TEMPERATE DAMAGES

Submitted to Atty. Emmanuel Loyola, MD

In partial fulfillment of the requirements in Torts and Damages

Submitted by Group 3
Coronado, Jossie P. (JD-3rd Year)
Jao, Kathlene (JD- 3rd Year)

College of Law, San Pablo Colleges

San Pablo City, Laguna
I. BAR Questions and Suggested Answers

A. On January 5, 1992, Nonoy obtained a loan of P1,000,000.00 from his friend

Raffy. The promissory note did not stipulate any payment for interest. The note
was due on January 5, 1993 but before this date the two became political
enemies. Nonoy, out of spite, deliberately defaulted in paying the note, thus
forcing Raffy to sue him. (1994)
1. What actual damages can Raffy recover?
2. Can Raffy ask for moral damages from Nonoy?
3. Can Raffy ask for nominal damages from Nonoy?
4. Can Raffy ask for temperate damages from Nonoy?
5. Can Raffy ask for attorney’s fees?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Raffy may recover the amount of the promissory note of P1,000,000.00
together with interest at the legal rate from the date of judicial or
extrajudicial demand. In addition, however, inasmuch as the debtor is in bad
faith, he is liable for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the
non-performance of the obligation. (Article 2201(2), NCC).

2. Yes, under Article 2220, New Civil Code, moral damages are recoverable in
case of breach of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad
faith.

3. Nominal damages may not be recoverable in this case because Raffy may
already be indemnified of his losses with the award of actual and
compensatory damages. Nominal damages are adjudicated only in order that
a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant
may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying
the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. (Article 2231, NCC)

4. Raffy may ask for, but would most likely not be awarded temperate
damages, for the reason that his actual damages may already be
compensated upon proof thereof with the promissory note. Temperate
damages may be awarded only 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. (Article 2224, NCC)

5. Yes, under paragraph 2, Article 2208 of the Civil Code, considering that
Nonoy’s act or omission has compelled Raffy to litigate to protect his
 interests. Furthermore, attorney’s fees may be awarded by the court when it
is just and equitable. (Article 2208 (110), NCC)

B. If a pregnant woman passenger of a bus were to suffer an abortion following a

vehicular accident due to the gross negligence of the bus driver, may she and her
husband claim damages from the bus company for the death of their unborn
child? Explain. (2003)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the spouses cannot recover actual damages in the form of indemnity for the
loss of life of the unborn child. This is because the unborn child is not yet
considered a person and the law allows indemnity only for loss of life of person.
The mother, however may recover damages for the bodily injury she suffered
from the loss of the fetus which is considered part of her internal organ. The
parents may also recover damages for injuries that are inflicted directly upon
them.

C. A passenger died. Prior to her death, she was a Section Chief of the BIR in
Tuguegarao, Cagayan. Her husband testified that she was earning P83,088.00
prior to her death but he did not present any documentary evidence. The lower
courts awarded P1,135,536.10 as compensatory damages. (2004 case)
1. Is the award proper? Why?
2. Are the heirs entitled to temperate and moral damages? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. No, the award is erroneous. As a rule, documentary evidence should be
presented to substantiate the claim for damages for the loss earning
capacity. The only exceptions are (1) when the deceased is self-employed
earning less than minimum wage under current labor laws; (2) when the
deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum
wage under the current laws. In these two instances, judicial notice may be
taken of the fact that in the deceased’s line of work no documentary
evidence is available. Here the lower courts computed the award of
compensatory damages only on the basis of the testimony of the husband.
The award is erroneous because the deceased earnings do not fall within the
exceptions.

2. Yes. Temperate or moral damages which are more than nominal but less
than compensatory 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. Since the fact of loss of earnings has been established,
temperate damages can be awarded together with P50,000.00 as indemnity
for her death. Moral and exemplary damages may likewise be awarded.

II. Self-made Question

Jose, Josephine, and Cecile own a parcel of land planted with coconut and lanzones
trees. During the flowering stage of the lanzones trees Jose and Josephine sold, in a
pakyaw system, the would be fruits to Juan for P100,000.00. When the fruits are
about to be harvested, a certain Peter claimed that he is the rightful owner of the
fruits for he had paid the same to Cecile prior the sale to Juan. Peter prevailed in the
sale. Juan demanded for the return of his money and claimed actual damages for
the expenses incurred in taking care of the trees amounting to P10,000.00 and for
the lost income amounting to P100,000.00. Is the contention of Juan correct?

ANSWER: No. Juan is not entitled for actual damages. The P100,000.00 lost income
is only an estimate of the would be income if Juan harvested the lanzones fruits and
was able to sell the same. Such amount cannot be substantiated by any document.
For one to be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount
of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and
the best evidence obtainable by the injured party. Instead, temperate damages may
be availed of. Article 2224 of the Civil Code provides that 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 proven with certainty. There is no
doubt that Juan incurred expenses in taking care of the trees before harvest time,
that he suffered pecuniary losses. He can claim for temperate damages in lieu of
actual damages. For the return of his money, Juan can demand for it with legal
interest.
 III. Recent Jurisprudence (Annotation)

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 250330, March 18, 2021

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, VS. RENANTE TRASONA, SEGUISABAL Y

accused-appellant.

