ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Republic of the Philippines SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 142029 - February 28, 2001 ERLINDA FRANCISCO, doing business in the name and style of Cebu Fountainhead Bakeshop and JULIANA PAMAONG, Petitioners, v. RICARDO FERRER, JR., ANNETTE FERRER, ERNESTO LO AND REBECCA LO, Respondents. PARDO, J.: Appeal via certiorari1 taken by petitioners from the decision of the Court of Appeals2 increasing the trial court's award of moral damages to Ricardo Ferrer, Jr., Annette Ferrer, Ernesto Lo and Rebecca Lo to two hundred fifty thousand pesos (P250,000.00) and awarding exemplary damages in the amount of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), in addition to the following:
The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals,3 are as follows:
On March 12, 1993, respondents filed with the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City an action for breach of contract with damages against petitioners.5 After due trial, on May 19, 1995, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of plaintiffs [herein defendants], the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
On May 25, 1995, petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals.7 After due proceedings, on July 05, 1999, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision modifying the appealed decision as set out in the opening paragraph of this opinion.8 Hence, this appeal.9 The issues raised are (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's award of moral damages and increasing the amount from thirty thousand (30,000.00) to two hundred fifty thousand pesos (P250,000.00); and (2) whether the Court of Appeals was justified in awarding in addition to moral damages, exemplary damages of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00). Petitioners submit that the Court of Appeals and the trial court erred in awarding moral damages in favor of respondents because moral damages are recoverable in breach of contract cases only where the breach was palpably wanton, reckless, malicious, in bad faith, oppressive or abusive.10 We agree. "To recover moral damages in an action for breach of contract, the breach must be palpably wanton, reckless, malicious, in bad faith, oppressive or abusive."11 "Under the provisions of this law,12 in culpa contractual or breach of contract, moral damages may be recovered when 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."13 "Moral damages may be awarded in breaches of contracts where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith."14 "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."15 In this case, "[w]e find no such fraud or bad faith."16 "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."17 "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. Invariably such action must be shown to have been willfully done in bad faith or will ill motive."18 "Mere allegations of besmirched reputation, embarrassment and sleepless nights are insufficient to warrant an award for moral damages. It must be shown that the proximate cause thereof was the unlawful act or omission of the [private respondent] petitioners."19 "An award of moral damages would require certain conditions to be met, to wit: (1) first, there must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) second, there must be culpable act or omission factually established; (3) third, the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) fourth, the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219" of the Civil Code.21 "It must again be stressed that moral damages are emphatically not intended to enrich a plaintiff at the expense of the defendant."22 "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"23 or appellate court justices.24 In the same fashion, to warrant the award of exemplary damages, "[t]he 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."25 "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 can not 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."26 Nevertheless, the facts show that when confronted with their failure to deliver on the wedding day the wedding cake ordered and paid for, 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. "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.'"27 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."28 WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition. The Court REVERSES the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. CV No. 50894, and in lieu thereof, sentences petitioners to pay respondents, as follows:
No costs in this instance. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur. Endnotes:
|