TORTS & DAMAGES June 10, 2019

Course Outline
(For Recitation: Red Cases)

I. QUASI DELICTS

A. ARTICLE 2176

1. Requisites for a Quasi-Delict (Culpa Aquiliana)

a) act or omission;
b) presence of fault or negligence (lack of due care);
c) damage to another; and
d) causal connection between the fault or negligence and the
damage;

> NOTE: there must be no pre-existing contractual relation

between the parties (otherwise, may fall under Culpa
Contractual)

 LRT vs. Navidad (G.R. No. 145804, February 6, 2003)

 Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. IAC (G.R. No. 65295, March 10,
1987)
 Teague vs. Fernandez (51 SCRA 181)
 People’s Bank & Trust Co. vs. Dahican Lumber Co. (L-17500, May
16, 1967)
 Umali vs. Bacani (69 SCRA 263) – test of negligence
 Culion Ice, Fish, etc. vs. Phil. Motors (55 Phil. 129)
 Penullar vs. PNB (G.R. No. 32762, January 27, 1983)
 Prima Malipol vs. Lily Lim Tan, et.al. (L-27730, January 21, 1974)
 People vs. Capillas (L-38756, November 13, 1984)
 Valenzuela vs. CA (68 SCAD 113 [1996])
 Pacis vs. Morales (613 SCRA 607 [2010])
 Francisco Culaba, et.al. vs. CA, et.al. (G.R. No. 125862, April 15,
2004)

2. “Culpa Aquiliana” Distinguished From “Culpa Contractual” and “Culpa

Criminal”

 Syquia, et.al. vs. CA, et.al. (G.R. No. 98695, Jan.27, 1993)

3. Necessity of Proving Negligence

 Bernabe Africa, et.al. vs. Caltex, et.al. (L-12986, March 31, 1966)
 Republic vs. Luzon Stevedoring Corporation (L-21749, Sept.29,
1967)
 NIA, et.al. vs. IAC, et.al. (G.R. No. 73919, Sept.18, 1992)
 Leah Alesna Reyes, et.al. vs. Sisters of Mercy Hospital, et.al. (G.R.
No. 130547, Oct. 3, 2000)

4. Damnum Absque Injuria

 Magallanes Watercraft Assoc. Inc. et.al. vs. Margarito C. Auguis,

et.al. (G.R. No. 211485, May 30, 2016)
 Farolan vs. Solmac Mktg. Corp. (G.R. No. 83589, March 13, 1991)

5. Last Clear Chance

 PNR Corp, et.al. vs. Viscara, et.al. (G.R. No.190022, Feb.15, 2012)
 Picart vs. Smith (37 Phil. 813)
 Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. BAESA (G.R. No. 7905051,
Nov.14, 1989)
 Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. IAC (discussed already under
Requisites for Quasi Delict)

6. Tort Liability May Still Exist Despite Presence of Contractual Relations

 Air France vs. Carrascoso (L-21438, Sept.28, 1966)

 Julian C. Singson & Ramona del Castillo vs. BPI, et.al. (L-24837,
 June 27, 1968)
 Radio Communications of the Phils., Inc. (RCPI) vs. Alfonso
Verchez, et.al. (G.R. No. 164349, Jan. 31, 2006)

7. Non-Liability

 Ng vs. Republic (L-31935, Jan.24, 1980)

8. An Unregistered Deed of Sale

 Equitable Leasing Corp. vs. Lucita Suyom, et.al. (GR. No. 143360,
Sept.5, 2002)

9. Defenses in Quasi-Delict

(a) last clear chance;

(b) contributory negligence;
(c) proximate cause of the loss or injury is the negligence of plaintiff;
(d) defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of
employees;
(e) assumption of risk (“volenti non fit injuria”);
(f) prescription (4 years per Article 1146 NCC);
(g) force majeure (Article 2183);
(h) fault of engineer, architect or contractor (Article 2192 in connection
with Article 1723).

 Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District (104 Phil. 397 [1958]) -

10. In re Common Carriers

 Necesito vs. Paras (104 Phil. 75 [1958])

 Pilapil vs. CA, et.al. (G.R. No. 52159, Dec. 22, 1989)
 Fortune Express vs. CA (G.R. No. 119756, March 18, 1999)

B. ARTICLE 2177

1. Culpa Aquiliana Distinguished From Civil Liability Arising From a Crime

2. Effect of Acquittal in a Criminal Case

 Marcia vs. CA (G.R. No. 34529, Jan.27, 1983)

 People vs. Ritter (G.R. No. 88582, March 5, 1991)

3. Query – Simultaneous Filing of Criminal Case & Culpa Aquiliana

 Batangas, Laguna, Tayabas, Bus Co., Inc. vs. CA, et.al. (L-33138-
39, June 27, 1975)

4. Rule Under the 1985 Rules of Court, As Amended

 Garcia vs. Florido (L-35095, Aug.31,1973)

 Crispin Abellana, et.al. vs. Hon. Geronimo R. Maraue, et.al. (L-
27760, May 29,1974)
 Escueta vs. Fandialan (L-39675, Nov.29, 1974)

5. No Double Recovery

 Padua, et.al. vs. Robles, et.al. (L-40486, Aug.29,1975)

6. December 1, 2000 Amended Rules

 Avelino Casupanan & Roberto Capitulo vs. Mario Llavore Laroya

(G.R. No. 145391, Aug.26, 2002)

C. ARTICLE 2178

1. Applicability of Some Provisions on Negligence

>Article 1172
>Article 1173
>Article 1174

2
 2. Cases

 Ronquillo, et.al. vs. Singson (C.A.) (L-22612-R, April 22, 1959)

 Vda. de Imperial, et.al. vs. Herald Lumber Co. (L-14088-89, L-
14112, Sept. 30, 1961)

D. ARTICLE 2179

1. Effect of Sole Cause of Injury is a Person’s Own Negligence

2. Effect of Contributory Negligence of Plaintiff

 Corciss vs. Manila Railroad (L-21291, March 28, 1969)

3. Proximate Cause

 PNR Corp., et.al. vs. Viscara, et.al. (G.R. No.190022, Feb.15,

2012) (discussed already under Last Clear Chance)
 Lambert Ramos vs. C.O.L. Realty Corp. (G.R. No. 184905, Aug.28,
2009)
 Saturnino Bayasen vs. CA (L-25785, Feb.28, 1981)
 Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. vs. C&A Construction, Inc. (G.R. No.
156034, Oct. 1, 2003) – “Emergency Rule”
 Metro Manila Transit Corp. & Apolinario Ajoc vs. CA, etc. (G.R. No.
141089, August 1, 2002)
 RCPI vs. CA (G.R. No. 79528, March 13, 1991)
 John Kam Biak Chan, Jr. vs. Iglesia ni Cristo, Inc. (G.R. No.
160283, Oct. 14, 2005)
 PLDT Company, Inc. vs. CA (G.R. No. 57079, Sept.29, 1989)
 Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. IAC (G.R. No. 65295, March 10,
1987) (discussed already in Requisites for Quasi Delict & Last
Clear Chance)
 Medardo Cadiente vs. Bithuel Macas (G.R. No. 161946, Nov. 14,
2008)
 Vergara vs. CA (G.R. No. 77679, Sept. 30, 1987)
 National Power Corp. vs. Heirs of Noble Casionan (G.R. No.
165969, Nov. 27, 2008)

E. ARTICLE 2180

1. Liability for the Acts and Omissions of Another

2. Reason for the Liability

3. Solidary Liability

 Maria Teresa Cuadra vs. Alfonso Monfort (L-24101, Sept.30,1970)

 Libi, et.al. vs. IAC, et.al. (G.R. No. 70890, Sept.18, 1992)

4. Father / Mother

 Exconde vs. Capuno (101 Phil. 843)

 Fuellas vs. Cadano (3 SCRA 361)

