Você está na página 1de 88

Domingding vs.

Ng Facts: The present action was brought by Jose Domingding, owner of the mango store and plaintiff Araas, his manager, to recover from Trinidad Ng and her husband the value of 400 baskets of mangoes claimed to have been delivered on May 25, 1953. Allegation is made in the complaint that the purchasers had agreed to pay the following day but that they failed to do so. In answer defendants allege that only 150 baskets were taken and that these were to be paid for, according to the understanding between the parties, when the price of the mangoes exported had been collected. Defendants also put up a counterclaim against David Araas for the amount of P50,000 as moral damages for the indecent indignities to which Trinidad Ng was subjected by plaintiff Araas, for P10,000 as exemplary damages, and for P1,000 as attorney's fees. In the judgment rendered, defendants were sentenced to pay the value of 150 baskets of mangoes on plaintiffs' complaint; but, on the other hand, plaintiff Araas was sentenced to pay to defendant the sum of P50,000 as moral damages, and the further sum of P1,000 as attorney's fees. The owner of the store, Jose Domingding withdrew his appeal, so the present case concerns David Araas alone. Issue: WON the award of moral damages was justifiable. Held/Ratio: No. The law provides that moral damages are to be fixed in the discretion of the judge. Unfortunately, the decision appealed from states no reasons or facts or circumstances why the moral damages had been fixed at P50,000. As the trial judge had opportunity to examine the parties, both offender and offended, it would have been easy for him to have specified such circumstances, such as the bearing, manners, personality, education, and so forth, of the parties all of which it should have considered in assessing the moral damages of P50,000. But it failed to do so, and this Court feels it difficult to fix the amount of moral damages that should be paid. From the record, however, we note that the offended party is a married woman, a business woman, and so is the offender; the occasion was during nighttime, so the indignities suffered by the offended party could not have been witnessed by many people; the assault on the person's dignity did not last because before covering Elcano Street, where the parties embarked, the offended party was able to get out of the taxi and saved from the indignities being made by the offender; and the only persons that learned of the assault were the two taxi drivers, the offended party's husband and the offender. In cases like the present, the social and financial standings of the offender and the offended party are additional elements which should be taken into account in the determination of the amount of moral damages. While it is true that social dignity does not depend upon the wealth or poverty of a person, the amount necessary to repair the damage thereto depends upon her own social and financial means. The financial standing and means of the offender is also a convenient gauge for

the determination of the amount necessary to repair the injury caused.

Yutuk vs. MERALCO (supra) Issue: WON the award of P25,000 in moral damages by the trial court was justifiable. Held/Ratio: No. While moral damages are incapable of pecuniary estimation, they are made recoverable, if they are proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission; and since these damages affect the aggrieved party's moral feeling and personal pride, "these should be weighed in the determination of the indemnity" (Layda vs. Court of Appeals, 90 Phil., 724.) After appellant filed a complaint for theft of electricity against appellee in the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, it can no longer deny that it had charged appellee, a lady member of the Bar, with the commission of that ugly and denigrating criminal offense. The facts of the case show that the appellant did it with reckless negligence. While we agree with the trial court that appellant should be made to pay damages to appellee, we are of the opinion that the sum of P25,000.00 granted as moral damages is exorbitant. Considering appellee's personal circumstances and reputation, the mental anguish she suffered by reason of the false imputation made against her which resulted in besmirched reputation, ridicule and humiliation, we are of the opinion that appellee is entitled to the sum of P5,000.00 as moral damages, to the further sum of P10,000.00 as exemplary damages, and to the sum of P5,000.00 as attorney's fees.

Lopez vs. Pan American World Airways Facts: Plaintiffs were travelling with first class tickets issued-by defendant and yet they were given only the tourist class seats. The trial court awarded them P150,000 in moral damages. Issue: WON the trial court erred in awarding the aforesaid amount in moral damages. Held/Ratio: No. As a proximate result of defendant's breach in bad faith of its contracts with plaintiff's 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 stop-overs, 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.

Mambulao Lumber vs. PNB Facts: Judgment was rendered against PNB for illegally foreclosing Mambulaos chattel mortgages. On appeal, Mambulao is seeking moral damages. Issue: WON Mambulao Lumber is entitled to moral damages. Held/Ratio: No. Herein appellant's claim for moral damages, however, seems to have no legal or factual basis. Obviously, an artificial person like herein appellant corporation cannot experience physical sufferings, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shock or social humiliation which are the basis of moral damages. A corporation may have a good reputation which, if besmirched, may also be a ground for the award of moral damages. The same cannot be considered under the facts of this case, however, not only because it is admitted that herein appellant had already ceased in its business operation at the time of the foreclosure sale of the chattels, but also for the reason that whatever adverse effect the foreclosure sale of the chattels could have upon its reputation or business standing would undoubtedly be the same whether the sale was conducted at Jose Panganiban. Camarines Norte, or in Manila which is the place agreed upon by the parties in the mortgage contract.

BPI vs. CA & Villar Petitioner bank was adjudged liable by the trial court to pay damages to private respondent for the unauthorized withdrawal by means of forged checks of P17,000.00 out of the total deposit of P17,403.25 in the account of the latter thereby resulting in the dishonor for insufficiency of her funds of a check for P830.00 to pay her dressmaker causing some embarrassment and mental anxiety on her part. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision which is now the subject of the instant petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court found the award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees to be excessive considering that restitution of the amount withdrawn by means of the forged checks have been made; that the forgery was shown to have been done skillfully so that it could not have been detected easily by the bank's signature verifiers; and that the negligence of petitioner and its employees was not tantamount to a degree of being wanton and reckless. It modified the appealed decision by reducing the amount of moral damages and attorney's fees awarded and eliminating the grant of exemplary damages. Judgment modified.

UCPB vs. Ramos Facts: Respondent instituted a complaint for damages against petitioner Bank before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. Respondent alleged that he was the owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 275167; that he was not the judgment debtor in Civil Case No. 16453 but Teofilo Ramos, Sr.; that without any legal basis, the petitioner and sheriff Villapana caused the annotation of a notice of levy in the TCT of his aforesaid property which caused the disapproval of the loan from the UCPB and, thus made him lose an opportunity to participate in the bidding of a considerable project; that by reason of such wrongful annotation of notice of levy, he suffered sleepless nights, moral shock, mental anguish and almost a heart attack due to high blood pressure. Petitioner admitted that it made a mistake in causing the annotation of notice of levy on the TCT of the respondent, but claimed that it was not motivated by malice or bad faith; that the respondent was not the party-in-interest to file the action for damages, as he was not the one who applied for a loan from UCPB and PDB but Ramdustrial Corporation of which he was merely the President and Chairman of the Board of Directors; that it took the respondent quite a long time to file a motion to cancel the levy. The RTC eventually ruled for the respondent. On appeal, its decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. Issue: WON the RTC erred in awarding P800,000 in moral damages. Held/Ratio: No. for the award of moral damages to be granted, the following must exist: (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. In the case at bar, although the respondent was not the loan applicant and the business opportunities lost were those of Ramdustrial Corporation, all four requisites were established. First, the respondent sustained injuries in that his physical health and cardio-vascular ailment were aggravated; his fear that his one and only property would be foreclosed, hounded him endlessly; and his reputation as mortgagor had been tarnished. Second, the annotation of notice of levy on the TCT of the private respondent was wrongful, arising as it did from the petitioner's negligent act of allowing the levy without verifying the identity of its judgment debtor. Third, such wrongful levy was the proximate cause of the respondent's misery. Fourth, the award for damages is predicated on Article 2219 of the Civil Code, particularly, number 10 thereof.

Sweet Lines vs. CA, Quintos, Et. al Facts: Respondents filed a suit for damages for breach of contract of carriage which the was granted by Trial Court, affirmed by respondent Appellate Court. The trial court awarded P75,000.00 as moral damages divided among the plaintiffs as follows: P30,000.00 for Mrs. Micaela B. Quintos, P25,000.00 for Jesuit Father Jose Bacatan; P10,000.00 for Mrs. Andrea Veloso and P10,000.00 for plaintiff Mike Cabras. Issue: WON moral damages are recoverable in the case at bar. Held/Ratio: Yes. Under Article 2220 of the Civil Code, moral damages are justly due in breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court found that there was bad faith on the part of petitioner. That finding of bad faith is binding on this Court, since it is not the function of the Court to analyze and review evidence on this point all over again, aside from the fact that the Court finds it faithful to the meaning of bad faith enunciated thus: "Bad faith means a breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or illwill. Selfenrichment or fraternal interest, and not personal illwill, may have been the motive, but it is malice nevertheless." Under the circumstances, however, the Court finds the award of moral damages excessive and accordingly reduce them to P3,000.00, respectively, for each of the private respondents.

Vasquez Vda. de Arroyo vs. CA and de la Via Facts: Judgment was rendered against Vda. de Arroyo finding her guilty of malicious prosecution in filing an unwarranted estafa case. The trial court also ordered Vda. de Arroyo to pay P30,000.00 by way of moral damages arising from defendant's violation of the contract. Issue: WON the trial court erred in awarding moral damages. Held/ Ratio: No. Since the established facts clearly sustain the conclusion that the petitioner has acted in bad faith, as found by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, the Resolution under review must be affirmed. Nevertheless, the Court feels that under the circumstances, a reduction of the award of moral damages from P30,000.00 to P15,000.00 and attorney's fees from P10,000.00 to P5,000.00, is warranted.

Peregrina vs. Panis (Judge) and Sps. Sanchez Facts: Sps. Sanchez filed a civil action for damages against for alleged disrespect for the dignity, privacy and peace of mind of the SPOUSES under Article 26 of the Civil Code, and for alleged defamation under Article 33 of the same Code. PETITIONERS, as defendants below, moved for the dismissal of the Complaint. Before filing an Opposition, the SPOUSES applied for a Writ of Preliminary Attachment. Respondent Judge denied PETITIONERS' Motion to Dismiss on the ground that under Rule 57, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, the application for attachment can be made at the commencement of the action or any time thereafter. Issue: WON respondent judge erred in denying petitioners motion to dismiss. Held/ Ratio: Yes. The parties herein fall squarely within the ambit of P.D. No. 1508. They are actual residents in the same barangay and their dispute does not fall under any of the excepted cases. It will have to be held, therefore, that respondent Judge erred in reconsidering his previous Order of dismissal on the ground that the provisional remedy of attachment was seasonably filed. Not only was the application for that remedy merely an afterthought to circumvent the law, but also, fundamentally, a Writ of Attachment is not available in a suit for damages where the amount, including moral damages, is contingent or unliquidated. Prior referral to the Lupon for conciliation proceedings, therefore, was indubitably called for.

Magbanua vs. IAC and Perez Facts: The six plaintiffs who are the petitioners at bar all alleged that they are share tenants of the defendants; that the defendants diverted the free flow of water from their farm lots which caused portions of their landholdings to dry up to their great damage and prejudice; and that they were told by the defendants' overseer to vacate their respective areas for they could not plant palay any longer due to lack of water. They prayed that they be declared as leasehold tenants and that the defendants be ordered to pay attorney's fees and different kinds of damages. The trial court awarded each of the plaintiffs P10,000 in moral and exemplary damages. However, the IAC deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages in the dispositive portion of the trial courts decision. Issue: WON the award of moral and exemplary damages should be reinstated. Held/Ratio: Yes. Under the facts of the case, the plaintiffs (now petitioners) are entitled to a measure of moral damages. Article 2219 of the Civil Code permits the award of moral damages for acts mentioned in Article 21 of the same code and the latter stipulates that: "Any person who wilfully 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." It appears that the petitioners were denied irrigation water for their farm lots in order to make them vacate their landholdings. The defendants violated the plaintiffs' rights and caused prejudice to the latter by the unjustified diversion of the water. The petitioners are also entitled to exemplary damages because the defendants acted in an oppressive manner. (See Art. 2232, Civil Code.)

Mayo vs. People Facts: Mayo was found guilty of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property with Multiple Serious, Less Serious, and Slight Physical Injuries. The trial court awarded to private complainant Linda Navarette P700,000 in moral damages. Issue: WON the trial court erred in awarding P700,000, by way of moral damages, Linda Navarette. Held/Ratio: Yes. Complainant Linda Navarette is entitled to moral damages. She suffered injuries as a result of the criminal offense of the petitioner. Moreover, her injuries resulting in a permanent scar at her forehead and the loss of her right eye undoubtedly gave her mental anguish, wounded feelings and shock. The psychological effect on her as regards the scar on her forehead and her false eye must have devastated her considering that women in general are fastidious on how they look. However, we find no justification to award moral damages in favor of Linda Navarette for the loss of her boyfriend. No doubt, the loss of her boyfriend after the accident added to her mental and emotional sufferings and psychologically affected and disturbed her. Moreover, there is no clear evidence on record to show that her boyfriend left her after the accident due to her physical injuries. He may have left her even if she did not suffer the slightest injury. The reasons for the break-up of a courtship are too many and too complicated such that they should not form the basis of damages arising from a vehicular accident. Moreover, granting that her boyfriend left her due to her physical injuries, we still find no legal basis for the award of moral damages in favor of complainant Navarette because of the loss of a boyfriend. Article 2719 of the New Civil Code quoted earlier enumerates cases wherein moral damages may be granted. Loss of a boyfriend as a result of physical injuries suffered after an accident is not one of them. Neither can it be categorized as an analogous case. Amount of moral damages reduced to P200,000.

