Wassmer vs. Velez 12 SCRA 648 BEATRIZ P. WASSMER, plaintiffappellee, vs. FRANCISCO X. VELEZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
In 1954, Beatriz Wassmer and Francisco Velez arranged their marriage to be
held on September 4 of the same year. The bride-to-be has been devoted
with all the preparations for their wedding. However, two days before their
marriage, Paking left a note that they must postpone the marriage for his
mother was against it. A day before their wedding, Paking wrote again that
the wedding shall push through. Worse, Paking did not show up on their
wedding day causing Wassmer to be publicly humiliated. The breach of
promise to marry made by Velez prompted Wassmer to file a civil suit against
the former. Velez never filed an answer, thus, awarding moral and exemplary
damages to Wassmer. Velez appealed on the court and stated that he failed
to attend the wedding day because of fortuitous events. He also insisted that
he cannot be civilly liable for there is no law that acts upon the breach of
promise to marry. He also contested the award of moral and exemplary
damages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not moral or exemplary damages may be awarded in a breach of
promise to marry suit.
HELD:
A mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. Howver,
Wassmer has already made preparations for the wedding. Velezs failure to
appear on the wedding day is contrary to morals, good customs and public
policy which is embodied on Article 21 of the Civil Code. Under the law, the
injured party is entitled to moral damages as well as to exemplary damages
because Velezs acted in wanton, reckless and oppressive manner (Article
2232) in breaching his promise to marry Wassmer.

Nikko Hotel Manila Garden et al vs. Reyes G.R. No. 154259 NIKKO
HOTEL MANILA GARDEN and RUBY LIM, petitioners, vs. ROBERTO
REYES a.k.a AMAY BISAYA, respondent. G.R. No. 154259, February
28, 2005
FACTS: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the resolution and the
decision of the Court of Appeals whereby making the petitioners liable for
moral and exemplary damages. Amay Bisaya was having a coffee at the
lobby of Hotel Nikko when an old friend, Dr. Filart, asked him to join the party
of the former manager of the said hotel, Mr. Tsuruoka. When he was helping
himself at the buffet table, Ms. Lim approached him and said to leave the
party for it was intended for a number of guests. Amay Bisaya claimed that
he was humiliated by the manner Ms. Lim asked him to leave. He alleged
that Ms. Lim asked him to leave in a loud voice enough to be heard by the
other guests. He was accompanied by a Makati policeman in leaving the
penthouse. He was more embarrassed when Dr. Filart denied that she invited
him on the said party.
ISSUE: Whether or not the act of Ms. Lim constitutes an abuse of right to
make the petitioners liable for damages caused to Amay Bisaya.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court ruled that any damage which Amay Bisaya
might have suffered through Ms. Lims exercise of a legitimate right done
within the bounds of propriety and good faith, must be his to bear alone. It is
unlikely to happen that Ms. Lim exposed him to ridicule and shame because
admittedly, Amay Bisaya stated that Ms. Lim was very close enough for him
to kiss when she asked him to leave the party. It was intended to be heard
only by Amay Bisaya. Nevertheless , his reaction to the request must have
made the other guests aware of what transpired between them. Since Ms.
Lim did not abuse her right to ask Amay Bisaya to leave the party for being a
gate-crasher, neither she nor her employer be held liable for damages under
Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
petition filed by Ruby Lim and Nikko Hotel Manila Garden is GRANTED. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 26 November 2001 and its Resolution
dated 09 July 2002 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104, dated 26 April 1999 is
hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

Baksh v CA 219 SCRA 115

Facts: Gashem Shookat Baksh is an Iranian enrolled in a medical school

while MarilouGonzales works in the cafeteria of said school. According to
Marilou, Gashem courted and proposed to marry her. Because of his
persuasive promise to marry her, she allowed herself to be deflowered by
him. No marriage came hence an action for breach of promise to marry.
Issue: Is a breach of promise to marry an actionable wrong? Is Article 21 of
the Civil Code applicable in the case?
Held:
[I] The existing rule is that breach of promise to marry per se is not an
actionable wrong. Congress deliberately eliminated from the draft of the New
Civil Code the provisions that would have made it so. This notwithstanding,
the said Code contains a provision, Article 21, which is designed to expand
the concept of torts or quasi-delicts in this jurisdiction by granting adequate
legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for
human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the statute books.
Where a man's promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of the
acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that
promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself
unto him in a sexual congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of
marrying her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive
device to entice or inveigle her to accept his and to obtain her consent to the
sexual act, could justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not
because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit
behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed
thereafter. It is essential however, that such injury should have been
committed in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
Now, if someone promises or agrees to marry his or her lover, and at the last
minute backs out on the promise, will it constitute as an actionable wrong?
The answer is no. But one can sue for recovery of actual damages, like
wedding expenses. The act of marrying is a personal obligation, therefore
legally; a demand for specific performance is simply out of the question
being tantamount to involuntary servitude. Our laws do not provide specific
reliefs for cases arising purely from a breach of ones promise to marry
another. Although, there was supposed to be a chapter on breach of promise
to marry proposed by the Code Commission but it was deleted by Congress

