CDA
For the Final Exam – Damages
Case Alleged Tortuous/Wrongful Act/Omission
1. Casupanan vs. Laroya, Two vehicles figured in an accident
2002 Respondent filed a criminal action against petitioners for
Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Damage to Property. While
the criminal case is pending, the Petitioners filed with the
MCTC a civil case for Quasi-delict.
ISSUE: Whether an accused in a pending criminal case for
reckless imprudence can validly file, simultaneously and
independently, a separate civil action for quasi-delict against
the private complainant in the criminal case. YES
2. Vestil vs. IAC, 1989 3-year old Theness was bitten by a dog while she was playing
with a child of the petitioners in the house of the late Vicente
Miranda, the father of Purita Vestil in Cebu City. She was
soon hospitalized. The Uys sued for damages alleging that the
Vestils were liable as possessors of the dog Andoy who bit
Theness. The Vestils rejected the charge and argued that the
dog was owned by the deceased father of Vestil.
ISSUE: Whether the Vestils should be liable for mere
possession of the dog that bit Theness. YES
3. Bernardino Jimenez vs Jimenez, together with his neighbors, went to
City of Manila, 1987 Sta. Ana public market to buy “bagoong” at the time when
the public market was flooded with ankle deep rainwater.
After purchasing the “bagoong” he turned around to return
home, but he stepped on an uncovered opening which could
not be seen because of the dirty rainwater,
causing a dirty and rusty four- inch nail, stuck inside the
uncovered opening, to
Legal Basis/Doctrine Ruling
Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, the independent civil action in Articles 32, Petition for Review
33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code is not deemed instituted with the criminal action is Granted
but may be filed separately by the offended party even without reservation. The
commencement of the criminal action does not suspend the prosecution of the
independent civil action under these articles of the Civil Code. The suspension in
Section 2 of the present Rule 111 refers only to the civil action arising from the crime,
if such civil action is reserved or filed before the commencement of the criminal
action. Thus, the offended party can file two separate suits for the same act or
omission.
The first a criminal case where the civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto is
deemed instituted, and the other a civil case for quasi-delict – without violating the
rule on non-forum shopping. The two cases can proceed simultaneously and
independently of each other. The commencement or prosecution of the criminal
action will not suspend the civil action for quasi-delict. The only limitation is that the
offended party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the
defendant. Thus, the civil action based on quasi-delict filed separately by Petitioners
is proper.
Article 2183 reads as follows: Petition is DENIED
The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible for
the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. ‘This responsibility
shall cease only in case the damages should come from force majeure from the fault
of the person who has suffered damage.
According to Manresa, the obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the Civil Code is not
based on negligence or on the presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of
the animal causing the damage. It is based on natural equity and on the principle of
social interest that he who possesses animals for his utility, pleasure, or service must
answer for the damage which such animal may cause.
Respondent City of Manila and Asiatic Integrated Corporation being joint tortfeasors CA decision is
are solidarily liable under Article 2194 of the Civil Code. The City of Manila is likewise MODIFIED
liable for damages under Article 2189 of the Civil
Code, respondent City having retained control and supervision over the Sta. Ana
Public Market and as tort-feasor under Article 2176 of the Civil Code on quasi delicts.
Article 2189 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which provides that:
Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the
death of, or injuries suffered by any person by reason of defective
1
CDA
pierce the left leg of plaintiff-petitioner penetrating to a
depth of about one and a
half inches. The lower court decided in favor of respondents.
On appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court held the Asiatic
Integrated
Corporation liable for damages but absolved respondent City
of Manila.
ISSUE: W/N the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in not
ruling that respondent City of Manila should be jointly and
severally liable with Asiatic Integrated Corporation for the
injuries petitioner suffered. YES
4. Gotesco Investment Gloria E. Chatto and her 15-year old daughter Lina went to
Corp. vs. Chatto, 1992 see the movie. Hardly 10 minutes after entering the theater,
the ceiling of the balcony collapsed and pandemonium
ensued. Gotesco tried to avoid liability by alleging that the
collapse was due to force majeure. It maintained that its
theater did not suffer from any structural or
construction defect. The trial court awarded
actual/compensatory and moral damages and attorney’s fees
in favor of the Chattos. The CA also found Gotesco’s appeal
to be without merit. Hence this petition.
ISSUE: W/N the cause of the collapse of the balcony ceiling
was force majeure. NO
5. Coca-Cola v. CA, 1993 Respondent Geronimo was the proprietess of Kindergarten
Wonderland Canteen, engaged in the sale of soft drinks and
other goods to the students and to the public. On August 12,
1989, some parents of the students complained that the
Coke and Sprite soft drinks contained fiber-like matter and
other foreign substances. Due to this, her sales plummeted
and not long after that, she had to close shop. She demanded
from the petitioner the payment of damages but was
rebuffed by it. She then filed a complaint before the RTC of
Dagupan City, which granted the motion to dismiss filed by
petitioner, on the ground that the complaint is based on
contract, and not on quasi-delict, as there exists pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties. Thus, on the basis
of Article 1571, in relation to Article 1562, the complaint
should have been filed within six months from the delivery of
conditions of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings and other public
works under their control or supervision.
Petitioner had the right to assume that there were no openings in the middle of the
passageways and if any, that they were adequately covered. Had the opening been
covered, petitioner could not have fallen into it. Thus the negligence of the City of
Manila is the proximate cause of the injury suffered, the City is therefore liable for
the injury suffered by the petitioner.
