You are on page 1of 9

Makabali v.

CA and Baron Travel Corporation Facts: Georgina Makabali had just graduated from the College of Medicine, University of the Philippines, and as a graduation gift from her father, was given a trip to Hongkong. An advertisement of private respondent Baron Travel Corporation in the March 30, 1969 issue of the newspaper The Sunday Times' offering a package tour to Hongkong caught the attention of petitioner Georgina Makabali. Petitioners were assured that they would be going with a group of thirteen other travelers to be led by a tour guide, a certain Mr. Arsenio Rosal, and that a representative of private respondent would see them off at the Manila International Airport to give them final instructions. Petitioners were also that they would be lodged at the President Hotel in Hongkong. These promises and representations convinced the petitioners to purchase the Hongkong package tour offered by private respondent. On the departure date, May 10, 1969, petitioners searched for the tour group they were supposed to meet at the Manila International Airport. They likewise searched for private respondent's representative who would give them final instructions on their trip to Hongkong. They met neither private respondent's tour group nor its representative. Inside the plane, petitioners did not meet anyone from the Baron Tour Group. They looked for and found a certain Mr. Arsenio Rosal who, to their embarrassment, protested that he was not a tour guide but a business executive working with International Harvester Macleod, Inc. and who was going to Hongkong as a paying passenger. In fact, he knew no one from private respondent Baron Travel Corporation and had nothing to do with it. In Hongkong, nobody met petitioners at the airport. Thereafter, petitioners called up the President Hotel in Hongkong where private respondent promised to book them but it had no accommodations for them. Left with no alternative, petitioners tagged along with the Abaya Tour Group. Petitioners claimed public humiliation due to the fact that they had to pay for their lunch while the rest of the group had prepaid meals. They could not go shopping with the Abaya group for fear that their limited funds would not be sufficient to pay for their hotel bills. There were times when breakfast consisted of hot dogs bought along the sidewalk while lunch and supper consisted of apples and oranges. According to petitioners, they had to scrimp on their limited budget for fear that their meager pocket money would not be enough to pay for their hotel bills. All these caused them sleepless nights because of great worry, mental anguish and public humiliation.

It was only at 9:00 in the morning on the fourth day of the supposed five-day tour that petitioners were notified that private respondent had finally made arrangements for the payment of their bills. By that time, the supposed tour was practically over. Upon their return, petitioners complained to private respondent who according to petitioners did not even bother to apologize but simply ignored their complaint and gave them the run around. An action for moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs was filed by the petitioners in the then Court of First Instance of Manila. They prayed for an award of P100 as actual and compensatory damages, P30,000.00 as moral damages, P6,000.00 as exemplary damages plus attorney's fees and costs. Trial Court awarded them only P500 in moral and exemplary damages. Court of Appeals increased this amount to P5,000 in moral and exemplary damages, and P1,000 in attorneys fees. Issue: W/N Petitioners are entitled to a larger amount of moral and exemplary damages. Held: YES. Moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P35,000 are awarded. Article 2217 of the Civil Code recognizes that moral damages which include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury, are incapable of pecuniary estimation. As to exemplary damages, Article 2229 of the Civil Code provides that such damages may be imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. While exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right, they need not be proved, although plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded. As reflected in the records of the case, the Court of Appeals was in agreement with the findings of the trial court that petitioners suffered anguish, embarrassment and mental sufferings due to failure of private respondent to perform its obligation to the petitioners, and in acting with wanton disregard of the rights of petitioners. These pronouncements lay the basis and justification for this Court to award petitioners moral and exemplary damages.

In the light of the circumstances surrounding the case at bar, especially the social standing of petitioners and the embarrassment and humiliation suffered by them, the anxiety they must have felt in their first journey to a foreign land under uncertain circumstances and with meager funds which could run out any time, petitioners are entitled to more damages than the CA awarded. It must be emphasized that moral damages are not intended to enrich the complainant at the expense of a defendant. They are awarded only to enable the injured parties to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral sufferings the injured parties have undergone by reason of defendant's culpable action. In other words, the award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration within the limits of the possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; and therefore it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. The amount of P5,000.00 is minimal compared to the sufferings and embarrassment of petitioners who left Manila with high spirits and excitement hoping to enjoy their first trip to a foreign land only to be met with uncertainties and humiliations. However, as petitioners limited their claim for moral and exemplary damages in their complaint filed with the Court of First Instance to a total of P35,000.00 plus attorney's fees and costs, the award must not exceed that amount. People v. Catubig Facts: Danilo Catubig y Horio, was charged with the crime of rape before the Regional Trial Court. On November 27, 1997, at around 4:00 oclock in the afternoon, private complainant Dannilyn Catubig and her four younger siblings were watching television in the sala of their house. After an hour, Dannilyns father, herein appellant Danilo Catubig, arrived and told Dannilyns siblings to proceed, as in fact they did proceed, to her aunts house, which was just located nearby. Thereafter, appellant told Dannilyn to go inside a room and to lie down on the bed. After Dannilyn had complied, appellant removed Dannilyns shorts and panty, while appellant, after removing his brief and t-shirt, laid on top of Dannilyn. Afraid of appellant who beat and raped her in the past, Dannilyn was not able to resist appellant who succeeded in having intercourse wih her. However, Dannilyns aunt, who got suspicious of what appellant was doing to Dannilyn, informed the latters mother, Jocelyn Catubig, about the said suspicion. Thus, when confronted by her mother, Dannilyn was forced to reveal that she was indeed raped by appellant. The sexual assault was reported to the San Jose del Monte Police Station. Dannilyn was examined by Dr. Wilfredo E. Tiera, MedicoLegal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, who found out that Dannilyns healed laceration in the hymen was caused by sexual intercourse. The accused denied the accusation against him. He claimed that the rape charge was brought about only because of the ill-will

