lo '

l\epublit of tbe llbilippine~

~upreme <!Court
:fflanila
FIRST DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a
Resolution dated July 3, 2019 which reads asfollows:

"G.R. No. 198331 (Young Builders Corp. v. Spouses Dominic

Martin E. Garcia and Alma Mia A. Garcia, for themselves and for
minors Andres Marino A. Garcia, Austin Matea A. Garcia and
Antoni Mateo A. Garcia and Elvira E. Lap,). - This is a petition for
review1 of the Decision2 and Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 00771 affirming with modification the
Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Cebu City, in Civil Case
No. CEB-23569. In its Decision, the CA deleted the (1) award of
moral damages to respondents Joy-Ann Gacayan and Mercy
Francisco, and the (2) award of actual damages, for insufficiency of
evidence. In this case, We reiterate the rule that in quasi-delicts, moral
damages cannot be recovered where there is no resulting physical
injury.

Respondent Alma Mia A. Garcia (Alma), together with her

children and co-respondents Andres Marino (Andres), Austin Matea
(Austin), and Antoni Mateo (Antoni), all surnamed Garcia, and the
children's nannies, Elvira Joy Lapi (Elvira), Joy-Ann Gacayan (Joy-
Ann), and Mercy Francisco (Mercy) went to Regalos de Cebu
(Regalos) on November 6, 1998 at around 2: 10 p.m. Alma, who was
driving a Hyundai van (vehicle), parked in the parking area of
Regalos. No restriction nor warning sign of any possible danger or
risk to life, limb, and property was posted in the space where Alma
parked. 5
- over - thirteen ( 13) pages ...
274/ •'
1 Rollo, pp. 4-16.
2
Id. at 21-41; penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with the concurrence of Associate
Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez of the 19th Division.
3
Id. at 53-54; penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, with the concurrence of
Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of
the Court).
4 Id. at 133-151; penned by Judge Gabriel T. Ingles.
5 Id. at 22.

~
 RESOLUTION 2 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019

Alma went inside Regalos while her children and their nannies
remained in the vehicle. While inside, Alma heard a loud rumbling
and crushing sound as if there was an earthquake. The lady behind
·· ..,.. ' ,.. VAltna:.,excl'aimed that something fell. Upon inquiry by Alma, the lady
speculated that some sort of machine must have fallen from the top of
the building being constructed near Regalos. As Alma headed towards
the exit, she was informed by the security guard of Regalos that her
vehicle was hit. Alma was so shocked she was rendered immobile,
· such that somebody had to push her out of the premises. 6

Terrified, Alma ran towards the vehicle and called out to her
children. She opened the vehicle and heard screams and cries. She
saw that the glass from the vehicle's wind shield broke and Austin
injured. Alma quickly took her children out of the vehicle and ordered
the nannies to disembark as well. She was forced to pull Joy-Ann out
of the vehicle since the latter was petrified and hysterical. 7

Thereafter, Alma discovered that a 20-foot solid iron jack,

weighing approximately 500 kilograms, and more or less 3 inches in
diameter fell on her vehicle from the top of Golden Peak Tower
(tower), a building adjacent to Regalos. The tower belongs to Hancit
Realty and was then under construction by petitioner Young Builders
Corp. (YBC). 8

Alma then brought her children and their nannies to the

hospital. She contacted her lawyer and her mother, as well as her
husband, co-respondent Dominic Martin E. Garcia (Dominic) to
inform them about the situation. 9 When respondents demanded that
Hancit Realty and YBC pay them damages, Hancit Realty shouldered
the costs of repairing the vehicle and offered PS,000.00 as payment
for actual damages. Respondents rejected Hancit Realty's offer.
Attempts to settle the matter amicably were also made in the barangay
level but to no avail. Thus, Alma and Dominic, for themselves and for
their children, as well as Elvira, Joy-Ann, and Mercy, filed an action
for damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses against Hancit
Realty and YBC before the RTC. 10