The collapse of the balcony ceiling was not due to force majeure. Gotesco is liable. Petition is DENIED
Gotesco’s claim that the collapse of the ceiling of the theater was due to force
majeure is not even founded on facts because its own witness, Mr. Ong, admitted
that he could not give any reason for the collapse. The real reason why Mr. Ong could
not explain the cause is because either he did not actually conduct an investigation or
because he is incompetent (not an engineer, but an architect who had not even
passed the government’s examination). And even assuming arguendo that the cause
of the collapse was due to force majeure,
Gotesco would still be liable because the trial court declared it to be guilty of gross
negligence. As gleaned from Bouvier’s definition, for one to be exempt from any
liability because of it, he must have exercised care, i.e., he should not have been
guilty of negligence.
The action in based on quasi-delict, therefore, it prescribes in four years. The Petition is DENIED
allegations in the complaint makes a reference to the reckless and negligent
manufacture of “adulterated food items intended to be sold for public consumption.”
The vendee’s remedies are not limited to those prescribed in Article 1567 of the Civil
Code. The vendor could be liable for quasi-delict under Article 2176, and an action
based thereon may be brought by the vendee.
The existence of a contract between the parties does not bar the commission of a
tort by the one against the other and the consequent recovery of damages therefor.
Liability for quasi-delict may still exist despite the presence of contractual relations.
2
CDA
the thing sold.
ISSUE: Whether or not the action for damages by the
proprietress against the soft drinks manufacturer should be
treated as one for breach of implied warranty against hidden
defects, which must be filed within six months from the
delivery of the thing sold, or one for quasi-delict, which can
be filed within four years pursuant to Article 1146 of the Civil
Code. ONE FOR QUASI-DELICT
6. Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. Hidalgo Enterprises was the owner of an ice-plant factory in
vs Balandan, 1952 San Pablo, Laguna. In the factory, there were two tanks full of
water, both 9-ft deep, for cooling purposes of its engine. On
April 16, 1948, Mario Balandan, a boy barely 3 years old, was
playing with other boys his age when he entered the factory
premises through the gate. Balandan then took a bath in one
of the tanks of water and, later on, sank to the bottom of the
tank. He died of “asphyxia secondary to drowning.” The CFI
and CA ruled that Hidalgo Enterprises maintained an
attractive nuisance and neglected to adopt the necessary
precautions to avoid accident to person entering its
premises.
ISSUE: Whether or not a water tank is an attractive nuisance.
NO
7. Occena v. Icamina, 1990 A criminal complaint for Grave Oral Defamation
against herein private respondent Cristina Vegafria for
allegedly openly, publicly and maliciously uttering the
following insulting words and statements: “Gago ikaw nga
Barangay Captain, Montisco, Traidor, malugus, Hudas.” Trial
thereafter ensued, at which petitioner, without reserving his
right to file a separate civil action for damages actively
intervened thru a private prosecutor. No damages were
awarded to petitioner in view of the trial court’s opinion that
“the facts and circumstances of the case as adduced by the
evidence do not warrant the awarding of moral
No. Hidalgo Enterprises Inc.’s water tanks are not classified as attractive nuisance. Appealed decision
Other issues such as whether it exercised reasonable precautions, and if the parents is REVERSED
were guilty of contributory negligence are immaterial.
Hidalgo Enterprises is absolved from liability.
One who maintains on his premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a
character likely to attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to
prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of
tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in the
premises. This is the doctrine of attractive nuisance. The principal reason for the
doctrine is that the condition or appliance in question although its danger is apparent
to those of age, is so enticing or alluring to children of tender years as to induce them
to approach, get on or use it, and this’ attractiveness is an implied invitation to such
children. The majority of American jurisprudence posits that the doctrine of attractive
nuisance is generally not applicable to bodies of water, whether artificial or natural.
The exception to this is if there is some unusual condition or artificial feature other
than mere water and its location. Furthermore, in Anderson v. Reith-Riley Const. Co.,
the Indiana Appellate Court explained why bodies of water are not considered as
attractive nuisance. It ruled that children have been instructed early on to exercise
caution around bodies of water and are presumed to know the danger
Civil obligations arising from criminal offenses are governed by Article 100 of Petition is
the RPC which provides that “Ivery person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly GRANTED
liable,” in relation to Article 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delict, the provisions for
independent civil actions in the Chapter on Human Relations and the provisions
regulating damages, also found in the Civil Code.
Underlying the legal principle that a person who is criminally liable is also civilly
liable is the view that from the standpoint of its effects, a crime has dual character:
(1) as an offense against the state because of the disturbance of the social order; and
(2) as an offense against the private person injured by the crime unless it involves
the crime of treason, rebellion, espionage, contempt and others wherein no civil
3
CDA
damages.”
ISSUE: W/N petitioner is entitled to an award of damages
arising from the remarks uttered
by private respondent and found by the trial court to be
defamatory. YES
8. Asilio, Jr. v. People and Visitacion, together with her husband Cesar Bombasi
Sps. Bombasi, 2011 (Spouses Bombasi) filed with the RTC of San Pablo City,
Laguna a Civil Case for damages with preliminary injunction
against the Municipality of Nagcarlan, Laguna, the Mayor,
et.al., Sometime in 1986, a fire razed the public market of
Nagcarlan.  Upon Visitacion’s request for inspection, it was
found out that the store of Visitacion remained intact and
stood strong. The store continued to operate after the
incident. In 1993, Visitacion received a letter from Mayor
Comendador directing her to demolish her store.