in enacting the Civil Code apparently because of lessons from other

countries, that the action readily lends itself to abuse by designing women
and unscrupulous men (Congressional Record, vol. IV, No. 79, 14 May 1949,
2352). However, the Court has allowed moral or exemplary damages not so
much on the breach of promise but of the fraud or deceit and the consequent
pain and humiliation suffered. This is pursuant to Article 21 of the New Civil
Code which provides that any person who willfully causes loss or injury to
another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy
shall compensate the latter for the damage .In Baksh vs. CA (219 SCRA 115)
, it was held -[T]hat where a mans promise to marry is in fact the proximate
cause of the acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to
fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of
herself unto him in asexual congress, proof that he had, in reality, no
intention of marrying her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme or
deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her
consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of damages pursuant to
Article 21 not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud
and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation which
followed thereafter. It is essential, however, that such injury should have
been committed in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public
policy.

Pe vs. Pe 5 SCRA 200 CECILIO PE, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants vs.

ALFONSO PE, defendant-appellee.
FACTS:
The defendant was regarded as a family member so he was allowed to visit
the plaintiffs house and to ask Lolita to teach him to pray the rosary.
Defendant, a married man, had a clandestine love affair with Lolita, the 24
year old unmarried woman. When the family learnt about their secret affair,
defendant was forbidden to visit their house and to see Lolita. However, their
affair still continued. On April 1957, Lolita disappeared from her brothers
house in Quezon City. A note written by the defendant was seen on the
aparador of Lolita. The family filed an action for damages in pursuant with
Article 21 of the Civil Code.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the injury caused to the family of Lolita by the defendant is
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
HELD:
The court held that there can be no other conclusion that can be drawn from
this chain of events that the defendant succeeded in winning the heart of
Lolita through clever strategies. Knowing that he is a married man, the wrong
that he had done to her and to the family is immeasurable. Verily, he has
committed and injury to Lolitas family in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs and public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of the New Civil
Code.

EMMANUEL B. AZNAR v. CITIBANK, N.A., (Philippines) G.R. No.

164273
EMMANUEL B. AZNAR v. CITIBANK, N.A., (Philippines) G.R. No.
164273
NATURE: CERTIORARI
Facts:
Aznar, a known businessman in Cebu, is a holder of a preferred Mastercard
issued by Citibank with a credit limit of P150,000.00. As he and his wife,
Zoraida, planned to take their two grandchildren, on an Asian tour, Aznar
made a total advance deposit of P485,000.00 with Citibank with the intention
of increasing his credit limit to P635,000.00. With the use of his Mastercard,
Aznar purchased plane tickets to Kuala Lumpur for his group worth
P237,000.00.
During the trip, Aznar claims that when he presented his Mastercard in some
establishments in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, the same was not
honoured and when he tried to use the same in Ingtan Tour and Travel
Agency (Ingtan Agency) in Indonesia to purchase plane tickets to Bali, it was
again dishonored for the reason that his card was blacklisted by Citibank.
Such dishonor forced him to buy the tickets in cash. Aznar filed a complaint
for damages against Citibank, claiming that Citibank fraudulently or with
gross negligence blacklisted his Mastercard which forced him, his wife and
grandchildren to abort important tour destinations and prevented them from
buying certain items in their tour. He further claimed that he suffered mental
anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, besmirched reputation and
social humiliation due to the wrongful blacklisting of his card
To prove that Citibank blacklisted his Mastercard, Aznar presented a
computer print-out, denominated as ON-LINE AUTHORIZATIONS FOREIGN
ACCOUNT ACTIVITY REPORT, issued to him by Ingtan Agency which shows
that his card in question was "DECL OVERLIMIT" or declared over the limit.
Citibank denied the allegation that it blacklisted Aznars card. To prove that
they did not blacklist Aznars card, Citibanks Credit Card Department Head,
Dennis Flores, presented Warning Cancellation Bulletins, which contained the
list of its canceled cards covering the period of Aznars trip. Aznars wasnt in
the list.