5. Owners and Managers

 Mercury Drug Corp. vs. Sebastian M. Baking (G.R. No. 156037,

May 28, 2007)
 Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., et.al. vs. Phil. Am. Forwarders, Inc.,
et.al. (L-25142, March 25, 1975)

6. Employers

 Spouses Jayme vs. Apostol, et.al. (G.R. No.163609, Nov. 27, 2008)
 Larry Estacion vs. Noe Bernardo, et.al. (G.R. No. 144723, Feb.27,
2006)
 Ernesto Pleyto, et.al. vs. Maria D. Lomboy, et.al. (G.R. No. 148737,
June 16, 2004)

3
  Lilius vs. Manila Railroad (59 Phil. 758)
 Vinluan vs. CA (L-21477-81, April 29, 1966)
 Ramos vs. Pepsi-Cola (L-22533, February 9, 1967)
 Bernardo Jocson, et.al. vs. Redencion Glorioso (L-22686,
Jan.30,1968)
 Cadiente vs. Macas (G.R. No. 161946, Nov.14,2008) – registered
owner
 Duavit vs. CA (G.R. No. 82318, May 18, 1989)
 China Airlines vs. CA, et.al. (G.R. No. 46036, May 18, 1990)
 Malipol vs. Tan (L-27730, Jan. 21, 1974; 54 SCRA 202 [1974])
 Figuracion Vda. de Maglana, et.al. vs. Judge Francisco Z.
Consolacion, et.al. (G.R. No. 60506, August 6, 1992)
 Go vs. IAC (G.R. No. 68138, May 13, 1991)
 George McKee, et.al. vs. IAC, et.al. (G.R. No. 68102, July 16,
1992)
 San Miguel Corp. vs. Heirs of Sabiano Inguito, et.al. (G.R. No.
141716, July 4, 2002)
 Napocor vs. CA (G.R. No. 119121, August 14, 1998)

7. Liability of Teachers and Heads of Establishment

 Palisoc vs. Brillantes (41 SCRA 548)

 St. Francis High School vs. CA (G.R. No. 82465, Feb.25,1991)
 Magtibay vs. Garcia (G.R. No. 28971, Jan.28, 1983)
 Pasco vs. CFI (G.R. No. 54357, April 25, 1987)

8. Liability of the State

 MMTC, et.al. vs. CA, et.al. (GR No. 141089, Aug. 1, 2002)
 Victor Orquiola, et.al. vs. CA, et.al. (G.R. No. 141463, Aug.6, 2002)

9. Special Agent

 City Government of Tagaytay vs. Eleuterio F. Guerrero (G.R. Nos.

140743 & 140745, Sept. 17, 2009)
 Republic vs. Palacio (L-20322, May 29, 1968)
 National Irrigation Administration vs. Fontanilla, et.al. (G.R. Nos.
610-45, December 1, 1989)

10. Defense

11. Penal Provisions in Case of Crimes

12. Failure of Doctor to Follow Medical Procedure is a Clear Indicia of

Negligence

 Erlinda Ramos vs. CA (G.R. No. 124354, April 11, 2002)

13. The Bicycle Compared to Other Vehicles

 Heirs of Redentor Completo vs. Albayda, Jr. (624 SCRA 97 [2010])

14. Cases

 GSIS vs. Pacific Airways Corp. (129 SCRA 219 [2010])

 Natl Power Corp. vs. CA (GR No. 96410, July 3, 1992)

F. ARTICLE 2181

 Sarkies Tours Phil. vs. IAC (G.R. No. 63723, Sept. 2, 1983)

G. ARTICLE 2182

H. ARTICLE 2183

I. ARTICLE 2184

4
 1. Liability of Owner of Motor Vehicle

2. Case

 Marcial T. Caedo, et.al. vs. Yu Khe Thai, et.al. (L-20392, Dec.18,

1968)

J. ARTICLE 2185

 Sofia Guillang, et.al. vs. Rodolfo Bedania, et.al. (G.R. No. 162987, May
21, 2009)
 Mikee vs. IAC (GR No. 68102, July 16, 1992)