ISSUE: W/N the amount of damages is correctly awarded to
Sps. Bombasi. NO
liability arises on the part of the offender either because there are no damages to be
compensated or there is no private person injured by the crime. 3 In the ultimate
analysis, what gives rise to the civil liability is really the obligation of everyone to
repair or to make whole the damage caused to another by reason of his act or
omission, whether done intentional or negligently and whether or not punishable by
law.
• Article 2219, par. (7) of the Civil Code allows the recovery of moral damages in case
of libel, slander or any other form of defamation This provision of law establishes the
right of an offended party in a case for oral defamation to recover from the guilty
party damages for injury to his feelings and reputation. The offended party is likewise
allowed to recover punitive or exemplary damages.
• It must be remembered that every defamatory imputation is presumed to be
malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is
shown. And malice may be inferred from the style and tone of publication subject to
certain exceptions which are not present in the case at bar.
From the evidence presented, we rule that for the injury to his feelings and
reputation, being a barangay captain, petitioner is entitled to moral damages in the
sum of P5,000.00 and a further sum of P5,000.00 as exemplary damages.
To seek recovery of actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss Instant appeal is
with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the DENIED
best evidence obtainable. In this case, the Court finds that the only evidence
presented to prove the actual damages incurred was the itemized list of damaged
and lost items prepared by Engineer Cabrega, an engineer commissioned by the
Spouses Bombasi to estimate the costs.
Though there is no sufficient evidence to award the actual damages claimed, this
Court grants temperate damages for P200,000.00 in view of the loss suffered by the
Spouses Bombasi. 
Temperate damages are awarded in accordance with Art. 2224 of the New Civil Code
when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount
cannot, from the nature of the case, be proven with certainty.  The amount of
temperate or moderated damages is usually left to the discretion of the courts but
the same should be reasonable, bearing in mind that the temperate damages should
be more than nominal but less than compensatory.
Without a doubt, the Spouses Bombasi suffered some form of pecuniary loss in the
impairment of their store.  However, due to the failure of the Spouses to prove the
4
CDA
9. Ruks Konsult and Adworld alleged that its billboard structure was misaligned
Construction vs and its foundation was impaired when the adjacent billboard
Adworld, 2015 structure owned by Transworld collapsed and crashed
against it. Adworld then filed a complaint for damages.
ISSUE: W/N Ruks was solidarily liable with Transworld for the
damages in Adworld’s billboard. YES
10. Integrated Packaging Integrated Packaging Corp agreed to deliver to Fil-anchor
Corp. vs. CA, 2000 Paper Co., Inc. 3,450 reams of printing paper. Only 1,097 out
of the 3,450 had been delivered so it wrote to Fil-anchor that
delay will prejudice them. Fil-anchor filed a collection suit of
P766,101.70 against Integrated representing unpaid
purchase price of printing paper bought on credit. By way of
counterclaim, Fil-anchor alleged the delivery was short of
2,875 reams so it suffered actual damages and failed to
realize expected profits and that complaint was prematurely
filed.
ISSUE: W/N Integrated should be awarded compensatory and
moral damages. YES
11. Talisay-Silay vs. On June of 1957, Congress approved RA 1825 which
Associacion, 1995 governed the transfer, under
certain conditions, of a planter’s sugar production allowance
or quota from one
sugar mill to another. Petitioners filed a complaint against
respondents for transferring its quota in violation of the said
provision and was granted • On appeal, the CA reduced the
exact amount of damage in accordance with the Rules of Evidence, this court finds
that P200,000.00 is the amount just and reasonable under the circumstances.
Under Article 2194 of the Civil Code, joint tortfeasors are solidarily liable for the Petition is DENIED
resulting damage. In other words, joint tortfeasors are each liable as principals; to the
same extent and in the same manner as if they had performed the wrongful act
themselves.
There is no contribution between joint [tortfeasors] whose liability is solidary since
both of them are liable for the total damage. Where the concurrent or successive
negligent acts or omissions of two or more persons, although acting independently,
are in combination the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third person,
it is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury and
either of them is responsible for the whole injury.
Suspension of its deliveries to Integrated whenever the latter failed to pay on time, as Petition is DENIED
in this case, is legally justified under the second paragraph of Article 1583 of the Civil
Code. Hence, the Fil-anchor did not violate the order agreement. Further, Fil-anchor
is not a party to the agreement between Philacor neither is it a contract pour autrui
so no direct bearing.
Indemnification for damages comprehends not only the loss suffered, that is to say
actual damages (damnum emergens), but also profits which the xorbi failed to
obtain, referred to as compensatory damages (lucrum cessans). However, to justify a
grant of actual or compensatory damages, it is necessary to prove with a reasonable
degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence
obtainable by the injured party, the actual amount of loss.
Deletion of the award of moral damages is proper, since private respondent could
not be held liable for breach of contract.
Moral damages may be awarded when in a breach of contract, the defendant acted
in bad faith, or was guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith, or in wanton
disregard of his contractual obligation. Finally, since the award of moral damages is
eliminated, so must the award for attorney’s fees be also deleted.
The court held that if the facts shown entitled plaintiff to relief other than that CA decision
asked for, no amendment to the complaint was necessary, especially where MODIFIED and
defendant had himself raised the point on which recovery was based. The appellate REMANDED
court could treat the pleadings as amended to conform to the evidence although the
pleadings were actually not amended. The rule on amendment need not be applied
rigidly, particularly where no surprise or prejudice is caused the objecting party. The
trial court should not be precluded from awarding an amount higher than that
5
CDA
award of damages from approximately P15.4M to only P1M,
hence the present petition.