Criminal Law; Damages; Actual Damages; one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for
such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to
as actual or compensatory damages. He who claims actual or compensatory damages must
establish and prove by competent evidence actual pecuniary loss. - At present no competent
evidence of actual pecuniary loss was presented by the heirs of Candol, hence, no actual or
compensatory damages may be awarded. Thus, in lieu of which temperate damages may be
awarded instead. 

Criminal Law; Damages; Temperate Damages; It is proper to award temperate damages since
the heirs of the victim suffered pecuniary loss even if no substantial evidence was presented
to prove such loss. - The award of temperate damages is also proper, considering that the
RTC and the CA did not award actual damages. Marvin's untimely death caused pecuniary
loss to his heirs, which although the exact amount was not proved during trial, allows for the
award of temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00.

Same; Same; Moral Damages; Moral damages is referred to as "physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral
damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act for
omission. - The CA correctly modified the award of damages by increasing the moral  to
P75,000.00

Same; Same; Exemplary Damages; Exemplary damages are awarded if the defendant acted in a
wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.. - The CA correctly modified
the award of damages by increasing the moral  to P75,000.00

Civil law Law; Damages; Civil Indemnity; Civil indemnity refers to the award given to the heirs
of the deceased as a form of monetary restitution or compensation for the death of the victim
at the hands of the accused. - The CA correctly modified the award of damages by increasing
the civil indemnity to P75,000.00
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
  Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.
DECISION
PERALTA, C.J.:
On appeal is the May 28, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered in CA-G.R. CR HC
No. 02490, which affirmed the February 28, 2017 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Cebu City, Branch 20, finding Renante Seguisabal y Trasona (accused-appellant) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
In an information filed by the City Prosecutor of Naga City, Cebu City, accused-appellant was
charged with the crime of murder, committed as follows:
That on or about the 17th day of August, 2008, at about 2:00 A.M. more or less, in the City of
Naga, Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,
armed with a bladed weapon, with deliberate intent, with intent to kill and with treachery and
evident premeditation, did then and there attack, assault, stab one JOSE MARVIN B. CANDOL,
with the use of said weapon, thereby causing injuries which have resulted in the death of said
JOSE MARVIN B. CANDOL.
Contrary to law.
Accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment on November 19, 2008.
The prosecution presented the testimony of Jose Rolando Candol (Rolando), Kindred Bartolata
(Kindred), Justino Dakay (Dakay), Mario Martinez (Martinez) and Police Officer 2 Ken Cabrera
(PO2 Cabrera).
The prosecution presented the following factual antecedents.
On August 17, 2008, at around 2:00 a.m., the victim Jose Marvin B. Candol (Marvin), and his
cousins Rolando, Kindred, Yulmar and Gacho, attended a disco event at the basketball court of
Barangay Uling, Naga, Cebu City. The cousins formed a circle while dancing and they were more
or less at two arms' length from each other. While dancing, Rolando observed that Marvin
inadvertently elbowed and stepped on accused-appellant, who was then an unfamiliar person
to the group. Rolando and Kindred, thereafter, noticed that accused-appellant was seemingly
incensed at Marvin as he kept nudging and staring at the latter. Accused-appellant later
positioned himself behind Marvin and suddenly stabbed him from behind. Defendant-appellant
then hastily fled the scene.
Martinez, who was on duty as barangay tanod at the time of the incident, saw accused-
appellant exiting the basketball court with bloodied hands. Martinez immediately reported
what he witnessed to the councilor on the apprehension that someone might have been
stabbed at the disco. Later, at 6:00 a.m., Martinez recounted the incident to Barangay Captain
Dakay and the same was entered in the barangay blotter.
Rolando brought Marvin to the South General Hospital in Naga City, but the latter expired.
Marvin's Certificate of Death stated that cause of death was "ACUTE MASSIVE BLOOD LOSS,
SECONDARY TO STAB WOUND, RIGHT UPPER QUADRANT."
PO2 Cabrera of the Naga City Police learned of the stabbing incident at late afternoon of the
same day. He, together with several other police officers, went to Dakay to identify the
perpetrator. Dakay called Martinez, and Martinez led them to accused-appellant's house, which
happened to be his neighbor. The team saw accused-appellant in the neighborhood and caused
his arrest after reading his rights. PO2 Cabrera brought accused-appellant to the Naga Police
Station where he was identified by Rolando and Kindred as the one who stabbed Marvin.
The defense presented accused-appellant as their lone witness.
Accused-appellant denied the crime and stated that he was just sleeping at home at the time of
the stabbing incident, as he was too tired after working overtime as a carpenter for Carmen
Copper Corporation.
Accused-appellant also narrated that he went to work on August 17, 2008 and he was
apprehended once he got home by a group of policemen when Martinez pointed at him as the
perpetrator of a crime. He denied that Martinez was his neighbor, but said that he knew the
latter because Martinez threatened him with "One day I will get even with you," when he
refused to bring Martinez's bio-data to his office.
On February 28, 2017, the RTC rendered its Decision finding accused-appellant guilty of the
crime charged, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the court finds accused RENANTE SEGUISABAL y
TRASONA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as provided under Art. 248
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and hereby sentences him to a prison term of