K. ARTICLE 2186

L. ARTICLE 2187

M. ARTICLE 2188

N. ARTICLE 2189

 Guilatco vs. City of Dagupan & CA (G.R. No. 61516, March 21, 1989)
 Quezon City Govt, et.al. vs. Fulgencio Dacara (G.R. No. 150304, June
15, 2005)

O. ARTICLE 2190

P. ARTICLE 2191

 Austin Hardware Co., Inc., et.al. vs. CA, et.al. (L-41754, Feb.27, 1976)

Q. ARTICLE 2192

R. ARTICLE 2193

 Dingcong vs. Kanaan (72 Phil. 14)

S. ARTICLE 2194

1. Solidary Liability of Tortfeasors

2. Cases

 Metro Manila Transit Corp. vs. CA (42 SCAD 538 [1993])

 Light Rail Transit Authority, et.al. vs. Marjorie Navidad, et.al. (G.R.
No. 145804, Feb.6, 2003)

3. Meaning of “Joint Tort-feasors”

 Malvar vs. Kraft Food Phils., Inc. (705 SCRA 242)

II. DAMAGES

A. Introduction

1. Cases

 Zulueta vs. Pan American World Airways, Inc. (43 SCRA 397)
 Air France vs. CA, et.al. (G.R. No. 76093, March 21, 1989)
 Tiu vs. CA (228 SCRA 51 [1993])
 Europa vs. Hunter Garments Mfg. (G.R. No. 72827, July 18, 1989)

5
 2. Civil Indemnity / Damages

 People vs. Jalbortan (700 SCRA 280)

3. When Consequential Damages Awarded?

 Republic vs. BPI (705 SCRA 650)

B. General Provisions

1. ARTICLE 2195

> see Article 1157

2. ARTICLE 2196

a) Workmen’s Compensation Cases

 Milagros Vda. de Forteza vs. Workmen’s Compensation

Commission, et.al. (L-21718, June 29, 1968)
 Ysmael Maritime Corp. vs. Avelino (G.R. No. 43674, June
30, 1987)

b) Dismissal of Action

 Enrique A. Defante vs. Hon. Antonio Rodriguez, et.al. (L-

28380, Feb. 27, 1976)

3. ARTICLE 2197

a) Damages Distinguished from Injury

b) Damage Without Injury

c) Some Rules on Waiver

d) Liability of Prosecutor

 Lim vs. De Leon (L-22554, Aug. 29, 1975)

e) Damages in Voidable Contracts

 DBP vs. CA (L-28774, Feb.28, 1980; 96 SCRA 342)

4. ARTICLE 2198

C. Actual or Compensatory Damages

1. ARTICLE 2199

a) Actual / Compensatory Damages Defined

 Bert Osmeña & Assocs. vs. CA (G.R. No. 56545, Jan. 28,
1983)
 Radio Communications of the Phils., Inc. vs. CA (L-55194,
Feb. 26, 1981)
 Ramos vs. CA (G.R. No. 124354, April 11, 2002)

b) Necessity of Pleading

c) Necessity of Proof

 Inhelder Corp. vs. CA (G.R. No. 52358, May 30, 1983)

 Radio Communications of the Phils., Inc. vs. Lantin (L-
59311, Jan. 31, 1985)

6
2. ARTICLE 2200

 Two Kinds of Actual Damages (i.e. daño emergente AND lucro

cesante)

 St. Louis Realty Corp. vs. CA (L-46061, Nov.14, 1984)

 BA Finance Corp. vs. CA (G.R. No. 61464, May 28, 1988)
 Batong Buhay Gold Mines, Inc. vs. CA (G.R. No. 45048,
Jan.7, 1987)
 Aguilar vs. Chan (G.R. No. 28688, Oct.9, 1986)

3. ARTICLE 2201

 Liability of Debtor in Contracts and Quasi-Contracts

4. ARTICLE 2202

a) Damages in Crimes and Quasi-Delicts

 Maranan vs. Perez (L-22272, June 26, 1967)