ISSUES: W/N the CA erred in reducing the amount of
damages. YES
W/N the amount of damages awarded by the TC is supported
by the evidence of record. NO
12. Eastern Shipping vs CA, Two fiber drums owned by Eastern Shipping were shipped
1994 from Japan. The shipment as insured with a marine policy.
Upon arrival in Manila unto the custody of metro Port
Service, one drum is said to be in bad order and which
damage was unknown the Mercantile Insurance Company.
CA affirmed the decision of the TC ordering defendants to
pay the plaintiff with present legal interest of 12% per annum
from the date of the filing of the complaint.
ISSUE: Whether the applicable rate of legal interest is 12% or
6%. 12% (but this is now modified)
Whether the payment of legal interest on the award for loss
or damage is to be computed from the time the complaint is
filed from the date the decision appealed from is rendered.
From the date judgement is made.
claimed in the pleadings notwithstanding the absence of the required amendment.
But this is upon the condition that the evidence of such higher amount has been
presented properly, with full opportunity on the part of the opposing parties to
support their respective contentions and to refute each other’s evidence.
Familiar is the rule that ‘damages consisting of unrealized profits, frequently
referred as ‘ganancias frustradas’ or ‘lucrum cessans’ are not to be granted on the
basis of mere speculation, conjecture or surmise but rather by reference to
some reasonably definite standard such as market value, established experience
or direct inference from known circumstances.
• Evidence of damages must be clear and apparent from the pronouncement of
the court
• The court does not distinctly state what facts were considered in arriving at the
different figures, what amounts plaintiffs failed to receive, and what were
deducted to determine ‘unrealized profits’
• The court’s judgment is purely a conclusion of law and not a finding of the
essential ultimate facts
• Hence, the case was remanded for the proper determination of the amount of
damages
The case of Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, laid down the following Petition is PARTLY
guidelines on the imposition of interest, to wit: GRANTED
1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of
money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that
which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due
shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the
absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be
computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and
subject to the provisions of Article 1169 23 of the Civil Code. X x x
2. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final
and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under
paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 12% per annum from such
finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then
an equivalent to a forbearance of credit.
Where the demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin
to run from the time the claim is made judicially or EJ but when such certainty cannot
be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin
to run only from the date of judgment of the court is made. The Court held that it
should be computed from the decision rendered by the court a quo.
6
CDA

13. Daywalt vs. Recoletos et
al, 1919
Plaintiff and Endencia entered into a contract for the
conveyance of a tract of land owned by the latter to the
former. Daywalt later filed an action against Endencia for
specific performance when the latter was reluctant to convey
the title to Daywalt, contending that she did not intend to
transfer as big a property as that contained in the title and
that she was misinformed of its area.. On appeal before the
SC, Daywalt obtained a favorable decision, However, no
damages was sought or awarded in the case against
Endencia. In this case, the SC had to decide on a complaint
regarding malicious interference in the performance of
contract.
ISSUE: W/N the damages allowed should be increased due to
the alleged unjustified interference. NO
NOTE: The ruling in Eastern Shipping Lines has now been modified by Bangko Sentral
ng Pilipinas Monetary Board Circular No. 799 Series of 2013, providing that: The rate
of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the rate
allowed in judgments, in the absence of an express contract as to such rate of
interest, shall be six percent (6%) per annum. (BSP Circular No. 799, July 1, 2013)
Damages assessed are sufficient to compensate the plaintiff for the use and TC decision
occupation of the land during the whole time it was used. AFFIRMED
Article 1902 of the Civil Code declares that any person who by an act or omission,
characterized by fault or negligence, causes damage to another shall be liable for the
damage so done. Ignoring so much of this article as relates to liability for negligence,
we take the rule to be that a person is liable for damage done to another by any
culpable act; and by “culpable act” we mean any act which is blameworthy when
judged by accepted legal standards.
The stranger cannot become more extensively liable in damages for the
nonperformance of the contract than the party in whose behalf he intermeddles. To
hold the stranger liable for damages in excess of those that could be recovered
against the immediate party to the contract would lead to results at once grotesque
and unjust.

14. Algarra V. Sandejas, Algarra was involved in a car collision due to the defendant’s
1914 negligence causing him to be hospitalized for 10 days.
Plaintiff said that he had done no work since the accident.
The lower court refused to allow him to claim for injury to his
business due to his enforced absence therefrom on the
ground that the doctrine of Marcelo v. Velasco is opposed to
such allowance.
ISSUE: W/N there is actual or compensatory damage despite
absence of malicious intent. YES
NOTE: If action is brought for specific performance, damages sought must be asked in
the same action; otherwise, the damages are deemed waived.
The purpose of the law in awarding actual damages is to repair the wrong that has
been done, to compensate for the injury inflicted, and not to impose a penalty.
Actual damages are not dependent on nor graded by the intent with which the
wrongful act is done.” (Field vs. Munster, 11 Tex. Civ., Appl., 341, 32 S. W., 417.)
“The words “actual damages” shall be construed to include all damages that the
plaintiff may he has suffered in respect to his property, business, trade, profession, or
occupation, and no other damages whatever.” (Gen Stat. Minn. 1894, sec., 5418.)