between him, on the one hand, and his wife and daughter Dannilyn, on the other hand, following a quarrel. Regional Trial Court rendered a decision holding the accused guilty of the crime of rape, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of DEATH, and to pay private complainant Dannilyn Catubig the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages. With the imposition of the death penalty by the trial court, the records were elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review. The Supreme Court modified said decision, reducing the Death penalty to reclusion perpetua due to the failure of the information to state the special qualifying circumstance of the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her paternal relationship to the offender. As to the issue of damages, the court stated that an apparent discord in the award of exemplary damages in simple and qualified rape cases perhaps deserves more than just a passing remark. Issue: W/N exemplary damages may be awarded in cases of qualified rape. Held: YES, they may be. The attendance of aggravating circumstances in the perpetration of the crime serves to increase the penalty (the criminal liability aspect) as well as to justify an award of exemplary or corrective damages (the civil liability aspect, moored on the greater perversity of the offender manifested in the commission of the felony. Relationship is an alternative circumstance under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code. Under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the death penalty is to be imposed in rape cases when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. Somehow doubts linger on whether relationship may then be considered to warrant an award for exemplary damages where it is used to qualify rape as a heinous crime, thereby becoming an element thereof, as would subject the offender to the penalty of death. Exemplary or corrective damages are intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings, and as a vindication of undue

sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct. The term aggravating circumstances used by the Civil Code, the law not having specified otherwise, is to be understood in its broad or generic sense. The commission of an offense has a twopronged effect, one on the public as it breaches the social order and the other upon the private victim as it causes personal sufferings, each of which is addressed by, respectively, the prescription of heavier punishment for the accused and by an award of additional damages to the victim. The increase of the penalty or a shift to a graver felony underscores the exacerbation of the offense by the attendance of aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, in its commission. Unlike the criminal liability, which is basically a State concern, the award of damages, however, is likewise, if not primarily, intended for the offended party who suffers thereby. It would make little sense for an award of exemplary damages to be due the private offended party when the aggravating circumstance is ordinary, but to be withheld when it is qualifying. Withal, the ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil, liability of the offender. In fine, relative to the civil aspect of the case, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code. Trans-Asia Shipping Lines v. CA and Atty. Arroyo Facts: Atty. Renato Arroyo, a public attorney, bought a ticket from Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, a corporation engaged in inter-island shipping, for the voyage of M/V Asia Thailand vessel to Cagayan de Oro City. Upon boarding the vessel, Arroyo noticed that some repair work was being done on the engine of the vessel. The vessel departed eventually departed with only one engine running. After an hour of slow voyage, the vessel stopped near Kawit Island and dropped its anchor. After half an hour of stillness, some passengers demanded that they should be allowed to return to Cebu City for they were no longer willing to continue their voyage to Cagayan de Oro City. The captain acceded to their request and thus the vessel headed back to Cebu City. There, Arroyo had to wait for the next day before he could head back out to Cagayan de Oro City on another vessel.

On account of Trans-Asias failure to transport him to his destination on time, Arroyo filed before the trial court a complaint for damages. He alleged that the engines of the M/V Asia Thailand conked out in the open sea, and for more than an hour it was stalled and at the mercy of the waves, thus causing fear in the passengers. It sailed back to Cebu City after it regained power, but for unexplained reasons, the passengers, including Arroyo, were arrogantly told to disembark without taking the necessary precautions against possible injury to them. They were thus unceremoniously dumped, which only exacerbated the private respondents mental distress. He further alleged that by reason of the petitioners wanton, reckless, and willful acts, he was unnecessarily exposed to danger and, having been stranded in Cebu City for a day, incurred additional expenses and loss of income. He then prayed that he be awarded P1,100.00, P50,000.00, and P25,000.00 as compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages, respectively. The trial court rendered its decision and ruled that the action was only for breach of contract, with Articles 1170, 1172, and 1173 of the Civil Code as applicable law - not Article 2180 of the same Code. It was of the opinion that Article 1170 made a person liable for damages if, in the performance of his obligation, he was guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, or in any manner contravened the tenor thereof. It therefore dismissed the case, finding no reason from the facts adduced to believe that Trans-Asia had acted with bad faith, negligently, wantonly, or with malice. Unsatisfied, the Arroyo appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial courts decision by applying Article 1755 in relation to Articles 2201, 2208, 2217, and 2232 of the Civil Code and, accordingly, awarded compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages. Issue: W/N Arroyo is entitled to the damages he claims Held: Arroyo is granted moral and exemplary damages, but refused to grant actual damages and attorneys fees. Undoubtedly, there was, between the petitioner and the private respondent, a contract of common carriage. Under Article 1733 of the Civil Code, the petitioner was bound to observe extraordinary diligence in ensuring the safety of the private respondent. That meant that the petitioner was, pursuant to Article 1755 of the said Code, bound to carry the private respondent safely as far as human care and foresight could provide, using the

utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances. In this case, we are in full accord with the Court of Appeals that the petitioner failed to discharge this obligation. Even before Trans-asia could finish the repairs on its vessel, it allowed the vessel to leave the port of origin on only one functioning engine, instead of two. Moreover, even the lone functioning engine was not in perfect condition as sometime after it had run its course, it conked out. Plainly, the vessel was unseaworthy even before the voyage began. The failure of a common carrier to maintain in seaworthy condition its vessel involved in a contract of carriage is a clear breach of is duty prescribed in Article 1755 of the Civil Code. As to its liability for damages to the private respondent, Article 1764 of the Civil Code expressly provides: ART. 1764. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book, concerning Damages. Article 2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by common carrier. The damages comprised in Title XVIII of the Civil Code are actual or compensatory, moral, nominal, temperate or moderate, liquidated, and exemplary. Arroyo claims actual or compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages. Actual Damages Actual or compensatory damages represent the adequate compensation for pecuniary loss suffered and for profits the obligee failed to obtain. In contracts or quasi-contracts, the obligor is liable for all the damages which may be reasonably attributed to the nonperformance of the obligation if he is guilty of fraud, bad faith, malice, or wanton attitude. As to the rights and duties of the parties strictly arising out of the delay suffered by Arroyo, the Civil Code is silent. However, as correctly pointed out by the petitioner, Article 698 of the Code of Commerce specifically provides for such a situation. It reads: In case a voyage already begun should be interrupted, the passengers shall be obliged to pay the fare in proportion to the distance covered, without right to recover for losses and damages if the interruption is due to fortuitous event or force majeure, but with a right to indemnity if the interruption should have been caused by the captain exclusively. Article 698 must be read together with Articles 2199, 2200,

2201, and 2208 in relation to Article 21 of the Civil Code. So read, it means that the petitioner is liable for any pecuniary loss or loss of profits which the private respondent may have suffered by reason thereof. For Arroyo, such would be the loss of income if unable to report to his office on the day he was supposed to arrive were it not for the delay. This, however, assumes that he stayed on the vessel and was with it when it thereafter resumed its voyage, but he did not. Arroyo demanded to be returned to Cebu, where he took another vessel (also owned by Trans-Asia) the following day. Any further delay then in Arroyos arrival at the port of destination was caused by his decision to disembark. Had he remained on the first vessel, he would have reached his destination at noon of 13 November 1991, thus been able to report to his office in the afternoon. He, therefore, would have lost only the salary for half of a day. But actual or compensatory damages must be proved, which Arroyo failed to do. There is no convincing evidence that he did not receive his salary for 13 November 1991, nor that his absence was not excused. Moral and Exemplary Damages Moral damages include moral suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, or similar injury. They may be recovered in the cases enumerated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code, likewise, if they are the proximate result of, as in this case, the petitioners breach of the contract of carriage. Anent a breach of a contract of common carriage, moral damages may be awarded if the common carrier, like the petitioner, acted fraudulently or in bad faith. Exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. In contracts and quasicontracts, exemplary damages may be awarded if the defendant acted in a wanton fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. It cannot, however, be considered as a matter of right; the court having to decide whether or not they should be adjudicated. Before the court may consider an award for exemplary damages, the plaintiff must first show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages; but it is not necessary that he prove the monetary value thereof. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the petitioner is liable for moral and exemplary damages. In allowing its unseaworthy M/V Asia Thailand to leave the port of origin and undertake the contracted voyage, with full awareness that it was exposed to perils of the sea, it deliberately disregarded its solemn duty to exercise extraordinary diligence and obviously acted with bad faith and in a wanton and reckless manner.

Attorneys Fees This Court, however, did not affirm the award of attorneys fees. To merit such an award, it is settled that the amount thereof must be proven, and such must be specifically prayed for - as was not done in this case - and may not be deemed incorporated within a general prayer for such other relief and remedy as this court may deem just and equitable.