Oscar Ventanilla v.

Gregorio Centeno (nominal damages)

G.R. No. L-14333, January 28, 1961

FACTS:

Ventanilla filed a civil case and retained the services of Atty. Centeno. An unfavorable
decision was rendered so Centeno and Ventanilla agreed to file an appeal. Atty. Centeno wrote a
letter to Ventanilla enclosing forms for an appeal bond.

Ventanilla, however, instead of executing an appeal bond, and because use of his
reluctance to pay the premium on the appeal bond, decided to file a cash appeal bond of P60.00.
Ventanilla went to the office of Atty. Centeno but was informed by the clerk that Centeno was in
Laguna campaigning for his candidacy as member of Provincial Board. He issued a P60.00
check and handed it to the clerk with an instruction to give it to Atty. Centeno.

Centeno filed a motion for extension of time to file the record on appeal. Two days later,
he cashed the check and went to the office of the Clerk of Court to file the appeal bond.
According to Atty. Centeno it was not accepted because the period of appeal had already expired.

Ventanilla claims that the trial court erred in in ordering Centeno to pay him only the sum
of P200, and not P2,000 as nominal damages; and in not ordering the appellee to pay the
appellant the sum of P500 as attorney's fees.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Ventanilla is entitled to actual or compensatory, moral, temperate or

moderate, and exemplary or corrective damages.

RULING:

He who claims actual or compensatory damages must establish and prove by

competent evidence actual pecuniary loss. The appellant's bare allegation that by reason of the
appellee's indifference, negligence and failure to perfect within the reglementary period his
appeal from an adverse judgment by not paying the appeal bond of P60, he lost his chance to
recover from the defendants therein the sum of P4,000 and moral and actual damages, which he
could have recovered if the appeal had duly been perfected, indicates that his claim for actual or
compensatory damages is highly speculative. Hence he is not entitled to such damages.

Moral damages are recoverable only when physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shocks, social humiliation, and
similar injury are the proximate result of a criminal offense resulting in physical injuries, quasi-
delicts causing physical injuries, seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts, adultery or
concubinage, illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest, illegal search, libel, slander or any other
form of defamation, malicious prosecution, disrespect for the dead or wrongful interference with
funerals, violation of specific provisions of the Civil Code on human relations, and willful injury
to property. Since the appellant's cause of action for recovery of moral damages is not
predicated upon any of those specifically enumerated, the trial court did not err in declining to
award moral damages to him.

Concerning temperate or moderate damages claimed by the appellant, considering that

he is not entitled to actual or compensatory damages but has been awarded nominal damages by
the trial court, such award precludes the recovery of temperate or moderate damages, and so the
trial court did not err in refusing to award temperate or moderate damages to the appellant.

As regards exemplary or corrective damages also claimed by the appellant, since it

cannot be recovered as a matter of right and the court will decide whether or not they should
be adjudicated, if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent
manner, the trial court has judiciously, wisely and correctly exercised its discretion in not
awarding them to the appellant.

Considering the circumstances, as found by the trial court, and the degree of negligence
committed Centena, the amount of P200 awarded by the trial court to the appellant as nominal
damages may seem exiguous. Nevertheless, considering that nominal damages are not for
indemnification of loss suffered but for the vindication or recognition of a right violated or
invaded; and that even if the appeal had been duly perfected, it was not an assurance that the
appellant would succeed in recovering the amount he had claimed in his complaint, the amount
of P2,000 the appellant seeks to recover as nominal damages is excessive. The amount awarded
to the appellant for nominal damages should not be disturbed.

As regards attorney's fees, since the appellant's claim does not fall under any of those
enumerated in article 2208, new Civil Code, the appellee may not be compelled to satisfy it.

GSIS v. Spouses Labung-Deang (temperate damages)

G.R. No. 13 5644, September 17, 2001

FACTS:
Spouses Deang obtained a housing loan from the GSIS in the amount of eight thousand
five hundred pesos. The loan was secured by a real estate mortgage constituted over the spouses'
property issued by the Register of Deeds of Pampanga. As a requirement, the spouses Deang
deposited the owner's duplicate copy of the title with the GSIS.