“Actual damages are compensatory only.” (Lord, Owen and Co. vs. Wood, 120 Iowa,
303, 94 N. W., 842.) ”

`Compensatory damages’ as indicated by the word employed to characterize them,

simply make good or replace the loss caused by the wrong. They proceed from a
sense of natural justice, and are designed to repair that of which one has been
deprived by the wrong of another.” (Reid vs. Terwilliger, 116 N. Y., 530; 22 N. E.,
1091.) “Compensatory damages’ are such as awarded to compensate the injured
7
CDA
15. Visayan Sawmill vs. CA, Visayan and RJH entered into a contract for the sale of scrap
1993 iron located at Visayan’s stockyard subject to the condition
that RJH “will open, make or indorse an irrevocable and
unconditional letter of credit. RJH failed to open the said LC.
Visayan comply with their contract by delivering to him the
scrap iron subject thereof but the latter refused. Thus, the
buyer filed a complaint for performance and damages
ISSUE: W/N the award of moral and exemplary damages are
proper. NO
party for caused by the wrong, and must be only such as make just and fair
compensation, and are due when the wrong is established, whether it was
committed maliciously — that is, with evil intention — or not. (Wimer vs. Allbaugh,
78 Iowa, 79; 42 N. W., 587; 16 Am. St. Rep., 422.)
In contracts, such as in the instant case, moral damages may be recovered if Petition is
defendants acted fraudulently and in bad faith, while exemplary damages may only GRANTED
be awarded if defendants acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or
malevolent manner. In the instant case, the refusal of the petitioners to deliver the
scrap iron was founded on the non-fulfillment by the private respondent of a
suspensive condition. It cannot, therefore, be said that the herein petitioners had
acted fraudulently and in bad faith or in a wanton, reckless, oppressive or malevolent
manner.
What this Court stated in Inhelder Corp. vs. Court of Appeals needs to be stressed
anew: “At this juncture, it may not be amiss to remind Trial Courts to guard against
the award of xorbitant (sic) damages that are way out of proportion to the
environmental circumstances of a case and which, time and again, this Court has
reduced or eliminated. Judicial discretion granted to the Courts in the assessment of
damages must always be exercised with balanced restraint and measured
objectivity.”

16. Bagumbayan Corp. vs.
IAC, 1984
The respondent spouses and their four children went to the
Tropical Palace Hotel, Parañaque, Metro Manila to see the
Reycard Duet Show. They occupied a table and ordered
drinks before the show started. According to Lelisa, when a
waiter named Baez was going to serve them, the tray
containing the drinks was overturned and fell on her. Lelisa
claimed for moral damages for herself and her husband due
to embarrassment and the fact that the management did not
even offer any apology on that night. She also was claiming
exemplary damages in the same amount to teach the
management a lesson. The Señas sued the corporation, as
employer of the waiter, for actual damages plus attorney's
fees and such moral and exemplary damages as might be
For, indeed, moral damages are emphatically not intended to enrich a complainant at
the expense of the defendant. They are awarded only to enable the injured party to
obtain means, diversion or amusements that will serve to obviate the moral suffering
he has undergone, by reason of the defendant’s culpable action. Its award is aimed at
the restoration, within the limits of the possible, of the spiritual status quo ante, and
it must be proportional to the suffering inflicted.
The trial court sensibly noted that court action could have been avoided had the CA decision is
matter been taken up directly with the corporation before the action was filed. No MODIFIED
extrajudicial demand preceded the action. While the award for actual damages has
some basis, the grant of moral and exemplary damages is devoid of legal justification
because it was not predicated upon any of the cases enumerated under Articles
2217, 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code. (Ventanilla vs. Centeno, 110 Phil. 811, 816)
The instant case is not
specifically mentioned in
8
CDA

article 2219 which refers

fixed by the court.

ISSUE: W/N is liable for moral and exemplary damages. NO

to quasi-delicts causing
physical injuries.
The Appellate Court erred
in considering it as
analogous to the cases
mentioned therein without
indicating wha
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. What we call moral damages are treated in American
jurisprudence as compensatory damages awarded for mental pain and suffering or
mental anguish resulting from a wrong. The Supreme Court held that the
"embarrassment" to which Mrs. Seña was exposed by the incident is not the mental
anguish contemplated in article 2217 for damages can be recovered. In this case, it
would not be just and proper to include moral damages in the corporation's vicarious
liability as employer. The award of P5,000 as exemplary or corrective damages
cannot also be sustained because there was no gross negligence in this case.

The petitioner is ordered to pay Lelisa Seña the sum of P5,000 to cover her actual
9
CDA
17. Filipinas Broadcasting
Network vs. AMEC-BCC,
2005
18. Francisco v. Ferrer, 2001
Sans reval case
Rima and Alegre (radio program host of FBNI) exposed
various alleged complaints from students, teachers and
parents against Ago Medical and Educational Center-Bicol
Christian College of Medicine ("AMEC") and its
administrators. Claiming that the broadcasts were
defamatory, AMEC and Angelita Ago ("Ago"), as Dean of
AMEC’s College of Medicine, filed a complaint for damage
against FBNI, Rima and Alegre.
ISSUE: W/N AMEC is entitled to moral damages. YES
W/N FBNI is solidarily liable with Rima and Alegre. YES
Mrs. Rebecca Lo and her daughter Annette Ferrer ordered a
3-layered cake from Fountainhead Bakeshop. It was agreed
that the wedding cake shall be delivered at 5:00 in the
afternoon on December 14, 1992, at the Cebu Country Club.