Solidbank vs. Tan Facts: The trial court found petitioner negligent for the loss of Tans check and awarded respondents P25,000 each in moral and exemplary damages. Issue: WON the trial court erred in awarding the aforesaid amount of moral damages. Held/Ratio: No. While petitioner may argue that simple negligence does not warrant the award of moral damages, it nonetheless cannot insist that that was all it was guilty of. It refused to produce the original copy of the deposit slip which could have proven its claim that it did not receive respondents' missing check. Thus, in suppressing the best evidence that could have bolstered its claim and confirmed its innocence, the presumption now arises that it withheld the same for fraudulent purposes. Moreover, in presenting a false deposit slip in its attempt to feign innocence, petitioner's bad faith was apparent and unmistakable. Bad faith imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity or conscious doing of a wrong that partakes of the nature of fraud.

MERALCO vs. T.E.A.M. Electronics Corporation (supra) Issue: WON the trial court erred in awarding P500,000 by way of moral damages to T.E.A.M. Electronics Corporation. Held/Ratio: Yes. We, however, deem it proper to delete the award of moral damages. TEC's claim was premised allegedly on the damage to its goodwill and reputation. As a rule, a corporation is not entitled to moral damages because, not being a natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or sentiments like wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish and moral shock. The only exception to this rule is when the corporation has a reputation that is debased, resulting in its humiliation in the business realm. But in such a case, it is imperative for the claimant to present proof to justify the award. It is essential to prove the existence of the factual basis of the damage and its causal relation to petitioner's acts. In the present case, the records are bereft of any evidence that the name or reputation of TEC/TPC has been debased as a result of petitioner's acts. Besides, the trial court simply awarded moral damages in the dispositive portion of its decision without stating the basis thereof.

Aznar vs. Citibank Facts: 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. The trial court awarded P10,000,000 in moral damages to petitioner. However, the CA set aside the decision of the trial court. Issue: WON petitioner is entitled to moral damages. Held/Ratio: No. It is not enough that one merely suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish or serious anxiety as a result of the actuations of the other party. It is also required that a culpable act or omission was factually established, that proof that the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is shown as the proximate cause of the damage sustained by the claimant and that the case is predicated on any of the instances expressed or envisioned by Arts. 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code. In culpa contractual or breach of contract, moral damages are recoverable only if the defendant has acted fraudulently or in bad faith, or is found guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith, or in wanton disregard of his contractual obligations. The breach must be wanton, reckless, malicious or in bad faith, oppressive or abusive. While the Court commiserates with Aznar for whatever undue embarrassment he suffered when his credit card was dishonored by Ingtan Agency, especially when the agency's personnel insinuated that he could be a swindler trying to use blacklisted cards, the Court cannot grant his present petition as he failed to show by preponderance of evidence that Citibank breached any obligation that would make it answerable for said suffering.

Pantaleon vs. American Express Facts: Pantaleon sent a letter through counsel to the respondent, demanding an apology for the "inconvenience, humiliation and embarrassment he and his family thereby suffered" for respondent's refusal to provide credit authorization for the purchases made in the U.S.. In response, respondent sent a letter dated 24 March 1992, stating among others that the delay in authorizing the purchase from Coster was attributable to the circumstance that the charged purchase of US $13,826.00 "was out of the usual charge purchase pattern established". Since respondent refused to accede to Pantaleon's demand for an apology, the aggrieved cardholder instituted an action for damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 145. The trial court awarded P500,000 by ay of moral damages to petitioner which was, however, reversed by the Court of Appeals. Issue: WON respondent is liable for moral damages. Held/Ratio: Yes. Moral damages avail in cases of breach of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith, and the court should find that under the circumstances, such damages are due. The findings of the trial court are ample in establishing the bad faith and unjustified neglect of respondent, attributable in particular to the "dilly-dallying" of respondent's Manila credit authorizer, Edgardo Jaurique. The delay committed by defendant was clearly attended by unjustified neglect and bad faith, since it alleges to have consumed more than one hour to simply go over plaintiff's past credit history with defendant, his payment record and his credit and bank references, when all such data are already stored and readily available from its computer. This Court also takes note of the fact that there is nothing in plaintiff's billing history that would warrant the imprudent suspension of action by defendant in processing the purchase. We sustain the amount of moral damages awarded to petitioner by the RTC. There is no hard-andfast rule in determining what would be a fair and reasonable amount of moral damages, since each case must be governed by its own peculiar facts, however, it must be commensurate to the loss or injury suffered. Petitioner's original prayer for P5,000,000.00 for moral damages is excessive under the circumstances, and the amount awarded by the trial court of P500,000.00 in moral damages more seemly.

San Andres vs. CA and Aguila Respondent Aguila bought livestock from petitioner with a total value of P5,571. He paid P2,957.55 of the purchase price on the same day, and subsequently P1,100.00, leaving a balance of P1,543.95. When respondent failed to pay, petitioner filed a criminal complaint for estafa against him with the Chief of Police of Pasacao, Camarines Sur where he made it appear that respondent received livestock from him valued at P3,681.30 without paying a single centavo, promising to pay the amount within three or four days when respondent would have already sold the same in Manila. Respondent was arrested in his store in Manila and then brought to Pasacao, Camarines Sur. The parties, however, reached an amicable settlement and the Estafa case was dismissed. Respondent paid the balance of the purchase price of petitioner's livestock, but thereafter sued petitioner, the Chief of Police, and the Municipal Judge of Pasacan for damages based on malicious prosecution. The Trial Court dismissed the complaint for damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found petitioner guilty of bad faith and malice in the filing of the Estafa case and held him liable to respondent in the sum of P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P5,000.00 as attorney's fees. The Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against the Chief of Police and the Municipal Judge. On Petition for Review, the Supreme Court found the Court of Appeals' finding of bad faith and malice in the filing of the Estafa case supported by law and evidence, but resolved to give due course to the Petition only in so far as the award of damages is concerned. It held that moral damages are designed to compensate the claimant for actual injuries suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. Award of moral damages was reduced to P10,000.00 and attorney's fees to P3,000.00.

Sps. Tan Kapoe vs. Masa Facts: The trial court awarded moral and exemplary damages as well as attorneys' fees and costs of suit to private respondents on the ground of malicious prosecution by petitioners. Issue: Petitioners submit that moral damages cannot be awarded in the absence of any testimony as to physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, social humiliation and similar injuries; and that moral damages and exemplary damages cannot be merged in one award. Held/Ratio: No. It is true that the award of moral damages was made on the basis of documentary evidence consisting of Orders of the Court in the cases filed against private respondents without supporting oral testimonies. However, we find that the results of the filing of the unfounded successive complaints satisfactorily prove the existence of the factual basis for moral damages and the causal relation to petitioners' acts. Case after case was filed by petitioners. Not a single one prospered. Private respondents also suffered the humiliation of incarceration. Beyond doubt, petitioners' motive was obviously for harrassment and embarrassment of private respondents and as a retaliatory measure for the agrarian case for conversion that they had filed, making the latter suffer moral suffering and anxiety. The award of moral and exemplary damages in an aggregate amount may not be the usual way of awarding said damages. However, there can be no question that the entitlement to moral damages having been established, exemplary damages may be awarded. And exemplary damages may be awarded even though not so expressly pleaded in the complaint nor proved.

Strebel vs.Figueras As a general rule, the right of recovery for mental suffering resulting from bodily injuries is restricted to the person who has suffered the bodily hurt, and there can be no recovery for distress caused by sympathy for another's suffering, or for fright due to a wrong against a third person. So the anguish of mind arising as to safety of others who may be in personal peril from the same cause cannot be taken into consideration." "In law, mental anguish is restricted as a rule, to such mental pain or suffering as arises from an injury or wrong to the person himself, as distinguished from that form of mental suffering which the accompaniment of sympathy or sorrow for another's suffering or which arises from a contemplation of wrongs committed on the person of another. Pursuant to the rule stated, a husband or wife cannot recover for mental suffering caused by his sympathy for the other's suffering. In this connection, it should be noted that plaintiff is not even related to Dr. Hernandez. The latter's wife is a daughter of Mrs. Strebel by a previous marriage. Hence Dr. Hernandez is merely related by affinity, not to Strebel, but to a relative by affinity of said plaintiff. It would be extremely dangerous, apart from unjust, to sanction a recovery, by the plaintiff, of moral damages for the temporary transfer of Dr. Hernandez. If the mental anguish allegedly suffered by plaintiff in consequence thereof were sufficient to give him a cause of action therefor, there would be no valid legal reason to deny the same relief to any other person who might have thus been inconvenienced, such as the friends of Dr. Hernandez, and public officials similarly situated, as well as those who may have been adversely affected by the deterioration, if any, in the service of the office or bureau which had been temporarily deprived of the services of said physician.

Cariaga vs. Laguna Tayabas Bus.- Appellants. Manila Railroad Company Appellee Facts: Cariaga was seriously injured when a bus (owned by LTB) he was riding collided with a train owned by MRC. The lower court held that it was the negligence of the bus driver that caused the accident and, as a result, rendered judgment sentencing the LTB to pay Edgardo Cariaga the sum of P10,490.00 as compensatory damages, with interest at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint, and dismissing the cross-claim against the Manila Railroad Company. From this decision the Cariagas and the LTB appealed. The Cariagas claim that the trial court erred: in awarding only P10,490. as compensatory damages to Edgardo; in not awarding them actual and moral damages, and in not sentencing appellant LTB to pay attorney's fees. Issue: WON the trial court erred in not awarding Cariaga moral damages. Held/Ratio: No. Plaintiffs' claim for moral damages cannot also be granted. Article 2219 of the Civil Code enumerated the instances when moral damages may be covered and the case under consideration does not fall under any one of them. The present action cannot come under paragraph 2 of said article because it is not one of the quasi-delict and cannot be considered as such because of the preexisting contractual relations between the Laguna Tayabas Bus Company and Edgardo Cariaga. Neither could defendant Laguna Tayabas Bus Company be held liable to pay moral damages to Edgardo Cariaga under Article 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. Defendant Laguna Tayabas Bus Company had exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees like the drivers of its buses in connection with the discharge of their duties and so it must be considered an obligor in good faith.

Mercado vs. Lira Facts: Lira and several others seek to recover damages from Mercado and Laguna Tayabas Bus for the deaths of their kin and injuries they suffered in a bus owned and operated by Mercado. The trial court awarded moral damages which was however deleted by the Court of Appeals. Issue: WON respondent Court of Appeals erred in not awarding moral damages to petitioner Nita Lira for physical injuries and mental suffering sustained by her, resulting from breach of the special contract of carriage caused by the negligence of the respondents. Held/Ratio: No. (1) that the case of a passenger of a carrier who suffered physical injuries "because of the carrier's negligence (culpa contractual), cannot be considered in the descriptive expression 'analogous cases', used in Art. 2219"; and (2) that in cases of breach of contract (including one of transportation) proof of bad faith or fraud (dolus) i.e., wanton or deliberate injurious conduct is essential to justify an award of moral damages. There being no evidence of fraud, malice or bad faith, contemplated by law, on the part of the respondents, because the cause of the accident was merely the bursting of a tire while the bus was over speeding, the cause of petitioner Nita Lira should fail, as far as moral damages is concerned. Moral damages was, therefore, correctly eliminated by the Court of Appeals.

Flordelis vs. Mar Facts: Private respondents, teachers in the Bohol School of Arts and Trades, were charged with perjury at the instance of the school administrator, Gotardo Flordelis, and were not paid their salaries although they were holding classes and were thereafter suspended. Notwithstanding the acquittal of the private respondents, Flordelis continued their suspension for their alleged refusal to accept new assignments and filed an administrative complaint against them for abandonment of office, malversation and insubordination. The then Secretary of Education and Culture decided in favor of private respondents ordering their reinstatement and payment of their back wages. During the pendency of the administrative case, private respondents filed an action for mandamus to compel Flordelis to reinstate them with back wages and to pay them moral and exemplary damages. The trial court rendered judgment ordering respondents' reinstatement with back wages and awarding them moral and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court but modified the amount of the damages. Flordelis appealed to the Supreme Court. Issue: WON Mar and Ligan are entitiled moral to damages. Held/Ratio: No. There is no showing by the lower court and the Appellate Court and by Mar and Ligan that this case falls within any of the cases enumerated in articles 2219 and 2220. The same is true with respect to the exemplary damages. No justification has been shown by the appellees for the award of exemplary damages.

