such as a corporation can validly complain for libel or any
other form of defamation and claim for moral damages.
Same; Same; Where the broadcast is libelous per se, the law implies
damages, in which case, evidence of an honest mistake or the want of

character or reputation of the party libeled goes only in mitigation of

damages.Where the broadcast is libelous per se, the law implies
damages. In such a case, evidence of an honest mistake or the want of
character or reputation of the party libeled goes only in mitigation of
damages. Neither in such a case is the plaintiff required to introduce
evidence of actual damages as a condition precedent to the recovery of
some damages. In this case, the broadcasts are libelous per se. Thus,
AMEC is entitled to moral damages. However, we find the award of
P300,000 moral damages unreasonable. The record shows that even
though the broadcasts were libelous per se, AMEC has not suffered any
substantial or material damage to its reputation. Therefore, we reduce the
award of moral damages from P300,000 to P150,000.
Attorneys Fees; The power of the court to award attorneys fees under
Article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal and equitable
justification, without which the award is a conclusion without a premise,
its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture.The award
of attorneys fees is not proper because AMEC failed to justify
satisfactorily its claim for attorneys fees. AMEC did not adduce evidence
to warrant the award of attorneys fees. Moreover, both the trial and
appellate courts failed to explicitly state in their respective decisions the
rationale for the award of attorneys fees. In Inter-Asia Investment
Industries, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, we held that: [I]t is an accepted
doctrine that the award thereof as an item of damages is the exception
rather than the rule, and counsels fees are not to be awarded every time
a party wins a suit. The power of the court to award attorneys fees under
Article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal and equitable
justification, without which the award is a conclusion without a premise,
its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture. In all events,
the court must explicitly state in the text of the decision, and not only in
the decretal portion thereof, the legal reason for the award of attorneys
fees. (Emphasis supplied)
Torts; Damages; Broadcast Industry; Joint tort feasors are all the persons
who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance,
cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it

after it is done, if done for their benefit; The corporation which operates
the radio station, and who is the employer of the radio hosts, is solidarily
liable to pay for damages arising from libelous broadcasts.The basis of
the present action is a tort. Joint tort feasors are jointly and severally
liable for the tort which they commit. Joint tort feasors are all the persons
who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance,
cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it
after it is done, if done for their benefit. Thus, AMEC correctly anchored its
cause of action against FBNI on Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code.
As operator of DZRC-AM and employer of Rima and Alegre, FBNI is
solidarily liable to pay for damages arising from the libelous broadcasts.
As stated by the Court of Appeals, recovery for defamatory statements
published by radio or television may be had from the owner of the station,
a licensee, the operator of the station, or a person who procures, or
participates in, the making of the defamatory statements. An employer
and employee are solidarily liable for a defamatory statement by the
employee within the course and scope of his or her employment, at least
when the employer authorizes or ratifies the defamation. In this case,
Rima and Alegre were clearly performing their official duties as hosts of
FBNIs radio program Expos when they aired the broadcasts. FBNI neither
alleged nor proved that Rima and Alegre went beyond the scope of their
work at that time. There was likewise no showing that FBNI did not
authorize and ratify the defamatory broadcasts.
Same; Same; The radio operators alleged constant reminder to its
broadcasters to observe truth, fairness and objectivity and to refrain from
using libelous and indecent language is not enough to prove due
diligence in the supervision of its broadcasters.There is insufficient
evidence on record that FBNI exercised due diligence in the selection and
supervision of its employees, particularly Rima and Alegre. FBNI merely
showed that it exercised diligence in the selection of its broadcasters
without introducing any evidence to prove that it observed the same
diligence in the supervision of Rima and Alegre. FBNI did not show how it
exercised diligence in supervising its broadcasters. FBNIs alleged
constant reminder to its broadcasters to observe truth, fairness and
objectivity and to refrain from using libelous and indecent language is not

enough to prove due diligence in the supervision of its broadcasters.

Adequate training of the broadcasters on the industrys code of conduct,
sufficient information on libel laws, and continuous evaluation of the
broadcasters performance are but a few of the many ways of showing
diligence in the supervision of broadcasters.

38. Employees union v bayer, 636 scra 472

Corporation Law; Damages; As a general rule, a corporation cannot suffer
nor be entitled to moral damages; Mental suffering can be experienced
only by one having a nervous system and it flows from real ills, sorrows,
and griefs of lifeall of which cannot be suffered by an artificial, juridical
person.On the matter of damages prayed for by the petitioners, we have
held that as a general rule, a corporation cannot suffer nor be entitled to
moral damages. A corporation, and by analogy a labor organization, being
an artificial person and having existence only in legal contemplation, has
no feelings, no emotions, no senses; therefore, it cannot experience
physical suffering and mental anguish. Mental suffering can be
experienced only by one having a nervous system and it flows from real
ills, sorrows, and griefs of lifeall of which cannot be suffered by an
artificial, juridical person. A fortiori, the prayer for exemplary damages
must also be denied. Nevertheless, we find it in order to award (1)
nominal damages in the amount of P250,000.00 on the basis of our ruling
in De La Salle University v. De La Salle University Employees Association
(DLSUEA-NAFTEU), 584 SCRA 592 (2009), and Article 2221, and (2)
attorneys fees equivalent to 10% of the monetary award. The remittance
to petitioners of the collected union dues previously turned over to
Remigio and Villareal is likewise in order. [Employees Union of Bayer Phils.,
FFW vs. Bayer Philippines, Inc., 636 SCRA 472(2010)]
39. Tanoy recreation v fausto, 453 scra 436

40. Ventanilla v centeno, 1 scra 215

Attorneys; Damages; Effect of lawyer's failure to perfect appeal.The

claim of a client for damages against a lawyer, who failed to perfect the
client's appeal from a judgment, was considered highly speculative. The
claim was based on the theory that, because the appeal was not
perfected, the client was not able to recover on appeal moral and actual
damages "from the adverse party.
Same: When moral damages are recoverable.Moral damages may be
recovered in the cases mentioned in article 2219 of the New Civil Code
and in the case of the death of a passenger being transported by a
common carrier. No moral damages may be recovered for quasi-delicts
not causing physical injuries. Moral damages cannot be recovered in an
action by the client against a lawyer who was negligent in not perfecting
the client's appeal from a judgment.
Same; Temperate damages.Moderate damages cannot be recovered in
case no actual damages, but only nominal damages, were awarded.

Same; Exemplary damages.Corrective damages cannot be recovered as

a matter of right. They can be recovered, in the discretion of the court, if
the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or
malevolent manner.
Same; Nominal damages.The assessment of nominal damages is left to
the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of the case.
They are not intended for indemnification of loss suffered but for the
vindication or recognition of a right violated or invaded.
Same; Damages due from lawyer who was negligent in not perfecting
client's appeal.The award of P200 as nominal damages to a client who
sued his lawyer for damages by reason of the latter's negligence in not
perfecting the client's appeal, was considered sufficient under the facts of
the instant case. [Ventanilla vs. Centeno, 1 SCRA 215(1961)]