 People vs. Salig (L-53568, Oct.31, 1984)

b) What Victim Must Prove in a Tort/Quasi-Delict Suit

c) Unfair Competition

d) Concealment of an Existing Marriage

e) Additional Cases

 Budiong vs. Judge Apalisok (G.R. No, 60151, June 24, 1983)
 Brinas vs. People (G.R. No. 50309, Nov. 25, 1983)
 People vs. Castañeda (G.R. No. 49781, June 24, 1983)

5. ARTICLE 2203

 Abelardo Lim, et.al. vs. CA, et.al. (G.R. No. 125817, Jan.16,
2002)

6. ARTICLE 2204

7. ARTICLE 2205

 Consolidated Plywood Industries, Inc., et.al. vs. CA, et.al.

(G.R. No. 101706, Sept.23, 1992)
 Francisco, et.al. vs. Ferrer, Jr., et.al. (G.R. No. 142029,
Feb.28, 2001)

8. ARTICLE 2206

a) Damages for Death

 Mckee, et.al. vs. IAC, et.al. (G.R. No. 68102, July 16, 1992)

b) Factors to Consider in Determining the Amount

(b1) life expectancy and consequent loss of earning capacity

 Monzon, et.al. vs. IAC, et.al. (GR No. 72828, Jan. 31, 1989)
 Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping Agency Corp. vs. Catalino
Borja, et.al. (G.R. No. 143008, June 10, 2002)

(b2) pecuniary loss, loss of support and service

 Villa-Rey Transit vs. Bello (L-18957, April 23, 1963)

 Davila vs. PAL (49 SCRA 497)
 Budiong vs. Judge Apalisok (G.R. No. 60161, June 24,
1983)
 Dangwa Transportation vs. CA (G.R. No. 95582, Oct.7,
1991)

7
  Metro Manila Transit Corp. (MMTC), et.al. vs. CA, et.al.
(G.R. No. 116617, Nov. 16, 1998)
 Da Jose vs. Angeles (708 SCRA 506)
 People vs. Ibañez (706 SCRA 358)

c) Moral Damages

d) Right of Recovery Not Affected By Testimony

 People vs. Santiago Manos (L-27791, Dec.24, 1970)

e) Liability for Reckless Imprudence

 People vs. Eutiquia Carmen, et.al. (G.R. No. 137268,

March 26, 2001)

9. ARTICE 2207

a) Effect if Property was Insured

b) Meaning of “Authorized Driver” in Car Insurance

 CCC Insurance Corp. vs. CA, et.al. (L-25920, Jan.30,1970)

c) Subrogation of Insurer

 Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., et.al. vs. Jamila & Co., Inc.
(L-27427, April 7, 1976)

10. ARTICLE 2208

a) Concept of Attorney’s Fees as Damages

 Magallanes Watercraft Assoc., Inc., et.al. vs. Auguis, et.al.

(G.R. No. 211485, May 30, 2016) (discussed already
under Damnum Absque Injuria)
 Luz G. Cristobal vs. ECC (L-49280, Feb. 26, 1981)
 Borcena, et.al. vs. IAC (G.R. No. 70099, Jan.7, 1987)
 Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. vs. CA, et.al. (GR No. 92383,
July 17, 1992)
 Phil. National Construction Corp. vs. APAS Mktg. (697
SCRA 441)

b) Generally, Not Part of Damages

 Salao vs. Salao (L-26699, March 16, 1976)

 Public Estates Authority vs. Elpidio S. Uy (GR No. 147933-
34, Dec.12, 2001)

c) Given to Party, Not to Counsel

 Tiu Po vs. Bautista (L-55514, March 17, 1981)

 Quirante & Cruz vs. IAC, et.al. (G.R. No. 73886, Jan.31,
1989)

d) Express Stipulation

 Kapol vs. Masa (L-50473, Jan.21,1985)

e) Paragraph 2 (Defendant’s Act or Omission)