Kierulf vs. CA and PANTRANCO Facts: The victims of the vehicular mishap pray for an increase in the award of damages, over and above those granted by the appellate court. In this case, the husband of the victim of the vehicular accident claims compensation/damages for the loss of his right to marital consortium which, according to him, has been diminished due to the disfigurement suffered by his wife. Issue: WON the respondent Court of Appeals erred in awarding only P200,000.00 and P25,000.00 as and for moral damages for the petitioners Kierulf and Legaspi respectively when it should at least have been P1,000,000.00 and P100,000.00 respectively. Held/Ratio: No. Victor's claim for deprivation of his right to consortium, although argued before Respondent Court, is not supported by the evidence on record. His wife might have been badly disfigured, but he had not testified that, in consequence thereof, his right to marital consortium was affected. Clearly, Victor (and for that matter, Lucila) had failed to make out a case for loss of consortium, unlike the Rodriguez spouse. Again, we emphasize that this claim is factual in origin and must find basis not only in the evidence presented but also in the findings of the Respondent Court. For lack of factual basis, such claim cannot be ruled upon by this Court at this time. The social and financial standing of Lucila cannot be considered in awarding moral damages. The factual circumstances prior to the accident show that no "rude and rough" reception, no "menacing attitude," no supercilious manner," no "abusive language and highly scornful reference" was given her. The social and financial standing of a claimant of moral damages may be considered in awarding moral damages only if he or she was subjected to contemptuous conduct despite the offender's knowledge of his or her social and financial standing.

Philippine Rabbit vs. Esguerra Respondent Patrocinio Esguerra, a paying passenger in a bus of Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., was seriously injured when said vehicles and a freight truck of Transport Contractors, Inc. sideswiped each other in the midle of the road. Esguerra filed an action for damages against the owners of said vehicles and their respective drivers. The trial court dismissed the complaint against Transport Contractors, Inc. and Modesto Joaquin but ordered Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. and Nicasio de los Reyes to pay solidarily the plaintiff P25,085.40 as compensatory damages, P5,000.00 as moral damages, P 2,000.00 as attorney's fees and the costs of the suit. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the compensatory damages to. P20,085.40 and ordered all four defendants to pay solidarily said amounts to the plaintiff. On certiorari, petitioners Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. and Nicasio de los Reyes contend that the award of P 5,000.00 moral damages is contrary to law and jurisprudence; and that the award of P2,000.00 attorney's fees is without factual and legal basis. On review, the Supreme Court held that the instant case falls under the jurisprudential rule that moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damages predicated on a breach of contract of transportation in view of the provisions of Articles 2219 and 2220 of the New Civil Code; but that with respect to the attorney's fee of P2,000.00, the same need not be proved and is allowed in the discretion of the court after considering several factors which are discernible from the facts brought out during trial, such as its present in the instant case where respondent Esguerra as plaintiff in the lower court was compelled to litigate and incur expenses in order to protect his interest.

Panay Electric vs. CA, Sarabia and Luzon Surety Private respondent, Florentino Sarabia, was employed by petitioner in 1952 as a bill collector. He posted two surety bonds in favor of petitioner in the total amount of P4,000 with his co-respondent as surety. In 1965, based on an auditing report showing that Sarabia incurred a shortage of P12,155.68 in his collections for a period of 7 1/2 years, he was not allowed to continue working by petitioner and a suit for reimbursement was thereafter filed against him and his surety. In his Answer, private respondent denied the shortage and attributed the same to erroneous accounting. He prayed for attorney's fees and actual damages. Later, he filed an Amended Answer alleging dismissal without cause and praying for reinstatement with back salaries and damages. The Trial Court, finding the shortage to be only in the amount of P41.85, ordered Sarabia's reinstatement with back wages and the payment to him of moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, expenses of litigation, and costs. The complaint against the surety was dismissed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the amount of the shortage and the reinstatement ordered but modified the judgment by limiting the backwages and reducing the amount of moral and exemplary damages. On petition for review, the Supreme Court held that the finding as to the amount of shortage is a factual finding that is binding upon this Court in the absence of established exceptions; that respondent employee is entitled to reinstatement and backwages; but that the award of moral damages, in the absence of bad faith, fraud or malice, and of exemplary damages, where petitioner had not acted in a "wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner," are uncalled for. Judgment modified.

Baens vs. CA and Chua Seng Facts: This is a petition for certiorari seeking to review that portion of the decision of respondent Court of Appeals which merely reduced the award of damages in favor of private respondent Chua Seng instead of eliminating them entirely as well as that portion affirming the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing petitioner's complaint for unlawful detainer. Issue: WON petitioner could be held liable for moral damages from an adverse judgment against her in an unlawful detainer case. Held/Ratio: No. It has been held that while damages may be adjudged in forcible entry and detainer casts, these `damages` mean `rents` or `the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises,` or `fair rental value of the property. Since moral, exemplary, and actual damages are neither "rents" nor "reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises," nor "fair rental value" as abovestated, we are constrained to deny the P3,000.00 moral damages and P2,000.00 exemplary damages awarded by the respondent Court of Appeals and the P1,000.00 actual damages awarded by the City Court of Manila.

R & B Surety vs. CA and Uson Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari, seeking to set aside the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court which awarded the private respondent moral and exemplary damages plus attorney's fees, after finding that the petitioner acted in bad faith in filing an action against said respondent. Issue: WON respondent court correctly adjudged the petitioner guilty of bad faith and negligence in filing the complaint against respondent Uson sufficiently to warrant an award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees in the total amount of P135,000.00. Held/Ratio: No. While petitioner might have been negligent in not verifying the authenticity of the signatures in the indemnity agreement, still the same does not amount to bad faith as to justify the award of damages and the conclusion that the act of filing the complaint against respondent Uson amounts to malicious prosecution. In filing the action, the petitioner was only protecting its business interests by trying to recover the amount it had already paid to the Philippine National Bank. In a long line of cases, we have consistently ruled that in the absence of a wrongful act or omission or of fraud or bad faith, moral damages cannot be awarded and that the adverse result of an action does not per se make the action wrongful and subject the actor to the payment of damages, for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate.

Bagumbayan Corp. vs. IAC and Sps. Sea Facts: This case is about the customer's claim for moral and exemplary damages due to the alleged negligence of a waiter which caused the dress of Mrs. Sea to be drenched in water. Mrs. Sea was claiming moral damages of P100,000 for herself and her husband due to embarrassment and the fact that the management did not even offer any apology on that night. After hearing, the trial court awarded the Seas P1,540 as actual damages consisting of the value of Mrs. Sea's outfit and P540, the cost of the six tickets used by the Sea family which was considered a loss because of their alleged failure to enjoy the show. It also awarded the Seas P50,000 as moral damages, P10,000 as exemplary damages and P5,000 as attorney's fees. The corporation appealed. The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the judgment with the modification that the moral and exemplary damages were reduced to P15,000 and P5,000, respectively. Hence, this appeal. Issue: WON the CA erred in awarding moral damages. Held/Ratio: Yes. The instant case is not specifically mentioned in article 2219 which refers to quasi-delicts causing physical injuries. The Appellate Court erred in considering it as analogous to the cases mentioned therein without indicating what specific case the instant case resembles or is analogous to. Generally, there can be no recovery of moral damages if the case is not mentioned in articles 2219 and 2220 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.

Equitable Banking vs. IAC, Villariza, Villariza and Contreras Facts: This case is about the recovery of moral and exemplary damages allegedly because of a collection suit for P250 which was paid one day after the suit was filed. The theory of lawyer Fernando N. Contreras is that it was a malicious prosecution against him. On the other hand, the bank's theory is that the claim of P80,000 for moral damages is bereft of rhyme or reason. Issue: WON Contreras is entitled to moral damages. Held/Ratio: No. In this case, Contreras filed in the municipal court a counterclaim for P80,000 which he announced would be the object of a separate complaint in the proper forum. As observed by Chief Justice Fernando, the expenses and annoyance of litigation form part of the social burden of living in a society which seeks to attain social control through law. A long catena of cases supports the proposition that moral damages are not recoverable for unsuccessful suits filed in good faith.

Felisilda vs. Villanueva (Judge) and Galeon Facts: Judgment was rendered in favor of Galeon in an ejectment suit. The lower courts decision included an award of P7,000 in moral and exemplary damages. Issue: WON the lower court erred in awarding moral and exemplary damages. Held/Ratio: Yes. In passing, it is relevant to state that the city court's adjudication of P7,000 moral and exemplary damages in Galeon's favor in the ejectment suit was manifestly erroneous. Trial judges have a reprehensible propensity to adjudge moral and exemplary damages without any justification. Mere vexation or mental anguish is not sufficient to warrant moral damages. The case must come within the terms of articles 2217 to 2220 of the Civil Code. The only damages that can be recovered in an ejectment suit are the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the real property. Other damages must be claimed in an ordinary action.

Guita vs. CA and Haguisan Facts: The Court of Appeals held Guita liable for moral damages for issuing, in his capacity as Administrative Officer of the Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation (MMIC), a certification to respondent Cesar Haguisan stating that the latter was employed by MMIC as security guard from August 21, 1956 up to the date of his separation on February 23, 1971, "after he was found mentally unfit to work." Guita was also ordered to pay Haguisan P10,000 in moral damages. Issue: WON CA erred in awarding moral damages to Haguisan. Held/Ratio: Yes. In the instant case, we find that the appellate court's finding that petitioner, in issuing the disputed certification, acted with malice, is bereft of factual support. In the trial court, Haguisan tried to prove that Guita was motivated by malice or bad faith when he made the certification. The trial judge rejected the testimony of plaintiffs (private respondents) and their witnesses as "without the earmarks of truth". This factual finding deserves the highest respect and ought not to be disturbed, in accordance with settled jurisprudence on the matter.

LBC Express vs. CA, Carloto and Rural Bank of Labason Facts: Respondents sought damages from LBC for the late delivery of its cashpack. The trial court awarded moral damages to Carloto and the Rural Bank of Labason. Issue: WON the trial court erred in awarding moral damages. Held/Ratio: Moral damages are granted in recompense for physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. A corporation, 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 life - all of which cannot be suffered by respondent bank as an artificial person. We can neither sustain the award of moral damages in favor of the private respondents. The right to recover moral damages is based on equity. Moral damages are recoverable only if the case falls under Article 2219 of the Civil Code in relation to Article 21. 10 Part of conventional wisdom is that he who comes to court to demand equity, must come with clean hands. In the case at bench, respondent Carloto is not without fault. We also hold that respondents failed to show that petitioner LBC's late delivery of the cashpack was motivated by personal malice or bad faith, whether intentional or thru gross negligence.

Lufthansa German Airlines vs. CA and Ferry Facts: Don Ferry filed a complaint against Lufthansa on April 1, 1986 in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, for recovery of damages arising from breach of contract. The trial court awarded moral damages in the amount of US$75,000.00 or its peso equivalent Issue: WON Lufthansa could be held liable for moral damages. Held/Ratio: No. The breach was not attended by fraud or bad faith, however. When Petra Wilhelm, petitioner airline's ticket agent at its Frankfurt Airport office, informed private respondent that an authorization from Manila was needed before she could give an endorsement, what was foremost in her mind was the policy regarding currency restrictions in effect at that time, which was made known and explained to private respondent in San Francisco. Apparently, the significance of the previously confirmed reservation completely escaped Mrs. Wilhelm on that occasion. The omission or failure of petitioner airline then to give private respondent the required endorsement was thus evidently due to a misappreciation of the significance of private respondent's previously confirmed reservation, and not to any willful desire to deny private respondent the right to utilize another airline. Where the defendant is not shown to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith in breaching the contract, liability for damages is limited to the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties had foreseen or could reasonably have foreseen. In such a case, liability would not include the payment of moral and exemplary damages. Under Article 2232 of the Civil Code, in a contractual or quasi-contractual relationship, moral or exemplary damages may be awarded only if the defendant had acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.

PAL vs. Miano Facts: Respondent filed a complaint against petitioner for allegedly mishandling his baggage. The trial court observed that petitioner's actuation was not attended by bad faith. Nevertheless, it awarded P40,000 to respondent by way of moral damages. Issue: WON the trial court erred in awarding moral damages. Held/Ratio: Yes. In breach of contract of carriage by air, moral damages are awarded only if the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. Bad faith means a breach of a known duty through some motive of interest or ill will. The trial court erred in awarding moral damages to private respondent. The established facts evince that petitioner's late delivery of the baggage for eleven (11) days was not motivated by ill will or bad faith. In fact, it immediately coordinated with its Central Baggage Services to trace private respondent's suitcase and succeeded in finding it. At the hearing, petitioner's Manager for Administration of Airport Services Department Miguel Ebio testified that their records disclosed that Manila, the originating station, did not receive any tracer telex. A tracer telex, an airline lingo, is an action of any station that the airlines operate from whom a passenger may complain or have not received his baggage upon his arrival. It was reasonable to presume that the handling of the baggage was normal and regular. Upon inquiry from their Frankfurt Station, it was however discovered that the interline tag of private respondent's baggage was accidentally taken off. According to Mr. Ebio, it was customary for destination stations to hold a tagless baggage until properly identified. The tracer telex, which contained information on the baggage, is matched with the tagless luggage for identification. Without the tracer telex, the color and the type of baggage are used as basis for the matching. Thus, the delay.