In its defense, YBC claimed that what occurred was an

accident. Jack rods were supposed to be placed at the roof deck of the

- over -
274

6
Id. at 23.
7
Id.
8
Id. at 24.
9
Id.
10
Id. at 26.

~
 RESOLUTION 3 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019

tower, and while the first of the two jocks were successfully installed,
the second jack rod fell as it was lifted by the crane when a strong
wind blew and pushed the tower crane to swing towards Regalos. 11
The second jack rod then bumped and bounced on the concrete
parapet wall. Consequently, the lock of the trolley hook unfastened
and the rod fell on the vehicle. YBC submitted a Certification from
the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services
Association (PAG-ASA) stating the wind velocity in the area from 1
p.m. to 4 p.m. of the day of the incident. 12

Hancit Realty pointed out that under its construction contract

with YBC, the latter shall be liable for all third party liabilities arising
from the construction. It also denied having any participation in the
operation of the tower crane. Nonetheless, Hancit Realty argued that it
shouldered the medical bills of respondents as well as the costs for
repairing the vehicle. 13

In its Decision, 14 the RTC ruled as follows:

Foregoing considered, judgment is hereby

rendered ordering defendant Young Builders
Corporation to pay, as follows:

a) Pl00,000.00 to each plaintiff, as moral

damages;
b) Pl00,000.00 as exemplary damages[;]
c) PS,112.50 as actual damages[;]
d) P60,000.00 plus Pl,500.00 per appearance as
attorney's fees[;]
e) Cost of suit.

SO ORDERED. 15

The RTC held that based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur,
YBC was negligent in operating the crane, which led to the falling of
the jack rod. The RTC belied the claim of YBC that the jack rod fell
due to strong winds. While the RTC acknowledged that PAG-ASA
certified the wind velocity on the day of the incident, PAG-ASA did
not state that it was abnormally strong. Further, the RTC found it
baffling that the first jack rod was successfully installed even though
the wind velocity at that time was stronger than when the second jack

- over -
274;

11
Id. at 26-27.
12
Id. at 27.
n Id.
14
Supra note 4.
15 Id. at 151.

~
 RESOLUTION 4 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019

rod was installed. The RTC held that in any event, YBC should have
anticipated strong winds since it was operating on top of a building
and taken the necessary precaution to prevent falling objects on the
ground. 16 However, YBC failed to do the same. YBC's negligence
caused respondents "fright, mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded
feelings and shock." 17 In addition, Austin suffered multiple abrasions
on her right leg. The vehicle was also damaged. 18 Hence, the RTC
ordered YBC to pay damages to respondents.

With respect to Hancit Realty, the RTC held that it cannot be

held liable due to the absence of proof that it was negligent. Also, the
construction contract clearly provides that YBC shall be liable for any
claims of third parties arising from the construction of the tower. 19

YBC assailed the ruling of the RTC before the CA.

The CA denied YBC's appeal. In its Decision, 20 it held, thus:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing,

the DECISION of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
7th Judicial Region-Branch 58, Cebu City in Civil
Case No. Ceb-23569 is hereby AFFIRMED, save
for the awards for moral damages to Joy Ann
Gacayan and Mercy Francisco, and actual damages
amounting to PS,112.50 which are DELETED for
insufficiency of evidence.

SO ORDERED. 21 (Emphasis in the original.)

The CA upheld the application of the doctrine of res ipsa

loquitur. 22 It explained that the doctrine came into operation when the
explanations proferred by YBC proved insufficient to rebut the
presumption of negligence. First, the testimony of YBC's own witness
showed that they did not take precautions to prevent injuries caused
by their construction of the tower. YBC removed the canopy before
the crane was operated. 23 Second, YBC failed to establish that the
wind caused the hook to unlock. Based on the testimony of their
witness, it is also possible that the weight of the jack rod caused the
hook to unlock. 24

- over -
274,
16
Id. at I 50.
17 Id. at 149-150.
18
Id. at 150.
19
Id.at151.
20
Supra note 2.
21 Id. at 40.
22 Id. at 31
23
Id. at 32.
24
Id. at 33-34.

