Damages (1994)

On January 5, 1992, Nonoy obtained a loan of Pl,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.

1) What actual damages can Raffy recover?

2) Can Raffy ask for moral damages from Nonoy?

3) Can Raffy ask for nominal damages?

4) Can Raffy ask for temperate damages?

5) Can Raffy ask for attorneys fees?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1) Raffy may recover the amount of the promissory note of P1 million, 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. (Art. 2201(2). NCC).

2) Yes, under Article 2220, NCC 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.
Civil Code)

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, Civil Code)

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

Damages arising from Death of Unborn Child (1991)

On her third month of pregnancy, Rosemarie, married to Boy, for reasons known only to
her, and without informing Boy, went to the clinic of X, a known abortionist, who for a
fee, removed and expelled the fetus from her womb, Boy learned of the abortion six (6)
months later.

Availing of that portion of Section 12 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution which reads;

The State x xx shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
conception, xxx which he claims confers a civil personality on the unborn from the
moment of conception.

Boy filed a case for damages against the abortionist, praying therein that the latter be
ordered to pay him: (a) P30,000.00 as indemnity for the death of the fetus, (b)
P100.000.00 as moral damages for the mental anguish and anxiety he suffered, (c)
P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, (d) P20,000.00 as nominal damages, and (e)
P25,000.00 as attorneys fees.

May actual damages be also recovered? If so, what facts should be alleged and proved?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, provided that the pecuniary loss suffered should be substantiated and duly proved.

Damages arising from Death of Unborn Child (2003)

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.

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, e.g., moral damages for mental anguish
that attended the loss of the unborn child. Since there is gross negligence, exemplary
damages can also be recovered. (Gelus v.CA, 2 SCRA 801 [1961])

Death Indemnity (1994)

Johnny Matons conviction for homicide was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and in
addition, although the prosecution had not appealed at all. The appellate court
increased the indemnity for death from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00. On his appeal to the
Supreme Court, among the other things Johnny Maton brought to the high courts
attention, was the increase of indemnity imposed by the Court of Appeals despite the
clear fact that the People had not appealed from the appellate courts judgment.

Is Johnny Maton correct?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) In Abejam v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court said that even if the issue of
damages were not raised by the appellant in the Court of Appeals but the Court of
Appeals in its findings increased the damages, the Supreme Court will not disturb the
findings of the Court of Appeals.

b) No, the contention of the accused is not correct because upon appeal to the Appellate
Court, the court acquired jurisdiction over the entire case, criminal as well as civil. Since
the conviction of homicide had been appealed, there is no finality in the amount of
indemnity because the civil liability arising from the crime and the judgment on the
crime has not yet become final

c) Yes. Since the civil indemnity is an award in the civil action arising from the criminal
offense, the rule that a party cannot be granted affirmative relief unless he himself has
appealed should apply. Therefore, it was error for the Court of Appeals to have
expanded the indemnity since the judgment on the civil liability had become final.

d) No. Courts can review matters not assigned as errors.

(Hydro Resource vs. CA . 204 SCRA 309).

Liability; Airline Company; Non-Performance of an Obligation

(2004)

DT and MT were prominent members of the frequent travelers club of FX Airlines.

In Hongkong, the couple were assigned seats in Business Class for which they had
bought tickets. On checking in, however, they were told they were upgraded by
computer to First Class for the flight to Manila because the Business Section was
overbooked.

Both refused to transfer despite better seats, food, beverage and other services in First
Class. They said they had guests in Business Class they should attend to. They
felt humiliated, embarrassed and vexed, however, when the stewardess allegedly
threatened to offload them if they did not avail of the upgrade. Thus they gave in, but
during the transfer of luggage DT suffered pain in his arm and wrist. After arrival in
Manila, they demanded an apology from FXs management as well as indemnity
payment. When none was forthcoming, they sued the airline for a million pesos in
damages.

Is the airline liable for actual and moral damages? Why or why not? Explain briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

FX Airlines committed breach of contract when it upgraded DT and MT, over their
objections, to First Class because they had contracted for Business Class passage.
However, although there is a breach of contract, DT and MT are entitled to actual
damages only for such pecuniary losses suffered by them as a result of such breach.
There seems to be no showing that they incurred such pecuniary loss. There is no
showing that the pain in DTs arm and wrist resulted directly from the carriers acts
complained of. Hence, they are not entitled to actual damages. Moreover, DT could
have avoided the alleged injury by requesting the airline staff to do the luggage transfer
as a matter of duty on their part. There is also no basis to award moral damages for such
breach of contract because the facts of the problem do not show bad faith or fraud on
the part of the
airline. (Cathay Pacific v. Vazquez, 399 SCRA 207 [2003]). However, they may
recover moral damages if the cause of action is based on Article 21 of the Civil Code for
the humiliation and embarrassment they felt when the stewardess threatened to offload
them if they did not avail of the upgrade.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

If it can be proved that DTs pain in his arm and wrist occasioned by the transfer of
luggage was caused by fault or negligence on the part of the airlines stewardess, actual
damages may be recovered.

The airline may be liable for moral damages pursuant to Art. 2219 (10) if the cause of
action is based on Article 21 or an act contrary to morals in view of the humiliation
suffered by DT and MT when they were separated from their guests and were threatened
to be offloaded.