 Bert Osmeña & Assocs. vs. CA (G.R. No. 56545, Jan. 28,
1983)
 Sarming vs. Dy (G.R. No. 133643, June 6, 2002)

f) Paragraph 3 (Malicious Prosecution)

g) Paragraph 4 (Unfounded Civil Action)

8
  Hermosa, Jr. vs. Zobel y Roxas (L-11836, Oct. 1958)
 Roque Enervida vs. Lauro Dela Torre, et.al. (L-38037,
Jan.28,1974)
 Metropolitan Bank vs. Tan Chuan Leong, et.al. (G.R. No.
46539, June 25, 1986)
 Phoenix Publishing House vs. Ramos (G.R. No. 32339,
March 29, 1988)

h) Paragraph 5 (Bad Faith of Defendant)

i) Paragraph 8 (Workmen’s Compensation & Employer’s Liability)

j) Paragraph 9 (Civil Liability Arising From a Crime)

 Ebajan vs. CA (GR No. 77930-31, Feb.9,1989)

k) Paragraph 11 (Any Other Case)

l) Instance When the Insurance Code Grants Damages

 Prudential Guarantee & Assurance, Inc. vs. Trans-Asia

Shipping Lines, Inc. (491 SCRA 411 [2006])

11. ARTICLE 2209

a) Monetary Obligations

b) Rules

(b1) give the indemnity (other than interest) agreed upon;

(b2) if none was specified, give the interest agree upon;
(b3) if none, give the legal interest (12% per annum).

 State Investment House, Inc. vs. CA (G.R. No. 90676, June

19, 1991)
 Tio Khe Chio vs. CA (G.R. No. 76101-02, Sept.30, 1991)

c) Absence of Stipulation

d) From What Moment Interest Runs

 Consuelo Piczon, et.al. vs. Esteban Piczon, et.al. (L-29139,

Nov.15,1974)
 Arwood Industries, Inc. vs. DM Consunji, Inc. (G.R. No.
142277, Dec.11, 2002)

e) Penalty Apart From Interest

 GSIS vs. CA, et.al. (GR No. 52478, Oct.30, 1986)

 Florendo vs. Hon. Ruiz, et.al. (G.R. No. 64571,
Feb.21,1989)

12. ARTICLE 2210

 Pleno vs. CA, et.al. (G.R. No. 56919, Oct.23,1981)

13. ARTTICLE 2211

14. ARTICLE 2212

15. ARTICLE 2213

a) Interest on Unliquidated Claims or Damages

 Bareng vs. CA, et.al. (L-12973, April 25, 1960)

b) No Liquidated Obligation

 Abelardo Lim, et.al. vs. CA, et.al. (GR No. 125817,

9
 Jan.16,2002)

16. ARTICLE 2214

17. ARTICLE 2215

D. Other Kinds of Damages

 ARTICLE 2216

 Yuchengco vs. Sandiganbayan (479 SCRA 1 [2006])

1. Moral Damages

a) ARTICLE 2217

(1) Requisites for Recovery of Moral Damages

(i) there must be physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,

etc.;

(ii) the suffering must be the proximate result of the

wrongful act or omission; and

 St. Mary’s Academy vs. William Carpitanos, et.al.

(G.R. No. 143363, Feb.6,2002)

(iii) there must be clear testimony on the anguish, etc.

 People vs. Manero (218 SCRA 85 [1993])

 Carlota P. Valenzuela, et.al. vs. CA, et.al. (GR No.
56168, Dec.22,1988)
 Danao vs. CA (G.R. No. 48276, Sept.30,1987)
 Boysaw, et.al. vs. Interphil Promotions, Inc. (G.R. No.
22590, March 20, 1987)
 Iglecerio Mahany vs. Atty. Gabino A. Velasquez, Jr.
(G.R. No. 152753, January 13, 2004)

(2) Social & Financial Standing

(3) Need for Certain Steps

(4) Necessity of Personal Injury

(5) Mental Anguish

 Mercury Drug Corp. vs. Baking (G.R. No. 156037, May

28, 2007) (discussed already under Article 2180 –
Owners & Managers)
 Ramos vs. Ramos (L-19872, Dec.3, 1974)
 American Express International, Inc. vs. IAC, et.al.
(Nov.9, 1988)
 Pan American World Airways, Inc. vs. IAC (G.R. No.
44442, Aug.31,1987)
 Danao vs. CA (discussed already under Requisites
for Recovery of Moral Damages)

(6) Courts Given Discretion to Award Moral Damages (or not)

 Radio Communications vs. Rodriguez (G.R. No.