~
 RESOLUTION 5 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019

The CA, however, deleted the award of moral damages to Joy-

Ann and Mercy due to their failure to testify on their mental suffering.
It nonetheless retained the award of moral damages to Andres, Austin,
and Antoni. The CA explained that while they may not have taken the
witness stand (being minors), they were validly represented by
Dominic and Alma. 25

YBC filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied.

Thus, YBC filed this petition arguing that respondents are not entitled
to moral and exemplary damages; and that Alma is guilty of
contributory negligence.

The petition is partly meritorious. We delete the award of moral

damages, but retain the award of exemplary damages. As will be
discussed, We also absolve Alma from the contributory negligence
imputed on her.

An award of moral damages has the following requisites, to wit:

(1) Evidence of besmirched reputation or physical, mental or

psychological suffering sustained by the claimant;
(2) A culpable act or omission factually established;
(3) Proof that the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the
proximate cause of the damages sustained by the claimant; and
(4) Proof that the act is predicated on any of the instances expressed
or envisioned by Article 221926 and Article 2220 27 of the Civil Code. 28

Both the RTC and the CA held that respondents proved that
they suffered psychological trauma because of the incident. We see no

- over -
274/

25 Id. at 38.
26
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
{l) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in article 309;
(l0)Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this
article, may also recover moral damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned
in No. 9 of this article, in the order named.
27
Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the
court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule
applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
28
Manila Electric Companyv. Spouses Ramos, G.R. No. 195145, February 10, 2016, 783 SCRA
597,612 citing Rega/av. Carin, G.R. No. 188715, April 6, 2011, 647 SCRA 419, 427-428.

~
 RESOLUTION 6 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019

reason to disturb such finding, given that it is duly supported by the

testimonies of Dr. Edwin Menguito, a psychiatrist, Carmencita Ponce,
a psychologist, and Dr. Guadalupe Latonio, director of Psychological
Essentials Corporation, who examined respondents. 29 Hence, the first
requisite was satisfied.

With respect to the second and third requisites, the courts a quo
found that YBC was negligent pursuant to the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur which presumes negligence from the very nature of the
accident itself using common human knowledge or experience." 30 We
also agree with the CA, as records clearly disclose that the
requirements to dispense with expert testimony to sustain an
allegation of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur3 1
obtain here.

First, it is unlikely that a jack rod would not fall from the top of
a building by accident. Second, the jack rod, as well as the crane used
to lift it, was within the exclusive control of YBC. Third, respondents
did not perform any voluntary act which contributed to the injury they
suffered.

YBC cannot attribute the incident to the supposed strong wind

which caused the jack rod to fall. As duly observed by the RTC and
the CA, no evidence was presented to show that the wind velocity that
day was out of the ordinary. Even so, YBC should have prepared for
strong winds considering the location of the construction. It appears
that YBC did not take sufficient precaution, such as placing canopies
around the area to catch any falling objects. Clearly then, YBC was
negligent. As a consequence of YBC's negligence, the vehicle was
damaged and respondents suffered psychological trauma and Austin
even suffered physical injuries. In light of the foregoing, We find that
the second and third requisites for the award of moral damages are
established.

Nevertheless, YBC further submits that it cannot be held liable

for moral damages because respondents did not suffer any physical
injuries. As for Austin, YBC contends that she did not testify to prove

- over -
274
29
Rollo, pp. 137-141.
30
Borromeo v. Family Care Hospital, Inc., G.R. No. 191018, January 25, 2016, 781 SCRA 527,
549.
31
(I) The event is of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent;
(2) The cause of the injury was under the exclusive control of the person in charge; and
(3) The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the
part of the person injured. Geromo, et al. v. La Paz Housing and Development Corporation,
G.R. No. 211175, January 18, 2017, 814 SCRA 578, 594.

~
 RESOLUTION 7 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019

that she suffered physical injuries. Petitioner explains that the absence
of the physical injuries by respondents removes this case from the
instances envisioned by the relevant laws, and therefore, the fourth
requisite is wanting.