RTC of Cebu dismissed Aznars complaint for lack of merit and held that as
between the computer print-out presented by Aznar and the Warning
Cancellation Bulletins presented by Citibank, the latter had more weight as
their due execution and authenticity were duly established by Citibank.Also
held that even if it as shown that Aznars credit card was dishonored by a
merchant establishment, Citibank was not shown to have acted with malice
or bad faith when the same was dishonored.
Aznar filed a MFR with motion to re-raffle the case saying that Judge Marcos
could not be impartial as he himself is a holder of a Citibank credit card. The
case was re-raffled with the new judge granting Aznars MR saying that it
was improbable that a man of Aznars stature would fabricate the computer
print-out which shows that Aznars Mastercard was dishonored for the reason
that it was declared over the limit; Exh. "G" was printed out by Nubi in the
ordinary or regular course of business in the modern credit card industry and
Nubi was not able to testify as she was in a foreign country and cannot be
reached by subpoena; taking judicial notice of the practice of automated
teller machines (ATMs) and credit card facilities which readily print out bank
account status, Exh. "G" can be received as prima facie evidence of the
dishonor of Aznars Mastercard; no rebutting evidence was presented by
Citibank to prove that Aznars Mastercard was not dishonored, as all it
proved was that said credit card was not included in the blacklisted cards;
when Citibank accepted the additional deposit of P485,000.00 from Aznar,
there was an implied novation and Citibank was obligated to increase Aznars
credit limit and ensure that Aznar will not encounter any embarrassing
situation with the use of his Mastercard; Citibanks failure to comply with its
obligation constitutes gross negligence as it caused Aznar inconvenience,
mental anguish and social humiliation; the fine prints in the flyer of the credit
card limiting the liability of the bank to P1,000.00 or the actual damage
proven, whichever is lower, is a contract of adhesion which must be
interpreted against Citibank.
Citibank filed an appeal with the CA and its counsel filed an administrative
case against Judge De la Pea for grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the
law and incompetence, claiming among others that said judge rendered his
decision without having read the transcripts. The administrative case was
held in abeyance pending the outcome of the appeal filed by Citibank with
the CA.
CA ruled that: Aznar had no personal knowledge of the blacklisting of his
card and only presumed the same when it was dishonored in certain
establishments; such dishonor is not sufficient to prove that his card was
blacklisted by Citibank; Exh. "G" is an electronic document ,which must be

authenticated pursuant to Sec. 2, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence

or under Sect.20 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court by anyone who saw the
document executed or written; Aznar, however, failed to prove the
authenticity of Exh. "G", thus it must be excluded; the unrefuted testimony of
Aznar that his credit card was dishonored by Ingtan Agency and certain
establishments abroad is not sufficient to justify the award of damages in his
favor, absent any showing that Citibank had anything to do with the said
dishonor; Citibank had no absolute control over the actions of its merchant
affiliates, thus it should not be held liable for the dishonor of Aznars credit
card by said establishments.
Aznars MR was denied by the CA. As regards the admin case, J. Dela Pena
was adjudged guilty.

University of the East vs. Jader G.R. No. 132344 UNIVERSITY OF THE
EAST, petitioner vs. ROMEO A. JADER, respondent.
FACTS: Romeo Jader took his law proper at UE from 1984-88. During the first
semester of his last year in law school, he failed to take the examination for
Practice Court I in which he obtained an incomplete grade. He filed an
application for removal of the incomplete grade given by Prof. Carlos Ortega
on February 1, 1988 which was approved by Dean Celedonio Tiongson after
the payment of required fees. He took the exam on March 28 and on May 30,
the professor gave him a grade of 5. His name was still on the tentative list
of candidates for graduation. Likewise, his named appeared in the invitation
for the commencement exercises which was held on April 16, 1988. When he
learnt of his deficiency, he dropped from his Bar Review classes thereby
made him ineligible to take the bar exam. He filed a civil suit against UE for
damages because he suffered moral shock, mental anguish, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, and sleepless nights due to UEs
negligence. The petitioner denied liability arguing that it never led
respondent to believe that he completed the requirements for an LlB degree
when his name was included in the tentative list of graduating students. The
court ruled in favor of the respondent.
ISSUE: Whether or not UE be held liable for damages to the respondent.
HELD: The petition lacks merit. The court ruled that the petitioners liability
arose from its failure to promptly inform the result of the examination and in
misleading respondent into believing that the latter had satisfied all the
requirements for graduation. However, while petitioner was guilty of
negligence and thus liable to respondent for the latters actual damages, we
hold that respondent should not have been awarded moral damages. As a
senior law student respondent should have been responsible enough to
ensure that all his affairs, specifically those pertaining to his academic
achievement, are in order. WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of CA is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner is ordered to pay the sum of Php
35, 470 with legal interest of 6% per annum computed from the date of filing
of the complaint until fully paid; the amount of Php 5000 as attorneys fees
and the cost of the suit. The award of moral damages is deleted.
SO ORDERED.