83768, February 28, 1990)
 Prudenciado vs. Alliance Transport System, Inc. (G.R.
No. 33836, March 16, 1987)
 Isabelita Vital-Gozon vs. CA, et.al. (G.R. No. 129132,
July 8, 1998)
 DBP vs. CA, et.al. (G.R. No. 125838, June 10, 2003)
 American Express Intl, Inc. vs. Noel Cordero (G.R. No.
138550, October 14, 2005)

10
 (7) Moral Damages In Favor of a Corporation

 Filipinas Broadcasting Network vs. Ago Medical &

Educational Center (G.R. No. 141994, January 17,
2007)

b) ARTICLE 2218

c) ARTICLE 2219

(1) Instances (Not Exclusive) When Moral Damages May Be

Recovered

 Mayo y Agpaoa vs. People (G.R. No. 91201,

Dec.5,1991)
 Equitable Leasing Corp. vs. Lucita Suyom, et.al. (G.R.
No. 143360, Sept.5, 2002)
 Garciano vs. CA, et.al. (G.R. No. 96126, Aug.10,
1992)
 Bert Osmeña & Assocs. vs. CA (G.R. No. 56545,
Jan.28, 1983) (discussed already under
Actual/Compensatory Damages Defined)
 Darang vs. Ty Belizar (L-19487, Jan.31,1967)
 Imperial vs. ZIga (L-19726, April 13, 1967)
 Gatchalian vs. Delim (G.R. No. 56487, Oct.21,1991)
 Spouses Quisumbing vs. Meralco (G.R. No. 142943,
April 3, 2002)
 Chiang Kai Shek vs. CA (G.R. No. 58028, April 28,
1989)
 Simex International (Manila), Inc. vs. CA (G.R. No.
88013, March 19, 1990)

(2) Rule With Respect to Contracts

(a) under Article 2220, moral damages may be recovered

where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith;

 Filinvest Credit Corp. vs. Mendez (G.R. No. 66419,

July 31, 1987)
 Zenith Insurance Corp. vs. CA (G.R. No. 85296,
May 14, 1990)
 Northwest Orient Airlines vs. CA (G.R. No. 83033,
June 30, 1990)

(b) if death is caused to a passenger by the negligence of

a common carrier, moral damages may be recovered
(Arts. 1764, 2206)

(3) Paragraph 1 (Physical Injuries Because of a Crime)

(4) Paragraph 3 (Seduction, etc.)

 People vs. Fontanilla (L-25354, June 28, 1968)

 People vs. Manalo (G.R. No. 49810, Oct. 13, 1986)
 People vs. Bondoy (41 SCAD 432 [1993])
 People vs. Eric Baid y Ominta (G.R. No. 129667, July
31,2000)

(5) Paragraph 7 (Libel, Slander, Defamation)

(6) Paragraph 8 (Malicious Prosecution)

 Alejo Madera, et.al. vs. Heirs of Salvador Lopez (L-

37105, Feb.10, 1981)
 PCIB vs. IAC (G.R. No. 73610, April 19, 1991)
 Albenson Enterprises Corp., et.al. vs. CA, et.al. (G.R.
No. 88694, Jan. 11, 1993)

11
 (7) Paragraph 10 (Articles on Human Relations)

 Arturo de Guzman vs. NLRC, et.al. (GR No. 90856, July

23, 1992)

(8) Contributory Negligence of Passenger Will Justify

Deletion of Moral Damages

 PNR vs. CA (G.R. No. 55347, Oct.4, 1985)

(9) Liability of the State Governmental & Proprietary Functions

 Fontanilla vs. Maliaman (G.R. No. 55913, Feb.27, 1991)

(10) Closure of Bank Account Due to “Kiting”

 Reyes vs. CA (G.R. No. 95535, Jan.21, 1991)

(11) No Hard and Fast Rule

 Ayala Integrated Steel Mfg Co., Inc. vs. CA (G.R. No.