We agree with petitioner on this point.

The last requisite for the grant of moral damages provides that
the case must fall under either Article 2219 or 2220 of the Civil Code.
One of the instances under Article 2219 are quasi-delicts causing
physical injuries. We have consistently ruled that moral damages
cannot be recovered if a quasi-delict does not result in physical
injury. 32 We recently reiterated this holding in Coca-Cola Bottlers
Phils. Inc. v. Menez. 33 This limitation is implied from the provisions
of Article 2219. 34

In Coca-Cola, Ernani Mefiez filed a case for damages against

Coca-Cola Bottlers and Rosante for selling him a bottle of Sprite
which was later on found out as containing pure kerosene. He alleged
that he vomited, and was confined in the hospital, as a consequence of
his ingestion of the product. After trial and upon appeal, the CA
awarded moral and exemplary damages to Mefiez. When the issue of
the award of damages was brought to this Court, We reversed the CA
and held that:

"Unfortunately, Mefiez has not presented

competent, credible and preponderant evidence to
prove that he suffered physical injuries when he
allegedly ingested kerosene from the "Sprite" bottle
in question. Nowhere in the CA's Decision is the
physical injury of Menez discussed. The RTC's
Decision states the diagnosis of the medical
condition of Mefiez in the medical abstract prepared
by Dr. Abel Hilario Gomez, who was not presented
as a witness, and signed by Dr. Magbanua, Jr.
(Exhibit "R"): "the degree of poisoning on the
plaintiff [Mefiez] was mild, since the amount
ingested was minimal and did not have severe
physical effects on his body." In his testimony, Dr.
Magbanua, Jr. stated: "To my mind, [Menez] had
taken in kerosene of exactly undetermined amount,
apparently or probably, only a small amount

- over -
274.,,
32
See Bagumbayan Corp. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-66274, September 30,
1984, 132 SCRA 441, and Enervida v. De la Torre, G.R. No. L-38037, January 28, 1974, 55
SCRA 339, 347.
33
G.R. No. 209906, November 22, 2017, 846 SCRA 294.
34
Quezon City Government v. Dacra, G.R. No. 150304, June 15, 2005, 460 SCRA 243, 255.

lJ
 RESOLUTION 8 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019

because the degree of adverse effect on his body is

very minimal knowing that if he had taken in a large
amount he would have been in x x x very serious
trouble and we would have seen this when we
examined him." The statements of the doctors who
tended to the medical needs of Menez were
equivocal. "Physical effects on the body" and
"adverse effect on his body" are not very clear and
definite as to whether or not Menez suffered
physical injuries and if these statements indicate
that he did, what their nature was or how extensive
they were."

Consequently, in the absence of sufficient evidence

on physical injuries that Menez sustained, he is not
entitled to moral damages. 35

Our consistent holding traces its roots back to Malonzo v.

Galang, 36 citing Strebel v. Figueras, 37 where We held: 38

Besides, Article 2219 specifically mentions "quasi-delicts

causing physical injuries," as an instance when moral damages
may be allowed, thereby implying that all other quasi-delicts not
resulting in physical injuries are excluded (Strebel vs. Figueras, 96
Phil., 321), excepting, of course, the special torts referred to in Art.
309 (par. 9, Art. 2219) and in Arts. 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34,
and 35 on the chapter on human relations (par. 10, Art. 2219). 39

In Bagumbayan Corp. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 40 we

explained the need to prove physical injury in case of quasi-delicts,
and the requirement of willfulness (as against mere negligence) in the
case of torts where the Civil Code allows for the recovery of moral
damages: 41

"Generally, damages for mental anguish are limited to cases in

which there has been a personal physical injury or where the
defendant wilfully, wantonly, recklessly, or intentionally caused the
mental anguish (22 Am Jur 2nd 275). "Nor will damages generally
be awarded for mental anguish which is not accompanied by a
physical injury, at least where maliciousness, wantonness, or
intentional conduct is not involved" (22 Am Jur 2nd 276).

