4.

MORAL DAMAGES

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

Article 2218. In the adjudication of moral damages, the sentimental value of property, real or personal, may be considered.

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

The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral damages.

The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named.

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

Moral damages are awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusement that will serve to alleviate the moral
suffering he has undergone by reason of the defendant’s culpable action.

Requisites of award of moral damages:

1. Injury sustained by claimant (whether physical, mental mor psychological);
2. Culpable action or omission factually established;
3. Such must be the proximate effect of the tortious act (fraud/bad faith);
4. Award of damages predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219;
5. Testimony of the offended party or other evidence to prove the suffering.

A. Amount of Award

General rule: Moral damages must be alleged and proved.

Exception: In criminal proceedings, the court may award moral damages as the court may deem just without need for pleading or proof of the
basis.
 A person who commits a crime is deemed in bad faith.
 Cases when moral suffering is presumed: rape, murder, homicide.
 Moral damages must be proven, but the amount is determined by the judge. Plaintiff must prove the legal basis for the award; actual
amount is up to the judge.

When moral damages may be awarded:

1. Culpa Aquiliana – when the act or omission caused the physical injuries or when the defendant is guilty of intentional tort.
2. Culpa Contractual – when the defendant acted in bad faith or was guilty of fross negligence or wanton disregard of his contractual obligation.
3. Culpa Criminal – when the accused is found guilty of physical injuries, lascivious acts, adultery or concubinage, illegal or arbitrary detention,
illegal arrest, illegal search or defamation.
4. Contract of Carriage – In cases of death of passenger.

General Rule: In breach of contract, moral damages are proper only when there is fraud, malice or bad faith.
Exception: When the party breaching the contract is a bank, in the exercise of its fiduciary capacity, there is no need for bad faith in order for the
moral damages to be awarded.

Only the victim or the person who suffered may recover moral damages except as those provided for in Article 2219.

Factors in determining the amount of moral damages:

1. Sentimental value
2. Extent of humiliation
3. Nature and extent of pain and suffering
4. Official, political social, financial standing of offended party and the business and financial standing of the offender
5. Age of the claimant
Tiongson v. Fernandez Plaintiffs constructed at the mouth of the
Aguirra a concrete dam. Later on, they
increased the height of the dam, shutting
off completely the water supply of
Aguirra creek which is an old irrigation
canal. This affected the irrigated ricelands
of the defendants located below the dam
in controversy.
Rosario Lao v. CA Rosario Lao filed a complaint-affidavit for
carnapping for the taking of a jeep
against Antonio and Frank.
Frank then filed a complaint for damages
against Rosario alleging that he suffered
mental anguish due to the fabricated,
baseless and malicious charges of
carnapping filed against him.
The complaint was dismissed in the lower
court due to malicious prosecution.
Rosario Lao appealed arguing that
complaint-affidavit was a qualified
privileged communication and thus
cannot be guilty of malicious prosecution.
Globe Telecom v. Florendo- Globe reduced Joan Florendo-Flores,
Flores Senior Account Manager for Northern
Luzon Globe, to a house-to-house selling
agent of company products. She argued
Are defendants entitled YES. Willful injury to property may be
to moral damages for the legal ground for awarding moral
construction of the damages if the court should find that
plaintiffs’ dam? under the circumstances such damages
are justly due.
Considering that the plaintiffs
deliberately blocked totally the water
supply by increasing the elevation of
the dam without government
authorization, the award of moral
damages is proper.
Is there malicious YES. To constitute malicious
prosecution on the part prosecution and hold defendant liable,
of Rosario Lao, hence there must be proof that the
liable for damages? prosecution was prompted by a sinister
design to vex and humiliate a person
and that the prosecution was initiated
with the deliberate knowledge that the
charge was false and baseless.
Elements of malice and absence of
probable cause are present in this case.
Rosario knew the whereabouts of the
jeep and carnapping is therefore not
probable.
Minor point:
Complaint-affidavit being a privileged
communication cannot be a defense
for malicious prosecution.
Was Flores constructively YES. An award of actual and moral
dismissed and therefore damages is proper as the dismissal is
entitled to actual and attended by bad faith, or was
moral damaes? oppressive to labor, or done in a
that her immediate superior never
accomplished her evaluation report
depriving her of salary increases, bonuses
and other incentives.
manner contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy.
Constructive dismissal exists when
there is cessation of work because
“continued employment is rendered
impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as
an offer involving a demotion in rank
and diminution in pay. This is present in
this case. Thus, Flores is also entitled to
backwages.