Eleven (11) months before the maturity of the loan, the spouses Deang settled their debt
with the GSIS and requested for the release of the owner's duplicate copy of the title. However,
personnel of the GSIS were not able to release the owner's duplicate of the title as it could not be
found despite diligent search. Thus, GSIS commenced the reconstitution proceedings.

As a consequence of the delay, the spouses Deang filed a complaint against GSIS for
damages, because they were unable to secure a loan, the proceeds of which could have been used
in defraying the estimated cost of the renovation of their residential house and which could have
been invested in some profitable business undertaking.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not the spouses Labung-Deang are entitled to temperate damages, attorney’s
fees, legal interests and costs of suit.

RULING:

In a breach of contract, moral damages are not awarded if the defendant is not shown
to have acted fraudulently or with malice or bad faith. The fact that the complainant suffered
economic hardship or worries and mental anxiety is not enough.

There is likewise no factual basis for an award of actual damages. Actual damages to
be compensable must be proven by clear evidence. A court cannot rely on “speculation,
conjecture or guess work” as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend on actual
proof.

However, it is also apparent that the spouses Deang suffered financial damage because
of the loss of the owners’ duplicate copy of the title. In line with this, temperate damages may
be granted.

There is no need for proof of pecuniary loss in temperate damages. The rationale behind
temperate damages is precisely that from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss
cannot be offered. When the court is convinced that there has been such loss, the judge is
empowered to calculate moderate damages, rather than let the complainant suffer without redress
from the defendant’s wrongful act

Attorney’s fees which are granted as an item of damages are generally not recoverable.
The award of attorney’s fees is the exception rather than the rule and counsel’s fees are not to be
awarded every time a party wins a suit. The award of attorney’s fees demands factual, legal
and equitable justification; its basis cannot be left to speculation or conjecture.

Moral damages

Phil. Veterans Bank v. NLRC

FACTS:

In 1983 PVB was placed under receivership by central bank its employees, including Dr.
Teodorico Molina were terminated from work and given separation pay and benefits. In 1985
some former employees were rehired to assist in the liquidation process, including Molina. In
1991, Molina filed a complaint regarding wage orders providing for increases in his salary which
were not implemented in his case. He also filed for moral damages and attorney’s fees.

The labor arbiter ruled in favor of Molina and ordered that he should be paid his wage
differentials with 100,000 moral for damages and attorney’s fees. The NLRC sustained the
decision of the Labor Arbiter. PVB filed an MR but it was denied. Hence, this petition.
PVB claims that the 100,000 for moral damages and attorney’s fees is inappropriate since it was
not specified in the complaint, Molina failed to prove his claim and it is clearly excessive.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the damages were properly awarded to Molina.

RULING:

Moral damages and attorney’s fees cannot be consolidated. The two are different in nature so
each must be separately determined. The labor code provides that attorney’s fees should be 10%
of the wages awarded.

Moral damages may only be recovered when dismissal is attended by bad faith or fraud and the
act is oppressive to labor, contrary to good morals, customs or public policy. In the case at bar,
dismissal is made in the ordinary course of business.

The records show that MOLINA based his claim on the alleged failure of the liquidation team to
implement the benefits of the wage orders, without submitting any proof in support thereof. It is
basic, however, that for moral damages to be awarded, the claimant must satisfactorily prove its
factual basis and causal connection with the respondent’s acts. In this, MOLINA failed, for
which reason the award of moral damages must be deleted.

People v. Senen Paredes

FACTS:

Senen Paredes was found guilty of rape by the lower court. He was sentenced to death and was
ordered to pay moral damages in the sum of 50,000. Because of the death sentence, the case was
submitted to the SC for automatic review.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the award for moral damages was proper.

RULING:

The award of 50,000 comprises actual damages ex delicto. It is mandatory upon finding the fact
of rape. The amount is increased to 75,000 due to the existence of aggravating circumstances
(trespass to dwelling, armed with a handgun) and he is ordered to pay an additional 50,000 as
moral damages.
People v. Escobar

FACTS:

Escobar was adjudged guilty of raping the 5 year-old daughter of his employers.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the victim is entitled to moral damages.

RULING:

Escobar is ordered to pay 50,000 as actual damages ex delicto and 50,000 moral damages. The
grant of moral damages is automatically made in rape cases without need of proof for it is
assumed that the complainant has sustained mental, physical and psychological sufferings, thus
entitling her to such award.