Reclusion Perpetua without eligibility [for] parole.
The accused is also hereby ordered to pay the heirs of Jose Marvin B. Candol the sum of
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delict[o]; moral damages of P75,000.00; and exemplary
damages of P25,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
The RTC upheld the version of the prosecution after determining that its witnesses were
credible. The RTC also found that the testimonies of Kindred and Rolando, as eyewitnesses for
the prosecution, were corroborated by Martinez.
Accused-appellant filed an appeal before the CA, with the sole assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED
DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.
On May 28, 2019, the CA rendered its Decision, affirming the RTC with modifications as to the
damages, thus:
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision dated February 28, 2017, of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 20, Cebu City, in Criminal Case No. CBU-84121, finding accused-appellant
Renante T. Seguisabal guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, is AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION as to the award of exemplary damages.
Accused-appellant Renante T. Seguisabal is found guilty of the murder of Jose Marvin Candol,
and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is further ordered to pay the
heirs of Jose Marvin Candol the amounts of Seventy[-]Five Thousand Pesos (PhP75,000.00), as
civil indemnity, Seventy[-]Five Thousand Pesos (PhP75,000.00), as moral damages, and
Seventy[-]Five Thousand Pesos (PhP75,000.00), as exemplary damages.
All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per
annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Hence, this appeal which adopted accused-appellant's Brief before the CA.
The Court resolves to dismiss this appeal for failure to show any reversible error in the
judgment of conviction against accused-appellant.
The task of the prosecution is always two-fold, that is, (1) to prove beyond reasonable doubt
the commission of the crime charged; and (2) to establish with the same quantum of proof the
identity of the person or persons responsible therefor, because, even if the commission of the
crime is a given, there can be no conviction without the identity of the malefactor being
likewise clearly ascertained. The prosecution has undoubtedly satisfied the foregoing.
It is undisputed that Marvin died from a single stab wound on his body. Rolando and Kindred,
who were eyewitnesses to the crime, positively identified accused-appellant as the offender.
Accused-appellant, on the other hand, presented a defense of denial and alibi.
The Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the lower court that accused-appellant's
weak defense of denial and alibi cannot defeat the positive identification of eyewitnesses,
whose testimonies were strengthened by the corroborative testimony of Martinez. Unless
substantiated by clear and convincing proof, denial and alibi is negative, self-serving and
undeserving of any weight in law. Thus, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must
prove (a) that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and
(b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime during its
commission.
Furthermore, the Court upholds the credibility, as witnesses, of Rolando and Kindred. They
were disinterested witnesses whose testimonies cannot be tainted with malice to falsely testify
against accused-appellant.Ꮮαwρhi ৷ Absent any evidence showing a reason or motive for the
prosecution witnesses to perjure their testimonies, the logical conclusion is that no improper
motive exists, and that their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit.
The Court also sustains the propriety of the charge of murder against accused-appellant.
Article 248 of the RPC, which defines and provides for the penalty of murder, provides that:
Article 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill
another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to death if
committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;
xxx
Murder requires the following elements: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or
her; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248
of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) the killing does not amount to parricide or infanticide.
Undoubtedly, treachery can be appreciated against accused-appellant because the manner of
attack was "deliberate, sudden and unexpected," when he stabbed Marvin from behind while
the latter was obliviously dancing. His actions satisfied the two elements for treachery which
are: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the
accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of
attack employed by him.
Thus, the Court finds accused-appellant guilty of the crime of murder for which Article 248 of
the Revised Penal Code imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The CA correctly modified
the award of damages by increasing the civil indemnity to P75,000.00, moral damages to
P75,000.00 and exemplary damages to P75,000.00, in line with the Court's pronouncement in
People v. Jugueta.
The award of temperate damages is also proper, considering that the RTC and the CA did not
award actual damages. Marvin's untimely death caused pecuniary loss to his heirs, which
although the exact amount was not proved during trial, allows for the award of temperate
damages in the amount of P50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 28,
2019 in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 02490, affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu
City, Branch 20, dated February 28, 2017 in Criminal Case No. CBU-84121, finding accused
appellant Renante Seguisabal y Trasona guilty of the crime of murder, is hereby AFFIRMED.
Accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and is ORDERED to
PAY the heirs of Jose Marvin B. Candol the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages and P50,000.00 as temperate
damages. In addition, interest is imposed on all damages awarded at the rate of six percent
(6%) per annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.