94359, August 2, 1991)

d) ARTICLE 2220

(1) Willful Injury to Property & Breaches of Contracts

(2) Cases

 Lim vs. CA (G.R. No. 118347, Oct. 24, 1996)

 Cathay Pacific Airways vs. Reyes (699 SCRA 725)

2. Nominal Damages

a) ARTICLE 2221

(1) Reason for Grant of Nominal Damages

 LRT vs. Navidad (G.R. No. 145804, Feb.6,2003)

(2) Effect of Granting Compensatory & Exemplary Damages

 Sumalpong vs. CA (G.R. No. 123404, Feb.26, 1997; 79

SCAD 969)
 PT & T Corp., et.al. vs. CA, et.al. (G.R. No. 139268,
Sept.3, 2002)

b) ARTICLE 2222

 Dee Hua Liong Electrical Eqpt Corp. vs. Reyes (G.R. No.
72182, Nov. 25, 1986)

c) ARTICLE 2223

3. Temperate or Moderate Damages

a) ARTICLE 2224

 Consolidated Plywood Industries, Inc., et.al. vs. CA, et.al.

(G.R. No. 101706, Sept.23, 1992)
 Ramos vs. CA (G.R. No. 124354, April 11, 2002)

b) ARTICLE 2225

12
4. Liquidated Damages

a) ARTICLE 2226

b) ARTICLE 2227

c) ARTICLE 2228

5. Exemplary or Corrective Damages

a) ARTICLE 2229

(1) Reason for Imposing Exemplary or Corrective Damages

 Mercury Drug Corp. vs. Baking (G.R. No. 156037, May

28, 2007) (discussed already under Article 2180 and
2217)
 Guilatco vs. City of Dagupan, et.al. (G.R. No. 61516,
March 21, 1989)
 Prudenciado vs. Alliance Transport System, Inc. (G.R.
No. 33836, March 16, 1987)

(2) Examples of Exemplary Damages

 Metrobank, et.al. vs. BA Finance Corp. (G.R. No.

179952, Dec.4, 2009)
 People vs. Erlindo Talo (G.R. No. 125542, Oct.25, 2000)
 Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. IAC (G.R. No. 65295,
March 10, 1987) (discussed already under Requisites
for Quasi Delict, Last Clear Chance, Proximate
Cause)
 Pan American World Airways, Inc. vs. IAC, et.al. (L-
74442, Aug.31, 1987)
 Arturo de Guzman vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 90856, July 23,
1992)
 Sociedad Europea de Financiacion, S.A., et.al. vs. CA
(GR No. 75787, Jan.21, 1991)
 Northwest Airlines vs. Dr. Jaime F. Laya (G.R. No.
145956, May 29, 2002)

b) ARTICLE 2230

c) ARTICLE 2231

d) ARTICLE 2232

(1) Exemplary Damages in Contracts & Quasi-Contracts

(2) When Employer is Also Liable for Exemplary Damages

 Lourdes Munsayac vs. Benedicta de Lara (L-21151,

June 26, 1968)
 Silverio Marchan, et.al. vs. Arsenio Mendoza, et.al. (L-
24471, Jan.31, 1969)
 Noda vs. Cruz-Arnaldo (G.R. No. 67322, June 22, 1987)

e) ARTICLE 2233

> Exemplary Damages Not a Matter of Right

 Isabelita Vital-Gozon vs. CA, et.al. (GR No. 129132, July

8, 1998)

f) ARTICLE 2234

 PNB vs. CA, et.al. (G.R. No. 126908, Jan.16, 2003)

13
g) ARTICLE 2235

- nothing follows -

14