Globe Mackay vs.CA 176 SCRA 778 GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND
RADIO CORP., and HERBERT C. HENDRY, petitioners vs. THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and RESTITUTO M. TOBIAS,
respondents.
FACTS: Private respondent Restituto M. Tobias was employed by petitioner
Globe Mackay in dual capacity as purchasing agent and administrative
assistant to the engineering operations manager. In 1972, the respondent
discovered fraudulent anomalies and transactions in the said corporation for
which it lost several hundred thousands of pesos. The private respondent
reported to his superiors including Henry, the petitioner. However, he was
confronted by Hendry stating that Tobias was the number one suspect. He
was ordered to take a one week forced leave. When he returned to work,
Hendry called him crook and swindler, and left a scornful remark to the
Filipinos. The petitioners also charged six criminal cases against the
respondentfive cases of estafa and one for violating Article 290 of the RPC
(Discovering Secrets through Seizure of Correspondence). The petitioner also
sent a poison letter to RETELCO causing the respondent to be unemployed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners are liable for damages to the
respondent.
HELD: Petitioners invoked the right of damnun absque injuria or the damage
or loss which does not constitute a violation of legal right or amount to a
legal wrong is not actionable. However, this is not applicable in this case. It
bears repeating that even granting that petitioners might have had the right
to dismiss Tobias from work, the abusive manner in which that right was
exercised amounted to a legal wrong for which petitioners must be held
liable.
The court awarded Tobias the following: Php 80, 000 as actual damages, Php
200, 000 as moral damages, Php 20, 0000 as exemplary damages; Php 30,
000 as attorneys fees; and, costs. Petition was denied and the decision of CA
is AFFIRMED.

Quisumbing vs MERALCO TITLE: Sps. Quisumbing vs. MERALCO

CITATION: GR No. 142943, April 3, 2002
FACTS:
The plaintiff, spouses Antonio and Lorna Quisumbing are the owners of a
house located at #94 Greenmeadows Avenue, Quezon City. Around 9AM on
March 3, 1995, defendants inspectors headed by Emmanuel C. Orlino were
assigned to conduct a routine on the spot inspection of all single phase
meters at the house and observed as standard operating procedure to ask
permission and was granted by the plaintiffs secretary. After the inspection,
it was found that the meter had been tampered with. The result was relayed
to the secretary who conveyed the information to the owners of the house.
The inspectors advised that the meter be brought in their laboratory for
further verifications. In the event that the meter was indeed tampered,
defendant had to temporarily disconnect the electric services of the couple.
After an hour, inspectors returned and informed the findings of the laboratory
and asked the couple that unless they pay the amount of P178,875.01
representing the differential bill their electric supply will be disconnected.
The plaintiff filed complaint for damages with a prayer for the issuance of a
writ of preliminary injunction despite the immediate reconnection.
ISSUE: Whether or not MERALCO acted maliciously and malevolent manner
done without due process, lack of regard for QUISUMBINGs rights, feelings,
social and business reputation and therefore held them accountable and
plaintiff be entitled for damages.
HELD:
Supreme Court partly granted the petition and ordered plaintiff to pay
respondent the billing differential of P193,332.96 while latter is ordered to
pay petitioners moral and exemplary damages including attorneys fees.
Moral damages may be recovered when rights of individuals including right
against the deprivation of property without due process of law are violated.
Exemplary damages on the other hand are imposed by way of example or
correction for public. SC recognized the effort of MERALCO in preventing
illegal use of electricity. However, any action must be done in strict
observance of the rights of the people. Under the law, the Manila Electric
Company (Meralco) may immediately disconnect electric service on the
ground of alleged meter tampering, but only if the discovery of the cause is
personally witnessed and attested to by an officer of the law or by a duly

authorized representative of the Energy Regulatory Board. During the

inspection, no government official or ERB representative was present.
Petitioners claim for actual damages was not granted for failure to supply
proof and was premised only upon Lornas testimony. These are
compensation for an injury that will put the injure position where it was
before it was injured.