- over -
274 /
35
Coca-cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Menez, supra note 33 at 305-306, citations omitted.
36
G.R.No.L-13851,July27, 1960, 109Phil.16.
37
G.R. No. L-4722, December 29, 1954, 96 Phil. 321.
38
Supra note 36 at 20.
39 Id.
40
Supra note 32.
41
Expertravel & Tours, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130030, June 25, 1999, 309 SCRA
141, 146:
In culpa aquiliana, or quasi-delict, (a) when an act or omission causes physical injuries, or (b)
where the defendant is guilty of intentional tort, moral damages may aptly be recovered. This
rule also applies, as aforestated, to contracts when breached by tort.

\J
 RESOLUTION 9 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019

"Damages for mental anguish and suffering have been held

recoverable where the act complained of was done with such gross
carelessness or recklessness as to show an utter indifference to the
consequences" (25 C.J.S. 820).

"Under Ohio law, damages for emotional distress consisting of

embarrassment and mental suffering and dire threats, are not
recoverable unless intentionally caused" (Parmelee vs. E.A.
Ackerman 252 Fed. 2nd 721).

In Chicago, R.1 & P. Ry Co. vs. Caple, 179 S.W. 2nd 151, it
was held that where the act is wanton or will.fa/ there may be a
recovery for humiliation and mental suffering without any physical
injury. It was further held that in negligence cases, where there is no
willful or wanton wrong, there can be no recovery for mental
suffering unless there is also physical injury.

We hold that the "embarrassment" to which Mrs. Sefi.a was

exposed by the incident is not the mental anguish contemplated in
article 221 7 for which moral damages can be recovered. 42

In sum, a claim for damages arising from quasi-delicts, moral

damages may only be recovered in three instances, to wit:
First, it results in physical injuries;
Second, it falls under Art. 30943 of the Civil Code; or
Third, it falls under Arts. 21, 44 26, 45 27, 46 28,47 29, 48 30,49 32,50
42 Bagumbayan Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra at 446.
43 Art. 309. Any person who shows disrespect to the dead, or wrongfully interferes with a funeral
shall be liable to the family of the deceased for damages, material and moral.
44 Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary

to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
45
Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a
criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention, and other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence;
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another rot be alienated from his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life,
place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.
46
Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee
refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for
damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative
action that may be taken.
47 Art. 28. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor

through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive or
highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage.
48 Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt

has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or
omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon
motion of the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages
in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall
so declare. In the absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the
decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground.
49 Art. 30. When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising from a

criminal offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of the civil
case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be sufficient to prove the act complained of.
50 Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly

obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and

- over -
274 ,1 ~
RESOLUTION 10 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019

34, 51 and 35 52 of the chapter on human relations in the Civil Code.

Therefore, if a quasi-delict does not result in physical injury,

moral damages may only be recovered under the specified articles of
the Civil Code.

- over -
274

liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:

(1) Freedom ofreligion;
(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention'
(5) Freedom of suffrage'
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;
(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures;
( l 0) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
(I 1) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to
law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the Government for redress of
grievances;
(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form;
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in
his behalf;
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from being forced to
confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such
confession, except when the person confessing becomes a State witness;
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is
imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared
unconstitutional; and
(I 9) Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission
constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate
and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and may be proved by a
preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission
constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.
51
Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or
protection to any person in case of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be
primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible
therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings,
and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.
52
Art. 35. When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal offense, charges another with the
same, for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code or any special law, but the
justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, or
the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the complainant may
bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender. Such civil action may be supported
by a preponderance of evidence. Upon the defendant's motion, the court may require the
plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be
malicious.
If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should be presented by the
prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal
proceedings.

