THIRD DIVISION
IGLECERIO MAHINAY,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
152753
January 13, 2004
-versus-
ATTY. GABINO A.
VELASQUEZ, JR.,
Respondent.
D E C I S I
O N
CORONA,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Before us is a Petition
for Review of the Decision[1]
dated December 20, 2001 of the Court of Appeals affirming with
modification
the "order and resolution" dated October 31, 1977 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 16, Naval, Biliran in Civil Case No. B-0923, for damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The instant case arose
from the alleged defamatory remarks of petitioner Iglecerio Mahinay
against
respondent Gabino A. Velasquez, Jr.cralaw:red
According to Olipio
Machete, overseer of respondent, petitioner uttered the following
malicious
and insulting statement against respondent: "Your master, a candidate
for
Congressman, Ben Velasquez, is a land grabber." Machete informed
respondent
of what petitioner said about him. This impelled respondent to file a
complaint
for damages against petitioner, claiming that his utterances besmirched
his and his family’s reputation and caused him anxiety, mental anguish
and sleepless nights.cralaw:red
As no amicable settlement
could be reached by the parties, trial on the merits ensued. The trial
court eventually ruled in favor of respondent on the basis of the sole
testimony of Machete and awarded to respondent moral damages in the
amount
of P100,000 and exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.[2]
No other evidence was adduced by either party.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner appealed
to the Court of Appeals alleging that the trial court order lacked
factual
basis. The Court of Appeals, however, modified the award, as follows:
"WHEREFORE, with the
MODIFICATION that the award for moral and exemplary damages is hereby
reduced
to P50,000.00 and P25,000.00, respectively, the decision appealed from
is hereby AFFIRMED and this appeal DISMISSED.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED."[3]
His motion for reconsideration
having been denied, petitioner comes to this Court arguing that the
appellate
court gravely erred in: (a) affirming the trial court order despite the
lack of sufficient factual basis and (b) awarding moral and exemplary
damages
to respondent despite his failure to take the witness stand.[4]
We agree.cralaw:red
In order that moral
damages may be awarded, there must be pleading and proof of moral
suffering,
mental anguish, fright and the like.[5]
While respondent alleged in his complaint that he suffered mental
anguish,
serious anxiety, wounded feelings and moral shock, he failed to prove
them
during the trial. Indeed, respondent should have taken the witness
stand
and should have testified on the mental anguish, serious anxiety,
wounded
feelings and other emotional and mental suffering he purportedly
suffered
to sustain his claim for moral damages. Mere allegations do not
suffice;
they must be substantiated by clear and convincing proof.[6]
No other person could have proven such damages except the respondent
himself
as they were extremely personal to him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Keirulf vs. Court
of Appeals,[7]
we held:
"While no proof of pecuniary
loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded, the
amount
of indemnity being left to the discretion of the court, it is
nevertheless
essential that the claimant should satisfactorily show the existence of
the factual basis of damages and its causal connection to defendant’s
acts.
This is so because moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary
estimation,
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. In
Francisco vs. GSIS, the Court held that there must be clear testimony
on
the anguish and other forms of mental suffering. Thus, if the plaintiff
fails to take the witness stand and testify as to his/her social
humiliation,
wounded feelings and anxiety, moral damages cannot be awarded. In
Cocoland
Development Corporation vs. National labor Relations Commission, the
Court
held that "additional facts must be pleaded and proven to warrant the
grant
of moral damages under the Civil Code, these being, x x x social
humiliation,
wounded feelings, grave anxiety, etc. that resulted therefrom."
The testimony of Machete
was not enough evidence of the moral damages that the respondent
supposedly
suffered. Machete may have clearly testified on the specific words
uttered
by petitioner against respondent but he could not have testified on the
wounded feelings respondent allegedly went through by reason of
petitioner’s
slanderous remark. The award of moral damages must be anchored to a
clear
showing that respondent actually experienced mental anguish, besmirched
reputation, sleepless nights, wounded feelings or similar injury. There
was no better witness to this experience than respondent himself. Since
respondent failed to testify on the witness stand, the trial court did
not have any factual basis to award moral damages to him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Neither is respondent
entitled to exemplary damages. "If the court has no proof or evidence
upon
which the claim for moral damages could be based, such indemnity could
not be outrightly awarded. The same holds true with respect to the
award
of exemplary damages where it must be shown that the party acted in a
wanton,
oppressive or malevolent manner."[8]
Furthermore, this specie of damages is allowed only in addition to
moral
damages such that no exemplary damages can be awarded unless the
claimant
first establishes his clear right to moral damages.cralaw:red
The affirmance of the
Court of Appeals of the ruling of the trial court is therefore not in
order
as it lacked sufficient factual basis.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint
for damages in Civil Case No. B-0923 against herein petitioner is
hereby
DISMISSED. No costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Vitug, J., (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez,
and Carpio-Morales, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice (now Presiding Justice) Cancio C. Garcia
and
concurred in by Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Bienvenido L.
Reyes.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 15-16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Rollo, p. 20.
[4]
Rollo, p. 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
San Miguel Brewery, Inc. vs. Magno, 21 SCRA 292 [1967].
[6]
Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 136 [1997].
[7]
269 SCRA 433 [1997].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 259
SCRA 459 [1996]. |