Vda. De Medina vs. Cresencia Facts: A reservation for independent civil action for damages was filed by plaintiffs in a criminal case for homicide through reckless imprudence. After the commencement of the criminal action, the lower court held that as far as the public is concerned, defendant Cresencia, in the eyes of the law, continued to be the legal owner of the jeepney in question; and rendered judgment against him, jointly and severally with the driver Brigido Avorque, for P6,000 compensatory damages, P30,000 moral damages, P10,000 exemplary damages, P10,000 nominal damages, P5,000 attorneys fees, and costs. From this judgment, defendant Cresencia appealed. Issue: WON the trial court was correct in awarding nominal damages. Held/Ratio: No. The award of P10,000 by way of nominal damages is untenable as a matter of law, since nominal damages can not co-exist with compensatory damages. The purpose of nominal damages is to vindicate or recognize a right that has been violated, in order to preclude further contest thereon; "and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him" (Articles 2221, 2223, new Civil Code.) Since the court below has already awarded compensatory and exemplary damages that are in themselves a judicial recognition that plaintiff's right was violated, the award of nominal damages is unnecessary and improper. Anyway, ten thousand pesos can not, in common sense, be deemed "nominal".

Ventanilla vs. Centeno Facts: This is an action to recover damages claimed to have been suffered by the plaintiff due to the Atty. Centenos neglect in perfecting within the reglementary period his appeal from an adverse judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila in civil case No. 18833, attorney's fees and costs (civil No. 2063, Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija). After trial, the Court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, ordering the latter to pay the former the sum of P200 as nominal damages and the costs. Issue: WON the trial court erred in awarding only P200 in nominal damages instead of P2,000. Held/Ratio: No. The assessment of nominal damages is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of the case. Considering the circumstances, as found by the trial court, and the degree of negligence committed by the appellee, a lawyer, in not depositing on time the appeal bond and filing the record on appeal within the extension period granted by the court, which brought about the refusal by the trial court to allow the record on appeal, 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 in civil case No. 18833 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. After weighing carefully all the considerations, the amount awarded to the appellant for nominal damages should not be disturbed.

Mindanao Academy vs. Yap Facts: Two separate actions [1) annulment of the sale and recovery of rents and damages; and 2) rescission] were filed against Yap. In the first action, the trial court ordered Yap to pay to the plaintiffs stockholders of the Mindanao Academy, Inc., the amount of P10,000.00 as nominal damages; P3,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P2,000.00 as attorney's fees. These damages shall be apportioned to each of the stockholders named as plaintiffs in said case in proportion to their respective interests in the corporation." Issue: WON the trial court erred in ordering Yap to pay nominal and exemplary damages to the stockholders of Mindanao Academy. Held/Ratio: Yes. The interests of the said stockholders, if any, were already represented by the corporation itself, which was the proper party plaintiff; and no cause of action accruing to them separately from the corporation is alleged in the complaint, other than that for moral damages due to "extreme mental anguish, serious anxiety and wounded feelings." The trial court, however, ruled out this claim for moral damages and no appeal from such ruling has taken. The award for nominal and exemplary damages should be eliminated in toto.

Northwest Airlines vs. Cuenca Facts: Respondent boarded petitioner's plane in Manila with a first class ticket to Tokyo. Upon arrival at Okinawa, an agent of petitioner rudely compelled him, in the presence of other passengers, to move to the tourist class. Respondent protested, revealing that he was traveling in his official capacity as delegate of the Republic of the Philippines to a conference in Tokyo. In order to reach the conference on time, respondent obeyed. Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in awarding P20,000 in nominal damages to respondent. Held/Ratio: No. Having been given first class accommodation as he took petitioner's plane in Manila, respondent was entitled to believe that this was a confirmation of his first class reservation and that he would keep the same until his ultimate destination, Tokyo. Since the offense had been committed with full knowledge of the fact that respondent was an official representative of the Republic of the Philippines, the sum of P20,000.00 awarded as damages may well be considered as merely nominal. At any rate, considering that petitioners agent had acted in a wanton, reckless and oppressive manner, said award may, also, be considered as one for exemplary damages.

People vs. Avenado and Cardendas Facts: The trial court found respondents guilty of murder and aggravated illegal possession of firearm and sentencing each of them to death. They were also ordered to pay the surviving heirs of the deceased the amount of P500,000.00 as moral damages and another sum of P150,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages. Issue: WON the trial court erred in awarding P150,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages was made by the trial court to cover hospital bills and funeral expenses. Held/Ratio: Yes. The rule is that actual and compensatory damages must be duly proved with a reasonable degree of certainty for the courts cannot rely on speculation or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages. Furthermore, Art. 2199 of the Civil Code provides that one claiming actual damages is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. In the present case, other than the self-serving testimony of Rosalinda Acenas, widow of Restituto Acenas, the prosecution failed to present any receipt to prove the amount claimed as actual damages. For lack of evidentiary basis, the Court is thus constrained to delete the award of P150,000.00 for actual and compensatory damages. It being clear, however, that the heirs of Restituto Acenas really incurred hospital and funeral expenses, they are hereby awarded the amount of P15,000.00 by way of nominal damages.

Gonzales vs. People Facts: Petitioner was convicted of arson and also ordered to pay private complainants in the amount of P10,000. Issue: WON private complainants are entitled to nominal/temperate damages. Held/Ratio: Yes. On the damages, we have consistently held that proof is required to determine the reasonable amount of damages that may be awarded to the victims of conflagration. As a rule, therefore, actual or compensatory damages must be proved and not merely alleged. The records do not show concrete proof of the amount of actual damages suffered by each complaining witness. Thus, we cannot grant actual damages. However, we may award nominal and temperate damages. The assessment of nominal damages is left to the discretion of the trial court according to the circumstances of the case. Generally, nominal damages by their nature are small sums fixed by the court without regard to the extent of the harm done to the injured party. However, it is generally held that a nominal damage is a substantial claim, if based upon the violation of a legal right; in such a case, the law presumes damage although actual or compensatory damages are not proven. In truth, nominal damages are damages in name only and not in fact, and are allowed, not as an equivalent of wrong inflicted, but simply in recognition of the existence of a technical injury. Now, temperate damages may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot from the nature of the case be proved with certainty. Under the circumstances, we find it reasonable to award Canlas with P500,000 temperate damages, and to the other complaining witnesses, Simpao and Villaflor, the amount of P100,000 as temperate damages each.

Philippine Commercial International Bank vs. Alejandro (supra) Issue: WON the Court of Appeals erred in awarding P2,000,000.00 as nominal damages. Held/Ratio: Yes. Nominal damages may be awarded to a plaintiff whose right has been violated or invaded by the defendant, for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right, and not for indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. Its award is thus not for the purpose of indemnification for a loss but for the recognition and vindication of a right. Indeed, nominal damages are damages in name only and not in fact. They are recoverable where some injury has been done but the pecuniary value of the damage is not shown by evidence and are thus subject to the discretion of the court according to the circumstances of the case. In this case, the award of nominal damages is proper considering that the right of respondent to use his money has been violated by its garnishment. The amount of nominal damages must, however, be reduced from P2 million to P50,000.00 considering the short period of 2 months during which the writ was in effect as well as the lack of evidence as to the amount garnished.

MCC Industrial Sales vs. Ssangyong Corporation Facts: Ssangyong a civil action for damages due to breach of contract against defendants MCC. Ssangyong alleged that defendants breached their contract when they refused to open the L/C in the amount of US$170,000.00 for the remaining 100MT of steel under Pro Forma Invoice Nos. ST2-POSTS0401-1 and ST2-POSTS0401-2. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Ssangyong and ordered MCC to pay actual damages of US$93,493.87 representing the outstanding principal claim plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum from March 30, 2001. Issue: WON the MCC was liable for actual damages as found by the trial court. Held/Ratio: No. Ssangyong did not adequately prove that the items resold at a loss were the same items ordered by the petitioner. Therefore, as the claim for actual damages was not proven, the Court cannot sanction the award. Nonetheless, the Court finds that petitioner knowingly breached its contractual obligation and obstinately refused to pay despite repeated demands from respondent. Petitioner even asked for several extensions of time for it to make good its obligation. But in spite of respondent's continuous accommodation, petitioner completely reneged on its contractual duty. For such inattention and insensitivity, MCC must be held liable for nominal damages. "Nominal damages are 'recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind or where there has been a breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages whatsoever have been or can be shown.'" Accordingly, the Court awards nominal damages of P200,000.00 to respondent Ssangyong.

Robes-Francisco Realty & Development vs. CFI and Millan Facts: The trial court ordered petitioner to pay respondent P20,000 as nominal damages for its failure to convey a transfer certificate of title to the buyer who had fully paid the purchase price of the lot. Issue: WON the award for nominal damages of P20,000.00 and attorney's fee of P5,000.00 which are allegedly excessive and unjustified. Held/Ratio: Yes. The amount of P20,000 awarded as nominal damages against realty corporation for failure to convey a transfer certificate of title to the buyer who had fully paid the purchase price of the lot is excessive. Nor may such award be considered in the nature of exemplary damages where the failure to convey the transfer certificate of title was not attended by fraud or bad faith, because in breach of a contract exemplary damages are awarded if the guilty party acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good only if the injured party has shown that he is entitled to recover moral, temperate or compensatory damages. However, the Court held that the sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) by way of nominal damages is fair and just under the following circumstances, viz: respondent Millan bought the lot from petitioner in May, 1962, and paid in full her installments on December 22, 1971, but it was only on March 2, 1973, that a deed of absolute sale was executed in her favor, and notwithstanding the lapse of almost three years since she made her last payment, petitioner still failed to convey the corresponding transfer certificate of title to Millan who accordingly was compelled to file the instant complaint in August of 1974.

Francisco vs. Ferrer Facts: On November 19, 1992 respondents Rebecca Lo and her daughter Annette Ferrer ordered a threelayered wedding cake from petitioners to be delivered at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon at the Cebu Country Club, Cebu City, on December 14, 1992. Petitioners, however, failed to deliver the wedding cake on time. After several follow-ups, petitioners informed respondents that they could no longer deliver the wedding cake because the order slip got lost. Hence, respondents were compelled to buy a substitute wedding cake. At 10:00 o'clock in the evening, petitioners delivered a two-layered wedding cake, but respondents already declined to accept it. Subsequently, petitioners offered an apology and sent check worth P5,000.00 to respondents. Respondents however, refused to receive the same because they felt it was inadequate. Respondents then filed with the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City an action for breach of contract with damages against petitioners. After due trial, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of respondents and directed petitioners to pay the cost of wedding cake, moral damages and attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the appealed decision. It increased the award of moral damages and granted respondents exemplary damages. Hence, the appeal via certiorari questioning the award of moral exemplary damages. The Supreme Court granted the petition and deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages. cdtai 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. 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, and serious anxiety as the result of the actuation's of the other party. Invariably such action must be shown to have been willfully done in bad faith or with ill motive. In the same fashion, to warrant the award of exemplary damages, the 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. In this case, the Court found no such fraud or bad faith. Nevertheless, the Court found petitioners liable for the payment of nominal damages for their insensitivity, inadvertence or inattention to their customer's anxiety and need of the hour. In addition, petitioners were directed to pay respondents the cost of the wedding cake and attorney's fees.

Yulo vs. Chan Pe Defendant (Chan Pe) simply refused, without giving any reason therefor, to pay rentals, and to vacate the leased premises, in open violation of his undertaking to the effect that his default in the performance of his obligation shall "automatically cancel" his right of lease and that he shall "immediately vacate and peacefully surrender to the lessor the possession of said premises". Held: That defendant acted in wanton disregard of his contractual obligations and pursuant to Article 2232 of the Civil Code, the Court may award exemplary damages in favor of the lessor.

Albert vs. University Publishing Facts: University Publishing had an exclusive contract to publish Alberts commentaries on the Revised Penal Code. Defendant corporation failed to pay the amount of the installment for the first quarter. Albert then filed an action for breach of contract against University Publishing. The contact contained a stipulation which provides in the award of liquidated damages in case of breach of defendant. Issue: WON the stipulated liquidated damages in the contract is excessive. Held/Ratio: Yes. The Court held that in the absence of evidence to show the amount that should accrue to the plaintiff as his share in the proceeds of the sale of 1,000 copies of the book and of 1,500 copies of the reprinted book that were in press when the contract of 19 July 1948 was entered into, and the amount of profits that the plaintiff would derive from the sale of the books to be printed, as agreed upon in the contract of 19 July 1948, the amount of liquidated damages is rather excessive, because even if the books were sold at P40, P35 or P30, as hinted by Jose M. Aruego, the president of the defendant corporation, in his testimony, the cost of paper, printing, binding, advertising, sales promotion and other incidental disbursements should be deducted from the gross proceeds. For that reason and in accordance with the provisions of article 2227 of the new Civil Code, the reasonable amount of liquidated damages that must be awarded to the plaintiff as a result of the breach by the defendant corporation of the contract is equitably reduced to P15,000.