Liability; Airline Company; Non-Performance of an Obligation

(2005)

Dr. and Mrs. Almeda are prominent citizens of the country and are frequent travelers
abroad. In 1996, they booked round-trip business class tickets for the Manila-Hong
Kong- Manila route of the Pinoy Airlines, where they are holders of Gold Mabalos Class
Frequent Flier cards. On their return flight, Pinoy Airlines upgraded their tickets to first
class without their consent and, inspite of their protestations to be allowed to remain in
the business class so that they could be with their friends, they were told that the
business class was already fully booked, and that they were given priority in upgrading
because they are elite members/holders of Gold Mabalos Class cards. Since they were
embarrassed at the discussions with the flight attendants, they were forced to take the
flight at the first class section apart from their friends who were in the business class.
Upon their return to Manila, they demanded a written apology from Pinoy Airlines.
When it went unheeded, the couple sued Pinoy Airlines for breach of contract
claiming moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorneys fees.

Will the action prosper? Give reasons.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Yes, the action will prosper. Article 2201 of the Civil Code entitles the person to recover
damages which may be attributed to non-performance of an obligation.
In Alitalia Airways v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 77011, July 24, 1990), when
an airline issues ticket to a passenger confirmed on a particular flight, a contract of
carriage arises and the passenger expects that he would fly on that day. When the airline
deliberately overbooked, it took the risk of having to deprive some passengers of their
seat in case all of them would show up. For the indignity and inconvenience of being
refused the confirmed seat, said passenger is entitled to moral damages.

In the given problem, spouses Almeda had a booked roundtrip business class ticket with
Pinoy Airlines. When their tickets were upgraded to first class without their consent,
Pinoy Airlines breached the contract. As ruled
in Zulueta v. Pan American (G.R. No. L-28589, January 8,1973), in case of
overbooking, airline is in bad faith. Therefore, spouses Almeda are entitled to damages.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The action may or may not prosper. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Although incapable of pecuniary
computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the
defendants wrongful act or omission. Moral damages predicated upon a breach of
contract of carriage are recoverable only in instances where the carrier is guilty of fraud
or bad faith or where the mishap resulted in the death of a
passenger. (Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 60501,
March 5, 1993) Where there is no showing that the airline acted fraudulently or in bad
faith, liability for damages is limited to the natural and probable consequences of the
breach of the contract of carriage which the parties had foreseen or could have
reasonably foreseen. In such a case the liability does not include moral and exemplary
damages.

In the instant case, if the involuntary upgrading of the Almedas seat accommodation
was not attended by fraud or bad faith, the award of moral damages has no leg to stand
on.

Thus, spouses would not also be entitled to exemplary damages. It is a requisite in the
grant of exemplary damages that the act of the offender must be accompanied by bad
faith or done in wanton, fraudulent or malevolent
manner. (Morris v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127957, February 21, 2001) Mor
eover, to be entitled thereto, the claimant must first establish his right to moral,
temperate, or compensatory damages. (Art. 2234, Civil Code) Since the Almedas are
not entitled to any of these damages, the award for exemplary damages has no legal
basis. Where the awards for moral and exemplary damages are eliminated, so must the
award for attorneys fees be
eliminated. (Orosa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111080, April 5, 2000;
Morris v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127957, February 21, 2001) The most that
can be adjudged in their favor for Pinoy Airlines breach of contract is an award for
nominal damages under Article 2221 of the Civil
Code. (Cathay Pacific Airways v. Sps. Daniel & Maria Luisa Vasquez, G.R. No.
150843, March 14, 2003)

However, if spouses Almeda could prove that there was bad faith on the part of Pinoy
Airlines when it breached the contract of carriage, it could be liable for moral, exemplary
as well as attorneys fees.

Moral Damages & Atty Fees (2002)

Ortillo contracts Fabricato, Inc. to supply and install tile materials in a building he is
donating to his province. Ortillo pays 50% of the contract price as per agreement. It is
also agreed that the balance would be payable periodically after every 10% performance
until completed. After performing about 93% of the contract, for which it has been paid
an additional 40% as per agreement, Fabricato, Inc. did not complete the project due to
its sudden cessation of operations. Instead, Fabricato, Inc. demands payment of the last
10% of the contract despite its non-completion of the project. Ortillo refuses to pay,
invoking the stipulation that payment of the last amount 10% shall be upon completion.
Fabricato, Inc. brings suit for the entire 10%. Plus damages, Ortillo counters with claims
for (a) moral damages for Fabricato, Inc.s unfounded suit which has damaged his
reputation as a philanthropist and respect businessman in his community, and (b)
attorneys fees.

A. Does Ortillo have a legal basis for his claim for moral damages?

B. How about his claim for attorneys fees, having hired a lawyer to defend him?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A. There is no legal basis to Ortillos claim for moral damages. It does not fall under the
coverage of Article 2219 of the New Civil Code.

B. Ortillo is entitled to attorneys fees because Fabricatos complaint is a case of

malicious prosecution or a clearly unfounded civil action. (Art. 2208 [4] and [11], NCC).

Moral Damages; Non-Recovery Thereof (2006)

Under Article 2219 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be recovered in the cases
specified therein several of which are enumerated below.

Choose the case wherein you cannot recover moral damages. Explain.

a) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries

b) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries

c) Immorality or dishonesty

d) Illegal search

e) Malicious prosecution

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Immorality and dishonesty, per se, are not among those
cases enumerated in Article 2219 which can be the basis of an action for moral
damages. The law specifically mentions adultery or concubinage, etc. but not any and
every immoral act.