~
 RESOLUTION 11 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019

In justifying the grant of moral damages, the CA cited De

Guzman v. NLRC, 53 which held that moral damages may be awarded
even without physical injury to the complainant. We clarify, however,
that moral damages was granted in De Guzman, even without proof of
physical injury, because it qualified under Article 21 of the Civil
Code, which pertains to a willful act, as opposed to mere negligence. 54

Similarly, in (Stanfilco) Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 55

we held:

xx x Article 21, on the other hand, refers to acts contra bonus mores.
The act is within the article only when it is done willfully. The act is
willful if it is done with knowledge of its injurious effect; it is not
required that the act be done purposely to produce the injury. 56

xxxx

Under Article 2219 of the New Civil Code, moral damages may
be recovered, among others, in acts and actions referred to in Article
21. Moral damages may be awarded in cases referred to in the
chapter on human relations of the Civil Code without need of proof
that the wrongful act complained of had caused any physical injury
upon the complainant. 57

Here, respondents admit that only Austin suffered physical

injuries. 58 Hence, applying the principles discussed, only Austin is
entitled to moral damages. With respect to the second and third
instances, a perusal of the pertinent articles would reveal that none
applies in this case. As such, only Austin is entitled to moral damages.

Further, We do not subscribe to YBC's contention that

respondents failed to prove that Austin suffered mental, anguish,
fright, serious anxiety, and such since she did not testify. 59 We find
that Austin's psychological trauma was sufficiently proven even
though she did not testify. Both Alma and Elvira testified on the
incident which they experienced together with Austin. More
importantly, no less than Austin's doctors, who examined her and
diagnosed her mental condition, testified. Accordingly, it cannot be
said that the finding that Austin suffered mental anguish, serious
anxiety, and the like is bereft of any basis.

- over -
274 .I

53
G.R. No. 90856, July 23, 1992, 211 SCRA 723.
54
Id. at 731.
55
G.R. No. 174646, August 22, 2012, 678 SCRA 651.
56 Id at 670, citations omitted.
57
Id. at 672.
58
Rollo, p. 88.
59 See Northwest Orient Airlines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83033, June 8, 1990, 186 SCRA

440,446.

~
 RESOLUTION 12 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019

Under Article 2229, exemplary damages may only be awarded

in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages.
In the case of quasi-delicts, which is what is involved here, the
defendant must have acted with gross negligence. 60 Gross negligence
is the want or absence of even slight care or diligence as to amount to
a reckless disregard of the safety of person or property. It evinces a
thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to
avoid them. 61 Here, the glaring lack of safety measures undertaken by
YBC justifies the grant of exemplary damages to Austin. YBC did
nothing at all to prevent or at least mitigate the damage inflicted upon
respondents.

Finally, YBC's claim that Alma is guilty of contributory

negligence deserves scant consideration. The uniform findings of fact
of both the RTC and the CA clearly belie YBC's assertion.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.

The Decision dated August 31, 2010 and Resolution dated July 25,
2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 00771 are hereby
MODIFIED in that the award of moral damages to respondents
Dominic Martin E. Garcia and Alma Mia A. Garcia, for themselves,
and for Andres Marino A. Garcia, Antoni Mateo A. Garcia, and Elvira
E. Lapi is DELETED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in all
other respects is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED." Gesmundo, J., on official leave.

Very truly yours,

- over -

6
° CIVIL CODE, Art. 2231.
61
National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Noble Casionan, G.R. No. 165969, November 27,
2008, 572 SCRA 71, 87.

~
RESOLUTION 13 G.R. No. 198331
July 3, 2019

ZOSA & QUIJANO LAW OFFICES Court of Appeals

Counsel for Petitioner
Don Mariano Cui Street, Fuente
Osmefia, 6000 Cebu City
6000 Cebu City
(CA-G.R. CV No. 00771)
GICA DEL SOCORRO ESPINOZA
VILLARMIA FERNANDEZ
&TAN
Counsel for Respondents
3/F Gilaida Building
218 G R.R. Landon Extension
Sambag I, 6000 Cebu City

The Hon. Presiding Judge

Regional Trial Court, Branch 58
6000 Cebu City
(Civil Case No. CEB-23569)

Public Information Office (x)

Library Services (x)
Supreme Court
(For uploading pursuant to A.M.
No. 12-7-1-SC)

Judgment Division (x) , ... \

Supreme Court 'f
274
/

UR

~if