Joe's Radio & Electrical Supply vs. Alto Electronics and Alto Surety & Insurance Facts: Plaintiff and Bolinao Electronics entered into a dealership agreement whereby the latter bound itself to deliver and sell to the former 500 TV sets in two shipments of 250 sets. The first shipment was fully effected whereas the second shipment was not. Alto Electronics Corporation was subrogated to the rights and obligations of the Bolinao Electronics Corporation in a dealership agreement. Upon a subsequent agreement, only 66 sets were to be delivered but only 13 sets were delivered. The trial court ordered Alto to pay the sum of P40,378.77 (unpaid balance) and the sum of P39,780 as liquidated damages. Issue: Whether or not the award of liquidated damages is grossly excessive. Held/Ratio: Yes. Where there is partial or irregular performance in a contract providing for liquidated damages, the court may mitigate the sum stipulated therein since it is to be presumed that the parties only contemplated a total breach of the contract. And this is usually so because of the difficulty or sometimes inability of the parties to ascertain or gauge beforehand, the amount of indemnity in case of a partial breach, just as it is equally perplexing to foresee the extent of a partial or irregular performance. And so it has been held in one case that a stipulation for liquidated damages in case of a total breach of the contract cannot be enforced if the party has accepted a partial performance thereof. In this connection, we believe that the 20 per cent liquidated damages clause in the dealership agreement must have had reference to a failure to comply with the terms of the entire agreement, that is to say, the delivery of 500 television sets (in two shipments of 250 sets each) within the time provided therein. To permit appellee to collect the same amount of liquidated damages after more than half of the sets were delivered and received, would amount to doubling the stipulated damages in case none of the sets had been delivered, and nothing in the contract warrants such a possibility. The P39,780 liquidated damages awarded by the trial court, reduced to only P15,719.

Necesito vs. Paras Facts: Plaintiffs wife (Garces) and son figured in an accident while riding the bus owned and controlled by the defendants. His wife died while his son got injured. The plaintiffs sought for damages which was however denied by the trial court. Issue: WON the plaintiffs are entitled to damages. Held/Ratio: Yes. As to the damages suffered by the plaintiffs, the Court agrees with appellee that no allowance may be made for moral damages, since under Article 2220 of the new Civil Code, in case of suits for breach of contract, moral damages are recoverable only where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith, and there is none in the instant case. As to exemplary damages, the carrier has not acted in a "wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner" to warrant their award. Hence, the Court believes that for the minor Precillano Necesito (G. R No. L-10605), an indemnity of P5,000 would be adequate for the abrasions and fracture of the femur, including medical and hospitalization expenses, there being no evidence that there would be any permanent impairment of his faculties or bodily functions, beyond the lack of anatomical symmetry. As for the death of Severina Garces (G. R. No. L-10606) who was 33 years old, with seven minor children when she died, her heirs are obviously entitled to indemnity not only for the incidental loses of property (cash, wrist watch and merchandise) worth P394 that she carried at the time of the accident and for the burial expenses of P490, but also for the loss of her earnings (shown to average P120 a month) and for the deprivation of her protection, guidance and company. In the Courts judgment, an award of P15,000 would be adequate.

PNR vs. Brunty (supra) Issue: WON trial court in awarding P1,000,000 in actual and moral damages. Held/Ratio: Yes. Actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in order to compensate a party for an injury or loss he suffered. They arise out of a sense of natural justice, aimed at repairing the wrong done. To be recoverable, they must be duly proved with a 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. Respondents, however, failed to present evidence for such damages; hence, the award of actual damages cannot be sustained. However, as the heirs of Rhonda Brunty undeniably incurred expenses for the wake and burial of the latter, we deem it proper to award temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. This is in lieu of actual damages as it would be unfair for the victim's heirs to get nothing, despite the death of their kin, for the reason alone that they cannot produce receipts. Considering the circumstances attendant in this case, we find that an award of P500,000.00 as moral damages to the heirs of Rhonda Brunty is proper.

Araneta vs. Bank of America Facts: Leopoldo Araneta was a local merchant engaged in the import and export business. On June 30, 1961 he issued a check for $500 payable to cash and drawn against the San Francisco main office of the Bank of America, where he had been maintaining a dollar current account since 1948. At that time he had a credit balance of $523.81 in his account, confirmed by the bank's assistant cashier in a letter to Araneta dated September 7, 1961. However, when the check was received by the bank on September 8, 1961, a day after the date of the letter, it was dishonored and stamped with the notation "Account Closed." Araneta filed a complaint for damages which the trial court granted. However, on appeal, the CA eliminated the award of compensatory and temperate damages and reduced the moral damages to P8,000.00, the exemplary damages to P1,000.00 and the attorney's fees to P1,000.00. Issue: WON the CA erred in holding that temperate damages cannot be awarded to the petitioner without proof of actual pecuniary loss. Held/Ratio: Yes. The Code Commission, in explaining the concept of temperate damages under Article 2224, makes the following comment: "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 instance, injury to one's 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 defendant's wrongful act." The petitioner, as found by the Court of Appeals, is a merchant of long standing and good reputation in the Philippines. Some of his record is cited in the decision appealed from. We are of the opinion that his claim for temperate damages is legally justified. Considering all the circumstances, including the rather small size of the petitioner's account with the respondent, the amounts of the checks which were wrongfully dishonored, and the fact that the respondent tried to rectify the error soon after it was discovered, although the rectification came after the damage had been caused, we believe that an award of P5,000 by way of temperate damages is sufficient.

Manila Banking Corp. vs. IAC and Rivera Facts: Private respondent deposited with petitioner bank a certain sum of money. In the same afternoon, private respondent issued a check in favor of Collins Philippines. The check was dishonored by the bank. Private respondent then confronted the bank. It was found that the bank had mistakenly deposited the money of private respondent to another account. That same day, the bank rectified its error and the check was subsequently dishonored. The trial court awarded actual damages in the amount of P75,000. On appeal, the IAC eliminated the award of moral damages and instead awarded P10,000 in temperate damages. Issue: WON there is evidence on record to support an award of temperate damages in favor of respondent Rivera Held/Ratio: Yes. In the case at bar, temperate or moderate damages are proper not for indemnification of loss suffered but for the vindication or recognition of a right violated or invaded. Considering the facts of the case under appeal, the sum of P5,000.00 as temperate or moderate damages would suffice, plus attorney's fees of P5,000.00.

Republic vs. Tuvera (supra) However, there is sufficient basis for an award of temperate damages, also sought by the Republic notwithstanding the fact that a claim for both actual and temperate damages is internally inconsistent. Temperate or moderate damages avail 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." The textual language might betray an intent that temperate damages do not avail when the case, by its nature, is susceptible to proof of pecuniary loss; and certainly the Republic could have proved pecuniary loss herein. Still, jurisprudence applying Article 2224 is clear that temperate damages may be awarded even in instances where pecuniary loss could theoretically have been proved with certainty. In a host of criminal cases, the Court has awarded temperate damages to the heirs of the victim in cases where the amount of actual damages was not proven due to the inadequacy of the evidence presented by the prosecution. We cannot discount the heavy influence of common law, and its reliance on judicial precedents, in our law on tort and damages. Notwithstanding the language of Article 2224, a line of jurisprudence has emerged authorizing the award of temperate damages even in cases where the amount of pecuniary loss could have been proven with certainty, if no such adequate proof was presented. The allowance of temperate damages when actual damages were not adequately proven is ultimately a rule drawn from equity, the principle affording relief to those definitely injured who are unable to prove how definite the injury. There is no impediment to apply this doctrine to the case at bar, which involves one of the most daunting and noble undertakings of our young democracy-the recovery of ill-gotten wealth salted away during the Marcos years. If the doctrine can be justified to answer for the unlawful damage to a cargo truck, it is a compounded wrath if it cannot answer for the unlawful exploitation of our forests, to the injury of the Filipino people. The amount of P1,000,000.00 as temperate damages is proper.

People vs. Torres and Torres Facts: Edilberto Torres and Jose Torres were found guilty by the trial court of the crime of murder and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The trial court also awarded P60,000.00 as civil indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral damages; and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages. Issue: WON the trial court erred in the award of damages. Held/Ratio: No. The Court affirmed the award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00. 21 However, the award of civil indemnity in the amount of P60,000.00 needs to be reduced to P50,000.00 in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence. The award of exemplary damages is likewise in order, since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was proven. When a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code. 24 This kind of damage is intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings, and as a vindication for undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or as punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct. The award of temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 to the heirs of the victim is justified. Temperate damages are awarded where no documentary evidence of actual damages was presented in the trial because it is reasonable to presume that, when death occurs, the family of the victim incurred expenses for the wake and funeral.

Sy vs. CA and Luzon Facts: Buenasenso SY, and private respondent, Jaime LUZON, entered into a Distributorship Agreement, whereby LUZON, as producer, would supply SY, as distributor, sixty metric tons monthly of ipilipil leaves at the price stipulated therein. The agreement was to last for two years, extendible for another two years upon mutual agreement of the parties. Paragraph VI of the Agreement provided: In the event of violation of any of the provisions of this contract by any of the contracting parties, the complaining party shall have the right to collect liquidated damages in the sum of P20,000.00. Sy would extend to Luzon, the sum of 4,000 as revolving capital. Sy failed to send the capital to Luzon. Acting favorably on the action filed by Luzon, the trial court awarded P20,000 of liquidated damages as stipulated in the contract. Issue: WON the amount of P20,000 as liquidated damages is proper. Held/Ratio: No. There is no question that liquidated damages of P20,000.00 were agreed upon by the parties in case of breach thereof. There is no question either that SY had violated the contract by not continuing to provide the revolving capital. In the present case, the Court of Appeals found as a fact that LUZON "had not delivered the 60 tons of ipil-ipil leaves monthly as agreed upon.". He, therefore, neither complied faithfully with the agreement. Equitably, therefore, since LUZON had also violated the contract, although the violation was not actionable, and in the exercise of the Court's discretion, the Court reduced the liquidated damages to P10,000.00, which amount, the Court believes, is adequate for the purpose intended.

Siy vs. CA and Sps. Valdez Facts: Respondent spouses filed an action for rescission of their agreement with petitioner of purchase and sale with damages. The trial court awarded damages in the amount of P4,376.00. Issue: WON the trial court erred in awarding damages. Held/Ratio: Yes. It is evident from the motion that the amount of P4,376.00 awarded by the appellate court as damages is mainly based on "P30.00 per day of delay" penalty clause embodied in the agreement. Enforcement of the clause on daily penalties now would result in excessive damages considering that the agreement was entered into way back in 1963. Moreover, the P2,000.00 represents part of the purchase price of the sale which was already rescinded. Under Article 1191 of the Civil Code, "the injured party may choose between the fulfillment and rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should become impossible . . .." The law, however, does not authorize the injured party to rescind the obligation and at the same time seek its partial fulfillment under the guise of recovering damages. The appellate court, therefore, erred in including both the penalty clause and the part of the purchase price in the computation of damages. There is no question that the petitioner must pay damages for the use of the house and lot until he vacates the premises. The petitioner and his family have lived in the respondents' house all these years without paying either the price he obligated himself to pay or the monthly rentals he agreed to pay as early as 1963. At the very least, the petitioner should pay P50.00 monthly rentals with legal interest from March, 1963.

NAPOCOR vs. National Merchandising Corp. Facts: Plaintiff-appellant National Power Corporation (NPC) and defendant- appellant National Merchandising Corporation (NAMERCO), the Philippine representative of New York-based International Commodities Corporation, executed a contract of sale of sulfur with a stipulation for liquidated damages in case of breach. Defendant-appellant Domestic Insurance Company executed a performance bond in favor of NPC to guarantee the seller's obligation. In entering into the contract, Namerco, however, did not disclose to NPC that Namerco's principal, in a cabled instruction, stated that the sale was subject to availability of a steamer, and contrary to its principal's instruction, Namerco agreed that non-availability of a steamer was not a justification for non-payment of liquidated damages. The New York supplier was not able to deliver the sulfur due to its inability to secure shipping space. Consequently, the Government Corporate Counsel rescinded the contract of sale due to the supplier's non-performance of its obligations, and demanded payment of liquidated damages from both Namerco and the surety. Thereafter, NPC sued for recovery of the stipulated liquidated damages. After trial, the Court of First Instance rendered judgment ordering defendants-appellants to pay solidarity to the NPC reduced liquidated damages with interest. Held: The Supreme Court held that Namerco is liable for damages because under Article 1897 of the Civil Code the agent who exceeds the limits of his authority without giving the party with whom he contracts sufficient notice of his powers is personally liable to such party. Further, the Court held that no proof of pecuniary lost is required for the recovery of liquidated damages. The stipulation for liquidated damages is intended to obviate controversy on the amount of damages. There can be no question that the NPC suffered damages because its production of fertilizer was disrupted or diminished by reason of the non-delivery of the sulfur. The parties foresaw that it might be difficult to ascertain the exact amount of damages for non-delivey of the sulfur. So, they fixed the liquidated damages to be paid as indemnity to the NPC. The Court, however, further reduced the solidary liability of defendants-appellants for liquidated damages.

Radiowealth Finance Company vs. Sps. Del Rosario Facts: On March 2, 1991, herein respondents-spouses jointly and severally executed, signed and delivered in favor of herein petitioner a promissory note for P138,948. Unfortunately, respondents defaulted on the monthly installments. Despite repeated demands, they failed to pay their obligations under their promissory note. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. Aggrieved, Radiowealth filed a petition for review on certiorari questioning the decision rendered by the appellate court. Issue: WON petitioner is entitled to liquidated damages as stipulated in the promissory note. Held/Ratio: No. The Note also provided that the debtors would be liable for attorney's fees equivalent to 25 percent of the amount due in case a legal action was instituted and 10 percent of the same amount as liquidated damages. Liquidated damages, however, should no longer be imposed for being unconscionable. Such damages should also be deemed included in the 2.5 percent monthly penalty. Furthermore, we hold that petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees, but only in a sum equal to 10 percent of the amount due which we deem reasonable under the proven facts.