Plaintiffs made their full payment. At 7:00 pm, the wedding
cake has not arrived. Plaintiffs made a follow-up
call and were informed that it was probably late because of
the traffic. At 8:00, plaintiffs were informed that no wedding
cake will be delivered because the
order slip got lost. They were then compelled to buy the only
available cake at the Cebu Country Club which was a sans
rival. At 10:00, a 2-layered wedding cake arrived. Plaintiffs
declined to accept it. Defendant Erlinda Francisco sent a
letter of apology accompanied with a P5,000.00
check which was declined by plaintiffs. 2 weeks after the
wedding, Francisco called Mrs. Lo and apologized. Plaintiffs
filed an action for breach of contract with damages. TC
damages, litigation expenses and attorney's fee.
MECs claim for moral damages falls under item 7 of Article 2210 of the Civil Code. Instant petition is
This provision expressly authorizes the recovery of moral damages in cases of libel, DENIED
slander or any other form of defamation. Article 2219(7) does not qualify whether
the plaintiff is a natural or juridical person. Therefore, a juridical person such as a
corporation can validly file a complaint for libel or any other form of defamation and
claim for moral damages.
Under 2219 of the NCC, FBNI is solidarily liable with Rima and Alegre.
As operator of DZRC-AM and employer of Rima and Alegre, FBNI is solidarily liable to
pay for damages arising from the libelous broadcasts. As stated by the CA, "recovery
for defamatory statements published by radio or television may be had from the
owner of the station, a licensee, the operator of the station, or a person who
procures, or participates in, the making of the defamatory statements.” An
employer and employee are solidarily liable for a defamatory statement by the
employee within the course and scope of his or her employment, at least when the
employer authorizes or ratifies the defamation. In this case, Rima and Alegre were
clearly performing their official duties as hosts of FBNI’s radio program Exposé when
they aired the broadcasts. FBNI neither alleged nor proved that Rima and Alegre
went beyond the scope of their work at that time. There was likewise no showing
that FBNI did not authorize and ratify the defamatory broadcasts.
In culpa contractual or breach of contract, moral damages may be recovered when Petition GRANTED
the defendant acted in bad faith or was guilty of gross negligence (amounting to bad
faith) or in wanton disregard of his contractual obligation and, exceptionally, when
the act of breach of contract itself is constitutive of tort resulting in physical injuries.
Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence, it imports a dishonest
purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known
duty through some motive or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud.
Moral damages are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant
for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer.
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, serious anxiety as the
result of the actuations of the other party. Mere allegations of besmirched
reputation, embarrassment and sleepless nights are insufficient to warrant an
award for moral damages.
10
CDA
decided in favor of plaintiffs, directing defendant to pay the
cost of the wedding cake, MORAL DAMAGES, attorney’s fees
and the cost of litigation. CA modified the award by
increasing the MORAL DAMAGES to P250,000.00 and
awarding EXEMPLARY DAMAGES of P100,000.00
ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in affirming the TC’s award of moral
damages and increasing the amount from P30,000.00 to
P250,000.00. YES
W/N the CA was justified in awarding in addition to moral
damages, EXEMPLARY DAMAGES of P100,000.00. NO
An award of moral damages would require certain conditions to be met, to wit:
(1) there must be an injury, whether physical, mental or
psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant;
(2) there must be 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 of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of
the Civil Code.
When awarded, moral damages must not be palpably and scandalously excessive as
to indicate that it was the result of passion, prejudice or corruption on the part of
the trial court judge or appellate court justices. In this case, we find no such fraud
or bad faith.
CA also erred in awarding exemplary damages.
• 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.
• The requirements of an award of exemplary damages are: (1) they may be imposed
by way of example in addition to compensatory damages, and only after the
claimant’s right to them has been established; (2) that they cannot be recovered as a
matter of right, their determination depending upon the amount of compensatory
damages that may be awarded to the claimant; (3) the act must be accompanied by
bad faith or done in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner.
NOMINAL DAMAGES WERE AWARDED
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. 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, not for indemnifying the plaintiff for
any loss suffered.
The facts show that when confronted with their failure to deliver on the wedding
day, petitioners gave the lame excuse that delivery was probably delayed because of
the traffic, when in truth, no cake could be delivered because the order slip got lost.
For such prevarication, petitioners must be held liable for nominal damages for
insensitivity, inadvertence or inattention to their customer’s anxiety and need of the
hour.
11
CDA
19. Seven Brothers Shipping A cargo ship owned and operated by petitioner was moved
Corp. vs. DMC- from the causeway of the Port of Bislig, Surigao del Sur,
Construction Resources, during a storm. While on such move, the vessel became
Inc., 2014 uncontrollable and unmaneuverable, which resulted in the
destruction of a coal-conveyor facility owned by respondent
DMC-Construction Resources, Inc. After its demand for
damages went unheeded, respondent filed a complaint for
damages against petitioner in the RTC. The RTC awarded
respondent actual damages in the amount of
P3,523,175.92plus legal interest of 6%. On appeal, the CA
affirmed the trial court’s decision with the modification of
the nature of damages awarded from actual to nominal.
ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in awarding nominal damages to
respondent. YES
20. PNB vs CA and Tan, Tan is the owner of a parcel of land. The government
1996 instituted expropriation proceedings against Tan and other
property owners before the then CFI. PNB was required by
the trial court to release to Tan the amount of P32,480.00
deposited with it by the government. Tan subsequently
demanded payment from petitioner, but the same was
refused on the ground that petitioner had already paid and
delivered the amount to Sonia Gonzaga on the strength of an
SPA allegedly executed in her favor by Tan. RTC ordered
petitioner and Tagamolila (manager at PNB) to pay Tan
jointly and severally the amount of P32,480.00 with legal
interest, damages and attorney’s fees. CA affirmed w/
modification that the award of P5,000.00 for exemplary
damages and P5,000.00 for attorney’s fees by the trial court
was deleted.
Temperate, and not nominal, damages should be awarded to respondent in the Petition is
amount ofP3,523,175.92. Jurisprudence has consistently held that to justify an award DISMISSED
of actual damages, credence can be given only to claims which are duly supported by
receipts or credible evidence.
The Court explained that: 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.’
Here, temperate and not nominal damages should have been awarded, considering
that it has been established that respondent herein suffered a loss, even if the
amount thereof cannot be proven with certainty. Consequently, in computing the
amount of temperate or moderate damages, it is usually left to the discretion of the
courts, but the amount must be reasonable, bearing in mind that temperate damages
should be more than nominal but less than compensatory.
Jurisprudence has set down the requirements for exemplary damages to be awarded: Petition is DENIED
1. they may be imposed by way of example in addition to compensatory damages,
and only after the claimant’s right to them has been established;
2. they cannot be recovered as a matter of right, their determination depending upon
the amount of compensatory damages that may be awarded to the claimant; 3. the
act must be accompanied by bad faith or done in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or
malevolent manner.
In the case at bench, while there is a clear breach of petitioner’s obligation to pay
private respondents, there is no evidence that it acted in a fraudulent, wanton,
reckless or oppressive manner. Furthermore, there is no award of compensatory
damages which is a prerequisite before exemplary damages may be awarded.
Therefore, the award by the trial court of P5,000.00 as exemplary damages is
baseless

ISSUE: W/N PNB and Tagamolila are liable for exemplary

21. Tan, et al. vs. OMC
Carriers, Inc., 2011
damages. NO
OMC Carriers owned a truck, driven by Arambala, which
crashed into the home of petitioners Tan when its braking
mechanism failed. This caused the death of the head of their
family. The Tans went to court to demand damages due to
the negligence of OMC. The RTC awarded actual damages,
both on the loss of property and earning capacity of
Temperate damages are awarded when the exact amount of damages is unknown. Petition PARTLY
The petitioners clearly suffered damages. Their home and property were damaged. GRANTED
The provider of the family passed away. It is clear and undisputed that they did suffer
losses. However, since the value of the properties damaged could not be determined
with certainty because of the nature of the property, temperate damages are in
order. Also, even if there are no documents supporting the earning capacity of the

12
CDA
Celedonio. Exemplary damages were also awarded. Upon
appeal to the CA, the actual damages for loss of property was
reduced as they were insufficiently substantiated. The
damages for loss of earning capacity was deleted for being
totally unsubstantiated. The Tans were unable to present
documents to ascertain the amount of earning capacity lost.
Exemplary damages were also reduced.
ISSUE: W/N a) the reduction of actual damages for loss of
property was proper; b) the removal of actual damages for
loss of earning capacity was proper; and c) whether or not
the reduction of exemplary damages was proper. YES
22. Da Jose vs Angeles, 2013 A vehicular collision took place along the stretch of the
Dofia Remedios Trinidad Highway in Brgy. Taal, Pulilan,
Bulacan involving a Mitsubishi Lancer model 1997 with Plate
No. ULA-679 registered under the name of, and at that time
driven by the late Eduardo Angeles. A criminal complaint for
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to
Property was filed against Francisco before the MTC.
ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in awarding the sum of
₱2,316,000 for loss of earning capacity. YES
23. People vs Calongui, TW: Rape; Incest
2006
In 1998, Alejandro Calongui raped his minor cousin Marinel
Calongui twice. During trial, Calongui denied the first incident
but admitted the second one as he averred that he and
Marinel are sweethearts. The trial court convicted Calongui.
Apart from his sentence of reclusion perpetua, he was
ordered to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and
deceased, the damage caused is still undisputed. Temperate damages must be
awarded. The reduction of exemplary damages are proper as exemplary damages are
not meant to enrich or reduce another party to poverty.
Under Article 2206 of the Civil Code, the heirs of the victim are entitled to indemnity Petition is
for loss of earning capacity. Compensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of GRANTED
earnings, but for loss of capacity to earn money. The indemnification for loss of
earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven
by competent proof and the best obtainable evidence thereof. Thus, as a rule,
documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages
for loss of earning capacity.
By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite
the absence of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased is self-employed and
earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case, judicial
notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased’s line of work no documentary
evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker
earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws. In this case, the cash
vouchers though admitted in evidence, whether objected to or not, have no
probative value for being hearsay.
Based on the foregoing and in line with respondents’ claim that Eduardo during his
lifetime earned more or less an annual income of ₱1,000,000, the case falls under the
purview of the general rule rather than the exceptions.
As a rule, exemplary damages in criminal cases are only awarded if there are Appeal is DENIED
aggravating circumstances attendant to the case. In this case, no aggravating
circumstances were alleged in the Informations filed against Calonqui and none were
proven in Court.