Titan Construction vs. Uni-Field Enterprises (supra) Issue: WON the trial court erred in awarding liquidated damages in the amount of P324,147.94. Held/Ratio: No. The delivery receipts and sales invoices expressly stipulated the payment of interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees in case of overdue accounts and collection suits. Petitioner did not only bind itself to pay the principal amount, it also promised to pay (1) interest of 24% per annum on overdue accounts, compounded with the principal obligations as they accrue; (2) 25% liquidated damages based on the outstanding total obligation; and (3) 25% attorney's fees based on the total claim including liquidated damages. Since petitioner freely entered into the contract, the stipulations in the contract are binding on petitioner. Thus, the trial court and the Court of Appeals did not err in using the delivery receipts and sales invoices as basis for the award of interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees.

Singson, Crisostomo and De Lima vs. Aragon and Lorza Facts: Miguel L. Lorza filed a complaint in the Municipal Court of Manila against Conrado V. Singson, Carolina Crisostomo and Florentino de Lima to recover the sum of P1,321.80 as actual damages, and P500 as attorney's fees, and praying at the same time that he be awarded such exemplary damages as the court may deem proper, plus the costs of action. petitioners filed on the same date a motion to dismiss contending that the court has no jurisdiction of the case because it involves a prayer for an unspecified amount of exemplary damages which is beyond its limited jurisdiction. The court denied the motion. Issue: WON the trial court erred in denying their motion to dismiss. Held/Ratio: No. Under articles 2229, 2233 and 2234 of the new Civil Code, exemplary damages may be imposed by way of example or correction only in addition, among others, to compensatory damages, but they can not be recovered as a matter of right, their determination depending upon the discretion of the court. The amount of exemplary damages need not be proved, because its determination depends upon the amount of compensatory damages that may be awarded to the claimant. If the amount of exemplary damages need not be proved, it need not also be alleged because it is merely incidental or dependent upon what the court may award as compensatory damages. Unless and until this premise is determined and established, what may be claimed as exemplary damages would amount to a mere surmise or speculation. It follows as a necessary consequence that the amount of exemplary damages need not be pleaded in the complaint because the same can not be pre-determined. One can merely ask that it be determined by the court if in the use of its discretion the same is warranted by the evidence, and this is just what appellee has done.

Coleongco vs. Claparols Facts: Claparols was the owner and operator of a nail manufacturing company which imported its raw materials from foreign sources. Claparols entered into a contract with Coleongco wherein the latter would finance the importation for the raw materials in exchange for a share of the companys profits. Claparols also signed a power of attorney in favor of Coleongco. Claparols claims that Coleongco had been undermining his credit behind his back and was conspiring to squeeze him out of his own factory, thereby revoking the power of attorney given to the latter. Coleongco sued Claparols for breach of contract and damages. The trial court dismissed Coleongcos petition and ordered him to pay defendant Eduardo Claparols the amount of P81,387.27 plus legal interest from the filing of the counterclaim till payment thereof; P50,000 as moral and compensatory damages suffered by defendant; and costs. Issue: WON the trial court erred in awarding damages to Claparols. Held/Ratio: No. The lower court also allowed Claparols P50,000 for damages, material, moral and exemplary, caused by the appellant Coleongco's acts in maliciously undermining appellee's credit that led the Philippine National Bank to secure a writ of execution against Claparols. Undeniably, the attempts of Coleongco to discredit and "squeeze" Claparols out of his own factory and business could not but cause the latter mental anguish and serious anxiety, as found by the court below, for which he is entitled to compensation; and the malevolence that lay behind appellee's actions justified also the imposition of exemplary or deterrent damages (Civ. Code, Art. 2232). While the award could have been made larger without violating the canons of justice, the discretion in fixing such damages primarily lay in the trial court, and we feel that the same should be respected.

Perez vs. CA Facts: The trial court found Perez guilty of slight physical injuries. In considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery, the trial court also awarded P500 for moral and exemplary damages. Issue: WON the trial court erred in awarding exemplary damages. Held/Ratio: Yes. With respect to the damages awarded, Article 2219(1) of the Civil Code provides that moral damages may be recovered in "a criminal offense resulting in physical injuries". On the other hand, Article 2230 of the same Code states that "In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances . . ." Considering, as our findings show, that where there was no treachery nor any other aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime, the accused should not be made to pay for both moral and exemplary damages, but only for moral damages, aside, of course, from the actual damages involved.

San Miguel Brewery vs. Magno Facts: San Miguel Brewery maintains a warehouse or branch office in the City of Butuan and is engaged in the sale of beer and soft drinks in said City. Although it appears to have paid the required taxes under Ordinance No. 11 promptly and religiously upon the effectivity of the ordinance, the company stopped paying the taxes thereafter, and thereby incurred in back taxes. As a result, the City Treasurer of Butuan, Magno, acting under Ordinance No. 26, demanded payment by SMB of its back taxes or else suffer distraint and levy of its properties. SMB failed to pay and as a result, two of its trucks were seized and impounded. SMB filed suit questioning the authority of Magno. The lower court rendered judgment in favor of defendant and ordered SMB to pay Magno moral and exemplary damages. Issue: WON the lower was correct in awarding exemplary damages. Held/Ratio: No. The mere findings that certain allegations in the complaint are not true, and the plaintiff committed a mistake in instituting the action against the wrong party, do not justify the award of this kind of damages. It infringes upon the right of a citizen to have access to the courts. The portals of the courts of justice should not be closed to litigants who ask for the protection of their rights. Penalty in the concept of damages should not be imposed simply because a complaint is found unmeritorious by the courts.

Pan Pacific vs. Philippine Advertising Corp. and Mears Facts: This is an action for the recovery, from said Philippine Advertising Corp. and its president, defendant John W. Mears, of several sums of money under five (5) causes of action. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Pan Pacific and also ordered PAC to pay P20,000.00 by way of moral and exemplary damages under the fifth cause of action to plaintiff. Issue: WON the award of exemplary damages is correct. Held/Ratio: Yes. Under Article 2232 of the Civil Code, the court may award exemplary damages in contracts and quasi-contracts if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. Thus where the defendant, aside from the down payment he had made on the installation of the bowling alleys, had refused to pay the balance thereof and the cost of the howling and billiard accessories despite his promise to pay such balance in installments, and where his attitude towards plaintiff was characterized by arrogance as reflected in his letters which were replete with unsavory and discourteous remarks, the plaintiff is entitled to moral and exemplary damages.

Munsayac vs. De Lara Facts: This action for recovery of damages was filed in the trial court as a result of injuries suffered by the plaintiff-appellee while riding as a passenger on a jeepney owned and operated by the defendant-appellant. The trial Judge found the driver recklessly negligent: he drove at an excessive speed, unmindful of the fact that the road was under repair and heedless of the passengers' pleas that he go more slowly. Besides the award of compensatory damages for actual expenses incurred and loss of income, the defendant was ordered to pay P1,000.00 as exemplary damages and P500.00 as attorney's fees. Issue: WON the trial court erred in awarding exemplary damages. Held/Ratio: Yes. It is difficult to conceive how the defendant in a breach of contract case could be held to have acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner within the meaning of Article 2232 for something he did or did not do after the breach, which had no causal connection therewith. The law does not contemplate a vicarious liability on his part: the breach is his as party to the contract and so if he is to be held liable at all for exemplary damages by reason of the wrongful act of his agent, it must be shown that he had previously authorized or knowingly ratified it thereafter, in effect making him a co-participant. From the decision under review, however, there is nothing to show previous authority or subsequent ratification by appellant insofar as the recklessness of the driver was concerned. The mere statement that the defendant failed, even refused, to placate the suffering of the plaintiff, necessitating the filing of the action, is too tenuous a basis to warrant the conclusion that the defendant approved of the wrongful act of his servant with full knowledge of the facts.

Marchan and Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines vs. Mendoza, Ilaya and Mendoza Facts: Petitioners, the driver of the passenger bus responsible for the injuries sustained by respondents for which he was duly prosecuted and thereafter convicted for serious, less serious, and slight physical injuries, and the bus firm, the Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, seek the reversal of a Court of Appeals decision holding them liable both for compensatory and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees. Issue: WON the CA erred in awarding P30,000 by way of exemplary damages. Held/Ratio: No. Since the body of the complaint sought to recover damages against the defendant-carrier wherein plaintiffs prayed for indemnification for the damages they suffered as a result of the negligence of said Silverio Marchan who is appellant's employee; and since exemplary damages is intimately connected with general damages, plaintiffs may not be expected to single out by express term the kind of damages they are trying to recover against the defendant's carrier. Suffice it to state that when plaintiffs prayed in their complaint for such other relief and remedies that may be availed of under the premises, in effect, therefore, the court is called upon to exercise and use its discretion whether the imposition of punitive or exemplary damages even though not expressly prayed or pleaded in the plaintiffs' complaint.

Octot vs. Ybaez, Gatmaitan and Clave Facts: Petitioner, a security guard in the Regional Health Office of Cebu City, was summarily dismissed from the service pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 6 and LOI Nos. 14 and 14-a directing heads of departments of the government to weed out undesirable employees, especially those who were facing charges and were notoriously undesirable. Petitioner, at that time, had a judgment of conviction for libel pending appeal. when his acquittal was obtained, he sought reinstatement. His request was given due course but despite notices to him to fill up the necessary papers to support his new appointment, he failed to appear but instead filed the instant action for mandamus praying for reinstatement, payment of back salaries, cost of living allowance, compensatory, exemplary and moral damages, and to pay attorney's fees and the costs of the suit. Held: The Supreme Court, finding petitioner's reinstatement authorized by the Office of the President, issued a resolution directing that he be reinstated but denied his claims for backwages and damages in the absence of proof that respondents had acted in bad faith and with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing him aside from the fact that the Office of the President, in approving his reinstatement, did not authorize payment of backwages pursuant to LOI 647. Petitioner's claim for moral and exemplary damages was likewise denied as the delay in his reinstatement was attributable to his fault and as the conditions required for the award of exemplary damages were not met. Petition rendered moot in view of petitioner's reinstatement.

Sarkies Tours Phils. vs. IAC and Sps. Dizon Facts: Sarkies advertised an excursion to Corregidor which the Dizon family joined. The package included transportation such as banca which they boarded in Manila Bay. The banca capsized and caused the death of Mercedita, daughter of the Dizon spouses. In their complaint for damages, the trial court awarded the Dizon spouses P50,000 in exemplary damages. Issue: WON the award of exemplary damages should be eliminated. Held/Ratio: Yes. It is not enough to say that an example should be made, or corrective measures be employed, for the public good especially in accident cases where public carriers are involved. The causative negligence in such cases is personal to the employees actually in charge of the vehicles, and it is they who should be made to pay this kind of damages by way of example or correction, unless by the demonstrative tolerance or approval of the owners they themselves can be held at fault and their fault is of the character described in article 2232 of the Civil Code. In the case at bar, there is no showing that SARKIES acted "in a wanton . . . or malevolent manner" (Art. 2232, Civil Code).

Sociedad Europea de Financiacion, Muoz, Amat and Capital Insurance & Surety vs. CA, Garrido, Araneta and Progressive Commercial Bank Facts: SEF, Muoz, and Amat forthwith instituted a derivative suit against Garrido, Araneta and PROGRESSIVE in the Court of First Instance of Manila. 2 They sued in their own behalf and in behalf of CAPITAL INSURANCE and prayed for annulment of the loan and the accompanying pledge of the SEF stock on the ground of breach of trust on the part of Garrido, Araneta and the latter's bank. They also accused defendants Garrido and Araneta of mismanagement of the corporation and prayed for damages on account thereof. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and sentenced all the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiffs the sum of P100,000.00 as exemplary or corrective damages, plus attorney's fees in the sum of P50,000.00, and costs of suit. Issue: WON the trial court erred in awarding only P100,000 by way of exemplary damages. Held/Ratio: Yes. The Court feels also that the award of P100,000.00 in exemplary or corrective damages lets the private respondents off too lightly for the part they played in this sorry affair. Both the Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found that the defendants had concocted a scheme "to divest plaintiff SEF of its interests in Capital Insurance and for themselves to own the controlling interest therein," and carried out that illicit objective. Said award of damages should be increased to P600,000.00.

Cathay Pacific Airways vs. Sps. Vazquez Facts: Respondents-spouses Dr. Daniel Earnshaw Vazquez and Maria Luisa Madrigal Vazquez are frequent flyers of petitioner Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd., and are Gold Card members of its Marco Polo Club. The Vazquezes, together with their maid and two friends, Pacita Cruz and Josefina Vergel de Dios, went to Hongkong for pleasure and business. For their return flight to Manila, they were booked on Cathay's Flight CX-905 Business Class Section. When boarding time was announced, a ground attendant approached Dr. Vazquez and told him that the Vazquezes' accommodations were upgraded to First Class. Dr. Vazquez refused the upgrade, reasoning that it would not look nice for them as hosts to travel in First Class and their guests, in the Business Class; and moreover, they were going to discuss business matters during the flight. Dr. Vazquez continued to refuse, so the ground stewardess told them that if they would not avail themselves of the privilege, they would not be allowed to take the flight. Eventually, after talking to his two friends, Dr. Vazquez gave in. Upon their return to Manila, the Vazquezes instituted before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City an action for damages against Cathay. In its answer, Cathay alleged that it is a practice among commercial airlines to upgrade passengers to the next better class of accommodation, whenever an opportunity arises, such as when a certain section is fully booked. Priority in upgrading is given to its frequent flyers, who are considered favored passengers, like the Vazquezes. The trial court found for the Vazquezes and awarded them damages. On appeal by the petitioner, the Court of Appeals deleted the award for exemplary damages; and it reduced the awards for moral and nominal damages for each of the Vazquezes to P250,000 and P50,000, respectively, and the attorney's fees and litigation expenses to P50,000 for both of them. Hence this petition. Issue: WON the CA erred in deleting the award of exemplary damages granted by the trial court. Held/Ratio: No. 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 attorney's fees.

Lao vs. Standard Insurance Facts: Petitioner seeks reversal of the CA and RTC decisions dismissing his claim on the insurance policy of his truck which figured in an accident during the effectivity of the policy. Petitioner assailed the admissibility and evidentiary weight given to the police blotter, as basis for the factual finding of the RTC and the CA. He further alleged that the same entry was belied by the Motor Vehicle Accident Report and the testimony of the investigating policeman attesting that it was Leonardo Anit, an unauthorized driver, not Giddie Boy Coyel, who was driving the insured vehicle at the time of the accident. The RTC granted P50,000 by way of exemplary damages to respondent. Issue: WON Standard Insurance is entitled to exemplary damages. Held/Ratio: No. On the issue of damages, we agree with petitioner that the award of exemplary damages was improper. In Tiongco v. Atty. Deguma we held that the entitlement to the recovery of exemplary damages must be shown. In the case at bar, respondent have not shown sufficient evidence that petitioner indeed schemed to procure the dubious documents and lied through his teeth to establish his version of the facts. What was found was that the document he presented was inadmissible, and its contents were dubious. However, no proof was adduced to sufficiently establish that it came to his hands through his employment of underhanded means. . . Thus, it was error for the courts below to award exemplary damages in the absence of any award for moral, temperate or compensatory damages.

Republic vs. Tuvera (supra) Issue: WON the Republic should be granted exemplary damages. Held/Ratio: Yes. The imposition of exemplary damages is a means by which the State, through its judicial arm, can send the clear and unequivocal signal best expressed in the pithy but immutable phrase, "never again." It is severely unfortunate that the Republic did not exert its best efforts in the full recovery of the actual damages caused by the illegal grant of the Twin Peaks TLA. To the best of our ability, through the appropriate vehicle of exemplary damages, the Court will try to fill in that deficiency. For if there is a lesson that should be learned from the national trauma of the rule of Marcos, it is that kleptocracy cannot pay. As those dark years fade into the backburner of the collective memory, and a new generation emerges without proximate knowledge of how bad it was then, it is useful that the Court serves a reminder here and now. Republic awarded P1,000,000 in exemplary damages.

Garcia vs. Salvador (supra) Issue: WON Salvador should be awarded exemplary damages due to the negligence of Garcia. Held/Ratio: Yes. We find the Court of Appeals' award of moral damages reasonable under the circumstances bearing in mind the mental trauma suffered by respondent Ranida who thought she was afflicted by Hepatitis B, making her "unfit or unsafe for any type of employment." Having established her right to moral damages, we see no reason to disturb the award of exemplary damages and attorney's fees. Exemplary damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages, and attorney's fees may be recovered when, as in the instant case, exemplary damages are awarded. Award of P50,000 in exemplary damages AFFIRMED.

Solidbank vs. Tan (supra) Issue: WON the award of exemplary damages of P25,000 to Tan has legal basis. Held/Ratio: Yes. As to the award of exemplary damages, the law allows it by way of example for the public good. The business of banking is impressed with public interest and great reliance is made on the bank's sworn profession of diligence and meticulousness in giving irreproachable service. For petitioner's failure to carry out its responsibility and to account for respondents' lost check, we hold that the lower courts did not err in awarding exemplary damages to the latter.

Meralco vs. T.E.A.M. Electronics (supra) Issue: WON the trial court erred in ordering Meralco to pay respondents P200,000 by way of exemplary damages. Held/Ratio: No. As to the payment of exemplary damages and attorney's fees, we find no cogent reason to disturb the same. Exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages. In this case, to serve as an example that before a disconnection of electrical supply can be effected by a public utility, the requisites of law must be complied with we affirm the award of P200,000.00 as exemplary damages. With the award of exemplary damages, the award of attorney's fees is likewise proper, pursuant to Article 2208 of the Civil Code. It is obvious that TEC needed the services of a lawyer to argue its cause through three levels of the judicial hierarchy. Thus, the award of P200,000.00 is in order.

People vs. Torres and Torres (supra) Issue: WON the trial court erred in awarding P20,000 in exemplary damages to the heirs of the deceased. Held/Ratio: No. The award of exemplary damages is likewise in order, since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was proven. When a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code. This kind of damage is intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings, and as a vindication for undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or as punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.

People vs. Domingo Facts: Domingo was convicted of raping a ten-year child. The trial court awarded civil indemnity and moral damages but did not award exemplary damages. Issue: WON exemplary damages should be awarded to private complainant. Held/Ratio: Yes. On the civil aspect, the court rightly awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 for moral damages, but failed to award exemplary damages. As we held in People v. Malones, this is not the first time that a child has been snatched from the cradle of innocence by some beast to sate its deviant sexual appetite. To curb this disturbing trend, appellant should, likewise, be made to pay exemplary damages which is pegged at P25,000.00.

Mercado vs. Lira (supra) Issue: WON the trial court erred in awarding moral damages in excess of P3,000 to the heirs of the deceased. Held/Ratio: No. Damages in excess of P3,000.00 may be awarded for the death of a passenger, and in addition, the heirs may demand moral damages commensurate with the mental anguish suffered by them.

PANTRANCO vs. Legaspi (Judge), Pian, Pua, Teck and Breguera Facts: Civil Case No. A-247 and Civil Case No. 248 were filed against the Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. (Pantranco) in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, for the recovery of damages for the death of Aurora Breguera and Welly Pua, wife and one-year old child, respectively, of respondent Pua Pian, and for the death of Memia Chua, 18-year old daughter of respondents Chua Teck and Crispina Breguera. Private respondents sought the production of the ledgers and financial statements of Pantranco in connection with their allegation that "defendant (Pantranco) is financially well- established having enormous assets and a large income. Respondent judge granted the motion. Pantranco then moved for a writ of preliminary injunction citing grave abuse of discretion on respondent judge. The motion was granted by the Supreme Court. Issue: WON respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in directing the company to produce its general ledgers and financial statements to establish its financial standing. Held/Ratio: No. Of course the minimum amount of P2,000 as fixed in this law (Commonwealth Act No. 284) must now be deemed increased to P3,000, but the point is that in fixing a greater amount of indemnity, the pecuniary situation of the party liable may well be considered along with other elements. This point should dispose of petitioner's contention that the liability of the common carrier cannot be made to depend on its pecuniary capacity. Of course, independently, of its financial capacity, the common carrier, if liable, must be made to pay the minimum amount. But if its financial ability is such that it can pay a greater amount of indemnity as demanded by the circumstances of the case, then certainly it should be made to pay more than P3,000. Its financial standing in such a case is material.

The Receiver for North Negros Sugar Company vs. Ybaez and Ybaez Facts: The instant case for damages was filed by the immediate heirs of Cesar V. Ybaez, who was one of two persons who died as a result of the collision between the car, where said Cesar V. Ybaez was riding and being driven by Gil Dominguez, and train No. 5, owned by the North Negros Sugar Company. The lower court dismissed the complaint. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the lower court and held the North Negros Sugar Company, Inc. liable for the death of Cesar V. Ibaez, ordering it to pay plaintiff- appellant Pedro V. Ibaez damages consisting of P9,600.00 as compensatory damages for lost earnings of the deceased; P6,000.00 for death indemnity; P1,000.00 for funeral expenses; P5,000.00 "as moral damages for the mental anguish suffered by the heir"; P5,000.00 "for attorney's fees, considering the years and extensive work the protracted litigation had taken;" and costs. Issue: WON the CA erred in ordering petitioner to pay P5,000 'as moral damages for mental anguish suffered' by plaintiffs who were brother and sister of the deceased. Held/Ratio: Yes. It may well be said that culpa aquiliana, or quasi-delict, is punished both by the old Civil Code the previous legislation and by the new Civil Code. But, as we have pointed out, a less severe sanction or penalty, for culpa aquiliana is provided for in the new Civil Code. It follows, therefore, that Article 2206 of the new Civil Code which provides that only the spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased caused by quasi-delict should be applied in the instant case. Hence, petitioner herein, who claims moral damages for the death of his brother Cesar V. Ybaez caused by quasi-delict, is not entitled to and should not have been awarded moral damages by the Court of Appeals.

Heirs of Raymundo Castro vs. Bustos Facts: Bustos was found guilty of homicide for the killing of Raymundo Castro. The dispositive portion of the decision also ordered Bustos to indemnify the petitioners, who were represented in the case by a private prosecutor, in the sum of six thousand pesos (P6,000) "without prejudice to whatever the accused (respondent) is entitled from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) for his services of around twenty-six (26) years as a public school teacher, prior to October 20,1962." On appeal, the CA amended the lower courts by eliminating the award of P6,000.00 representing moral damages, and of P13,380.00 representing the decedent's loss of earnings. Issue: WON the CA erred in deleting the award for moral damages. Held/Ratio: Yes. It is clear that the Court of Appeals erred in eliminating in its amended decision, the items of moral damages and compensation for loss of earning capacity of the deceased. Indeed, as to the award of moral damages in case of death, the Court has already held in Mercado v. Lira, etc., that once the heirs of the deceased claim moral damages and are able to prove they are entitled thereto, it becomes the duty of the court to make the award. Likewise, in the matter of the compensatory damages for the loss of earning capacity of the deceased, the Court also held in the case of Daniel Bulante v. Chu Liante, that: "The next item objected to refers to the damages awarded to the heirs of the deceased passengers for loss of earning capacity, separately from the indemnities by reason of death. The ground for the objection is that loss of earning capacity was not specifically pleaded or claimed in the complaint. This item, however, may be considered included in the prayer for 'actual damages' and for other 'just and equitable reliefs,' especially if taken in the light of Art. 2200, in connection with Art. 1764, of the Civil Code, which allows, in addition to an indemnity of at least P3,000 by reason of death, recovery for loss of earning capacity on the part of the deceased, the same to be paid to his heirs 'in every case . . . unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death.'"

Villa Rey Transit vs. CA, Quintos, Quintos and Quintos Facts: The private respondents, Trinidad, Prima and Julita, all surnamed Quintos, are the sisters and only surviving heirs of Policronio Quintos, Jr., who died single, leaving no descendants nor ascendants. Said respondents herein brought this action against herein petitioner, Villa Rey Transit, Inc., as owner and operator of said passenger bus, bearing Plate No. TPU-14871-Bulacan, for breach of the contract of carriage between said petitioner and the deceased Policronio Quintos, Jr., to recover the aggregate sum of P63,750.00 as damages, including attorney's fees. The trial court granted the amount prayed for which was affirmed by the CA. Issue: WON the amount of damages awarded was correct. Held/Ratio: No. The determination of the amount of damages resulting from a death of a passenger due to breach of contract of carriage recoverable by private respondents, heirs of the deceased, depends, mainly upon two (2) factors, namely: (1) the number of years on the basis of which the damages shall be computed and (2) the rate at which the losses sustained by said respondents should be fixed. Life expectancy is, not only relevant, but, also, an important element in fixing the amount recoverable by private respondents herein. Other factors that are usually considered are: (1) pecuniary loss to plaintiff or beneficiary; (2) loss of support; (3) loss of service; (4) loss of society; (5) mental suffering of beneficiaries; and (6) medical and funeral expenses. The determination of the indemnity to be awarded has no fixed basis but much is left to the sound discretion of the court. In the determination of the losses or damages sustained by the private respondents, as dependents and intestate heirs of the deceased, said damages consist, not of the full amount of his earnings, but of the support they received or would have received from him had he not died in the consequence of the negligence of petitioner's agent. In fixing the amount of that support, the "necessary expenses of his own living" must be deducted from his earnings. Thus, earning capacity, as an element of damages to one's estate for his death by wrongful act is necessarily his net earning capacity, or his capacity to acquire money, "less the necessary expense for his own living." The Court is of the opinion that it is fair and reasonable to fix the deductible living and other expenses of the deceased at the sum of P1,184.00 a year, or about P100.00 a month, and that, consequently, the loss sustained by his sisters may be roughly estimated at P1,000.00 a year or P33,333.33 for the 33-1/3 years of his life expectancy. To this sum of P33,333.33, the following should be added: (a) P12,000.00, pursuant to Arts. 104 and 107 of the RPC, in relation to Article 2206 of the Civil Code, as construed and applied by the Court; (b) P1,727.95, actually spent by private respondents for medical and burial expenses: and (c) attorney's fee, which was fixed by the trial court, at P500.00, but which, in view of the appeal taken by petitioner herein, should be increased to P2,500.00. In other words, the amount adjudged in the decision appealed from should be reduced to the aggregate sum of P49,561.28, with interest thereon, at the legal rate, from