Art. 2230 of the Civil Code provides: In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a
part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or
more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines
13
CDA
24. Mijares vs CA, 1997
25. People vs Aringue, 1997
exemplary damages. No aggravating circumstances were
considered by the court as there were none alleged in the
Information. On automatic review, the SC determined,
among others, if the award of exemplary damages is proper.
ISSUE: W/N the award of exemplary damages is proper. NO
Spouses Mijares under the business name Aklan Drug
purchased various products from Metro Drug, Inc.
Editha, aside from being the operator of Aklan Drug, was also
an officer of the Ospital Ng Maynila Consumers Cooperative,
Inc. The Cooperative was subsequently dissolved and
operations stopped. Silverio was the new lessee of the store
at Ospital who received delivery through Luz Espares and
Hilda Rodrigona totalling P32,034.42 from Metro through
Lamenta. Silverio, Jr. draw a check for Metro but it was
dishonored for insufficient fund. Metro demanded payment
from Aklan Drug but Editha referred Lamenta to Silverio who
manages the store at Ospital ng Maynila. Lamenta never
checked the owner of the store he was delivering to and
always perceived Editha as the owner.
Metro Drug, Inc. filed petition before the RTC for P32,034.42,
25% attorney's fees and cost of suit. The RTC dismissed and
CA reversed the decision.
ISSUE: W/N the RTC made an error in awarding moral
damages to Mijares. YES
Aringue, Cabal, and Pitao were charged with the murder of
Salas using unlicensed firearms. Cabal and Pitao were the
ones who killed Salas with Aringue as the mastermind. The
three were interviewed by a radio reporter and in the
transcript it was shown that they admitted to the killing of
Salas. Aringue was acquitted but the other two were
convicted. The SC affirmed this conviction but modified the
award of damages.
and shall be paid to the offended party.
NOTE: This case was filed prior to the effectivity of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure which became effective on 01 December 2000. The 2000 Rules provide
that all aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the Information. Otherwise,
they cannot be considered for any purpose even if they are proven in court.
However, since this case was filed prior to the 2000 Rules, the Supreme Court
reviewed the record to determine if Marinel is entitled to exemplary damages. This is
because under the old rules, aggravating circumstances, alleged in the Information or
not, may be appreciated for purposes of determining exemplary damages. This right
has already vested in Marinel.
Malicious prosecution, both in criminal and civil cases, requires the presence of two Petition is
elements, to wit: a) malice; b) absence of probable cause. Moreover, there must be GRANTED
proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a
person, and that it was initiated deliberately knowing that the charge was false and
baseless (Manila Gas Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 100 SCRA 602 [1980]). Hence,
mere filing of a suit does not render a person liable for malicious prosecution should
he be unsuccessful, for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the
right to litigate.
Settled in our jurisprudence is the rule that moral damages cannot be recovered from
a person who has filed a complaint against another in good faith, or without malice or
bad.
If damage results from the filing of the complaint, it is damnum obsque injuria.
For the same reasons, the award for attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation must
likewise be deleted.
The trial court lumped together the awards of moral damages, attorney’s fees, and RTC decision
lost earnings of the victim for a total of 2 million pesos. This is an error because the AFFIRMED
awards are different in nature, and hence require separate determination.
Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall
be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating
circumstances. In addition:
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased,
14
CDA
ISSUE: W/N the trial judge is correct in lumping together the
awards of moral damages, attorney's fees and lost earnings
of the victim. NO
26. Amado vs Salvador, Petitioners are the heirs of the late Judge Amado, who was
2007 the owner of a parcel of land situated at Barangay Burgos,
Rodriguez, Rizal. Salvador alleges that in or around
September 1979, Judge Amado agreed to sell to him the
subject property. The petitioners maintain that the cash
advances and the various construction materials were
received by Judge Amado from Salvador in connection with a
loan agreement, and not as payment for the sale of the
subject property. Salvador filed before the RTC an action for
specific performance with damages against the petitioners.
ISSUE: W/N the court a quo erred on a question of law in
ruling that petitioners are liable for moral or exemplary
damages in the total amount of ₱200,000.00. YES
and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in
every case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of
permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity
at the time of his death;
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of Article
291, the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by the law
of testate or intestate succession, may demand support from the person causing the
death, for a period not exceeding five years, the exact duration to be fixed by the
court;
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the
deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of
the deceased.
The Court of Appeals imposed moral damages and exemplary damages in view of the Petition is
petitioners’ refusal to execute a Deed of Sale and the social humiliation suffered by GRANTED
Salvador due to his ouster from the property. Since petitioners had no demandable
obligation to deliver the subject property, the award of moral and exemplary
damages, as well as cost of suit, in favor of Salvador is without legal basis.
Moral damages may be recovered if they were the proximate result of defendants’
wrongful acts or omissions. Two elements are required. First, the act or omission
must be the proximate result of the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation and similar injury. Second, the act must be wrongful. In this case,
petitioners were not under any obligation to execute a Deed of Sale or guarantee
Salvador’s possession of the property. Absent any wrongful act which may be
attributed to petitioners, an award of moral damages is inappropriate.
The award of exemplary damages is also improper. Exemplary damages are awarded
only when a wrongful act is accompanied by bad faith or when the guilty party acted
in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless or malevolent manner. Moreover, where a party is
not entitled to actual or moral damages, an award of exemplary damages is likewise
baseless.
As this Court has found, petitioners’ refusal to turn over the subject property to
Salvador is justified and cannot be the basis for the award of exemplary damages.
15