December 29, 1961, date of the promulgation of the decision of the trial court. Davila and Tiro vs. Philippine Airlines Facts: Pedro Davila, Jr. died in a plane crash. His parents are now suing for damages from defendant airline. The trial court fixed the indemnity for his death to P6,000. Issue: WON the indemnity for the death of the deceased should be increased. Held/Ratio: Yes. Pursuant to current jurisprudence on the point it should be increased to P12,000.00. The deceased was employed as manager of a radio station, from which he was earning P8,400.00 a year, consisting of a monthly salary of P600.00 and allowance of P100.00. As a lawyer and junior partner of his father in the law office, he had an annual income of P3,600.00. From farming he was getting an average of P3,000.00. All in all therefore the deceased had gross earnings of P15,000.00 a year. The deceased, Pedro Davila, Jr., was single and 30 years of age when he died. At that age one's normal life expectancy is 33-1/3 years, according to the formula (2/3 x [80 30]) adopted by this Court in the case of Villa Rey Transit, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals 3 on the basis of the American Expectancy Table of Mortality or the Actuarial of Combined Experience Table of Mortality. However, although the deceased was in relatively good health, his medical history shows that he had complained of and been treated for such ailments as backaches, chest pains and occasional feelings of tiredness. It is reasonable to make an allowance for these circumstances and consider, for purposes of this case, a reduction of his life expectancy to 25 years. Considering the fact that the deceased was getting his income from three (3) different sources, namely, from managing a radio station, from law practice and from farming, the expenses incidental to the generation of such income were necessarily more than if he had only one source. Together with his living expenses, a deduction of P600.00 a month, or P7,200.00 a year, seems to be reasonable, leaving a net yearly income of P7,800.00. This amount, multiplied by 25 years, or P195,000.00 is the amount which should be awarded to the plaintiffs in this particular respect.

Brias vs. People and CA Facts: The trial court convicted defendant-appellant Clemente Brias for double homicide thru reckless imprudence. The trial court also ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Martina Bool and Emelita Gesmundo in the amounts of P6,000 and P3,000, respectively, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency not to exceed one-third of the principal penalty, and to pay the costs. During the pendency of the criminal prosecution in the Court of First Instance of Quezon, the heirs of the deceased victims filed with the same court, a separate civil action for damages against the Manila Railroad Company entitled "Civil Case No. 5978, Manaleyo Gesmundo, et al., v. Manila Railroad Company". The separate civil action was filed for the recovery of P30,350.00 from the Manila Railroad Company as damages resulting from the accident. Issue: WON the trial court acted within its jurisdiction when, despite the filing with it of the separate civil action against the Manila Railroad Company, it still awarded death indemnity in the judgment of conviction against the petitioner-appellant. Held/Ratio: Yes. It is well-settled that when death occurs as a result of the commission of a crime, the following items of damages may be recovered: (1) an indemnity for the death of the victim; (2) an indemnity for loss of earning capacity of the deceased; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, and (6) interest in proper cases. The indemnity for loss of earning capacity, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and interests are recoverable separately from and in addition to the fixed sum of P12,000.00 corresponding to the indemnity for the sole fact of death. This indemnity arising from the fact of death due to a crime is fixed whereas the others are still subject to the determination of the court based on the evidence presented. The fact that the witnesses were not interrogated on the issue of damages is of no moment because the death indemnity fixed for death is separate and distinct from the other forms of indemnity for damages.

Rodriguez-Luna vs. IAC and Del la Rosa (supra) Issue: WON Court of Appeals erred when it reduced Luna's life expectancy from 30 to 10 years and increased his annual personal expenses from P20,000.00 to P30,000.00. Held/Ratio: Yes. The award by the trial court of P1,650,000.00 was based on two factors, namely: (a) that the deceased Roberto R. Luna could have lived for 30 more years; and (b) that his annual net income was P55,000.00, computed at P75,000.00 annual gross income less P20,000.00 annual personal expenses. The Court of Appeals, in reducing Luna's life expectancy from 30 to 10 years said that his habit and manner of life should be taken into account, i.e. that he had been engaged in car racing as a sport both here and abroad - a dangerous and risky activity tending to shorten his life expectancy. That Luna had engaged in car racing is not based on any evidence on record. That Luna was engaged in go-kart racing is the correct statement but then go-kart racing cannot be categorized as a dangerous sport for go-karts are extremely low slung, low powered vehicles, only slightly larger than foot-pedalled four wheeled conveyance. It was error on the part of the Court of Appeals to have disturbed the determination of the trial court which it had previously affirmed. Similarly, it was error for the Court of Appeals to reduce the net annual income of the deceased by increasing his annual personal expenses but without at the same time increasing his annual gross income. It stands to reason that if his annual personal expenses should increase because of the "escalating price of gas which is a key expenditure in Roberto R. Luna's social standing" [a statement which lacks complete basis], it would not be unreasonable to suppose that his income would also increase considering the manifold sources thereof.

People vs. Daniel Facts: Daniel was convicted of murder. The trial court also ordered him to indemnify the heirs of George Angcahas y Altea the sums of: P12,000.00, as compensatory damages; P10,000.00, as moral damages; P50.00 daily, from January 21, 1982 and for 33 years thereafter until the victim would have reached 65 years of age if he were alive considering that he died at the age of 32 years, for loss of earning capacity; and, P9,464.05, for hospitalization expenses; and, to pay the costs. Issue: WON the trial court was correct its award of damages as indemnity for the loss of earning capacity of the deceased. Held/Ratio: Yes. The court erred when it ordered the defendant-appellant to pay the heirs of George Angcahas the sum of P50.00 daily, from January 21, 1982 and for thirty-three (33) years thereafter until the deceased would have reached the age of 65. The amount of loss of earning capacity is based mainly on two factors: (1) the number of years on the basis of which the damages shall be computed; and (2) the rate at which the losses sustained by the respondents should be fixed (Villa Rey Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals). The deceased was single and thirty-two years of age at the time of his death. He was earning P50.00 daily as driver of a passenger jeepney. By applying the formula 2/3 x (80 32) = Life Expectancy, the normal life expectancy of the victim would be thirty-two years. Although there is no evidence as to the condition of the victim's health at the time of his death, we must take into account the fact that drivers of passenger jeepneys cannot continue the backbreaking pace and unnerving nature of their work for those many years. It is thus reasonable to make allowances for these circumstances and reduce the life expectancy of the deceased to 25 years (See Davila v. Philippine Airlines, 28 SCRA 497). With regards to the second factor, it is reasonable to fix the deductible living and other incidental expenses of the deceased at the sum of Eight Hundred (P800.00) Pesos monthly or Nine Thousand, Six Hundred (P9,600.00) Pesos annually. Likewise, it is difficult to conclude that, George Angcahas, if he were alive, would drive a passenger jeepney everyday for the next thirty-two (32) years. It is more than reasonable to fix at twenty (20) days a month Angcahas' working days. Thus, the loss sustained by the heirs of the deceased may be roughly estimated at Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00) every month or Two Thousand, Four-Hundred Pesos (P2,400.00) annually or Seventy Six Thousand, Eight Hundred Pesos (P76,800.00) for thirty-two years. Damages awarded for loss of earning capacity reduced to P76,800.00.

People vs. Quilaton Facts: Appellant Gumercindo Quilaton was found guilty of murder. He was also sentenced to indemnify the heirs of Rolando S. Manahan the sum of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos, for the death of Rolando S. Manahan, the sum of Twenty Six Thousand Four Hundred Forty Five (P26,445.00) Pesos, for actual damages incurred for burial and other expenses of the deceased, the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand (P250,000.00) Pesos, or moral damages. Issue: WON the trial court erred in lumping the award of loss of earning capacity with the award for moral damages. Held/Ratio: Yes. In the instant case, the trial court lumped these monetary obligations into what it called "moral damages." The more important variables taken into account in determining the compensable amount of lost earnings are: (1) the number of years for which the victim would otherwise have lived; and (2) the rate of loss sustained by the heirs of the deceased. In Villa Rey Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (supra), the Court computed the first factor, i.e. life expectancy, by applying the formula (2/3 x [80 age at death]) adopted in the American Expectancy Table of Mortality or the actuarial Combined Experience Table of Mortality. The Court notes that the formula used in Villa Rey Transit was based on a table derived from actuarial experience prior to 1970 when the decision in Villa Rey Transit was promulgated. Actuarial experience subsequent to 1970 has, however, changed and indicates a longer life expectancy in the Philippines due to conditions including, among other things, advances in medical science, improved nutrition and food supply, diet consciousness and health maintenance. The 1970 mortality table was updated in 1980 to reflect the changes of conditions. Considering that Rolando Manahan was 26 years of age at the time of death, he was expected to live for another 46 years. This is derived by using the generally accepted formula in computing for life expectancy, based on the 1980 CSO table: S (Lx+1, Lx+2, .., Lx+n), where n =100 - x Lx x = age upon death L = number of people in sample surviving after number of years. But a man does not normally continue working to earn money up to the final month or year of his life; hence 46 years could be reasonably reduced to 39 years. Besides, Rolando Manahan was a government employee who is expected to retire at the age of 65. If there are 261 working days in a year 22 and Rolando Manahan was receiving P23.00 a day, Rolando Manahan's gross earnings would be approximately P234,000.00. A reasonable amount must be deducted therefrom that would represent Rolando Manahan's necessary expenses had he been living, in this case P120,000.00. The net or compensable earnings lost by reason of Rolando Manahan's death is, accordingly, P114,000.00.

People vs. Balanag Facts: Balanag was found guilty of robbery with homicide. The trial court also ordered him to indemnify, solidarily, the heirs of the deceased Dr. Guillermo Lopez, the following amounts: a) P 50,000.00 for the death of Guillermo Lopez; b) P 48,110.00 - as actual damages; c) P 20,000.00 - as moral damages; and d) P172,000.00 - for loss of earning capacity. Issue: WON the trial court erred in computing the loss of earning capacity of the deceased. Held/Ratio: Yes. With respect to the claim for loss of earning capacity of the victim, the victim was already 69 years old at the time he was killed on November 24, 1985. His income as a dentist was P10,000.00 per month, or P120,000.00 per annum. After deducting therefrom the necessary and incidental expenses which the victim would have incurred if he were alive, the trial court, declared that the victim's annual net income would be P24,000.00. The trial court multiplied his net annual income by his life expectancy of seven (7) years and two (2) months, hence, P172,000.00 was awarded for loss of the earning capacity of the victim. In computing the loss of the earning capacity of the victim, several factors are considered besides the mathematical computation of annual income times life expectancy. Allowances are made for circumstances which could reduce the computed life expectancy of the victim, e.g., nature of work of the victim, his lifestyle, age, and state of health prior to his death. In addition, the court has to consider the rate of loss sustained by the heirs of the victim. In this case, albeit there was no evidence on the state of health of the victim, considering his advanced age, the Court found it reasonable and fair to assume that he would not be able to work and earn, as a dentist, until he reaches the final moment of his life. Thus, the Court reduced the award for loss of the earning capacity of the deceased to P144,000.00, which is the approximate amount he would have earned until his 75th birthday.

People vs. Narvaez Facts: Narvaez was found guily of murder. The trial court also awarded the sum of P12,000,00 as compensatory damages, P10,000.00 as moral damages, P2,000.00 as attorney's fees. Issue: WON the trial court erred in awarding civil indemnity to the heirs of the deceased. Held/Ratio: Yes. In the case at bar, the victims not only contributed but they actually provoked the attack by damaging appellant's properties and business. Considering appellant's standing in the community, being married to a municipal councilor, the victims' actuations were apparently designed to humiliate him and destroy his reputation. The records disclose that his wife, councilor Feliza Narvaez, was also charged in these two cases and detained without bail despite the absence of evidence linking her to the killings. She was dropped as a defendant only upon motion of the prosecution dated October 31, 1968. (p. 14, CFI rec. of Crim. Case No. 1816), but acted upon on November 4, 1968 (p. 58, CFI rec. of Criminal Case No. 1815). Moreover, these cases arose out of an inordinate desire on the part of Fleischer and Company, despite its extensive landholdings in a Central Visayan province, to extend its accumulation of public lands to the resettlement areas of Cotabato. Since it had the capability financial and otherwise to carry out its land accumulation scheme, the lowly settlers, who uprooted their families from their native soil in Luzon to take advantage of the government's resettlement program, but had no sufficient means to fight the big landowners, were the ones prejudiced. Thus, the moral and material suffering of appellant and his family deserves leniency as to his civil liability.