1. G.R. No.

168168

September 14, 2005

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDGARDO DIMAANO

Facts: On January 26, 1996, Maricar Dimaano charged her father, Edgardo Dimaano with two (2) counts
of rape and one (1) count of attempted rape.
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. Appellant denied the accusations against him.
The trial court found the testimony of complainant to be spontaneous and credible. She narrated the
obscene details of her harrowing experience which no girl of tender age would have known unless she
herself had experienced it. It found the delay in reporting the rape understandable due to the fear
complainant had of her father who had moral ascendancy over her. Also, the quarrel between
complainant's parents was not sufficient motive for the wife to lodge a serious charge of rape against
appellant. It disregarded the Compromise Agreement and the Salaysay sa Pag-uurong ng Sumbong since
complainant was not assisted by a lawyer when she signed the same. Besides, she testified in open court
that she was pursuing the case against her father. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the accused Edgardo Dimaano is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of
rape (2 counts) and the crime of attempted rape. For the rape committed in September 1993, he is
sentenced to a penalty of reclusion perpetua. For the rape on December 29, 1995, he is imposed the
supreme penalty of death. And for the crime of attempted rape, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law
(Act No. 4103 as amended), he is sentenced to a penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision
correccional medium to 10 years and 1 day to 12 years of prision mayor maximum. He is ordered to
indemnify the victim the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay exemplary damages in the amount of
P50,000.00.
The Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications the decision of the trial court, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 31 May 2000 of the Regional Trial Court of
Paraaque City, Branch 257 convicting accused-appellant Edgardo Dimaano of the crime of rape is
AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
In Criminal Case No. 96-125, the accused-appellant EDGARDO DIMAANO as found guilty of rape under
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to a penalty of reclusion perpetua is also ordered to
pay the victim MARICAR DIMAANO Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity; Php50,000.00 as moral damages
and Php25,0000.00 as exemplary damages.
In Criminal Case No. 96-150, the accused-appellant EDGARDO DIMAANO, as found guilty of qualified
rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act 7659, and
sentenced to death penalty, is also ordered to pay the victim MARICAR DIMAANO Php75,000.00 as civil
indemnity; Php75,000.00 as moral damages and Php25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
In Criminal Case No. 96-151, the accused-appellant EDGARDO DIMAANO as found guilty of attempted
rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act 7659, is
hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years of prision
correccional as minimum to 8 years and 1 day to 10 years of prision mayor as maximum. Accusedappellant is also ordered to pay the victim MARICAR DIMAANO Php30,000.00 as civil indemnity,
Php25,000.00 as moral damages, and Php10,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Issue: Whether or not the imposition of damages is correct.
Ruling: We have painstakingly reviewed the evidence on record and found no cogent reason to disturb
the findings of the trial court and the appellate court.

Anent the awards of damages, the Court of Appeals correctly modified the awards of civil indemnity and
exemplary damages, which the trial court lumped together for all the crimes committed, by separately
awarding the sums of P50,000.00 and P75,000.00as civil indemnity in Criminal Case Nos. 96-125 and 96150, respectively, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, for each count of rape, in line with the
prevailing jurisprudence.
The award of civil indemnity, which is in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is
mandatory upon a conviction for rape. On the other hand, exemplary damages is awarded when
the commission of the offense is attended by an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or
qualifying.
Finally, the awards of P50,000.00 and P75,000.00 as moral damages in Criminal Case Nos. 96-125 and
96-150, respectively, by the Court of Appeals are also sustained in line with the prevailing jurisprudence.
The award of moral damages is automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other
than the commission of the crime because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral
injuries entitling her to such award.
2. G.R. No. 79578

March 13, 1991

RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (RCPI) vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and
SPOUSES MINERVA TIMAN and FLORES TIMAN
Facts: On January 24, 1983, private respondents-spouses Minerva Timan and Flores Timan sent a
telegram of condolence to their cousins, Mr. and Mrs. Hilario Midoranda, at Trinidad, Calbayog City,
through petitioner Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI, hereinafter) at Cubao, Quezon
City, to convey their deepest sympathy for the recent death of the mother-in-law of Hilario Midoranda.
The condolence telegram was correctly transmitted as far as the written text was concerned. However,
the condolence message as communicated and delivered to the addressees was typewritten on a "Happy
Birthday" card and placed inside a "Christmasgram" envelope. Believing that the transmittal to the
addressees of the aforesaid telegram in that non such manner was done intentionally and with gross
breach of contract resulting to ridicule, contempt, and humiliation of the private respondents and the
addressees, including their friends and relatives, the spouses Timan demanded an explanation.
Unsatisfied with RCPI's explanations in its letters, dated March 9 and April 20, 1983, the Timans filed a
complaint for damages.
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the respondents Timans which was affirmed in toto by the
Court of Appeals.
Issue: WON the award of damages is proper.
Ruling: We fully agree with the appellate court's endorsement of the trial court's conclusion that RCPI, a
corporation dealing in telecommunications and offering its services to the public, is engaged in a business
affected with public interest. As such, it is bound to exercise that degree of diligence expected of it in the
performance of its obligation.
Anent the award of moral and exemplary damages assigned as errors, the findings of the respondent
court are persuasive.1wphi1
. . . When plaintiffs placed an order for transmission of their social condolence telegram,
defendant did not inform the plaintiff of the exhaustion of such social condolence forms.
Defendant-appellant accepted through its authorized agent or agency the order and received the
corresponding compensation therefor. Defendant did not comply with its contract as intended by
the parties and instead of transmitting the condolence message in an ordinary form, in
accordance with its guidelines, placed the condolence message expressing sadness and sorrow

in forms conveying joy and happiness. Under the circumstances, We cannot accept the
defendant's plea of good faith predicated on such exhaustion of social condolence forms. Gross
negligence or carelessness can be attributed to defendant-appellant in not supplying its various
stations with such sufficient and adequate social condolence forms when it held out to the public
sometime in January, 1983, the availability of such social condolence forms and accepted for a
fee the transmission of messages on said forms. Knowing that there are no such forms as
testified to by its Material Control Manager Mateo Atienza, and entering into a contract for the
transmission of messages in such forms, defendant-appellant committed acts of bad faith, fraud
or malice. . . . 17
RCPI's argument that it can not be held liable for exemplary damages, being penal or punitive in
character, is without merit. We have so held in many cases, and oddly, quite a number of them
. . . In contracts and quasi-contracts, exemplary damages may be awarded if the defendant
acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.1wphi1 There was
gross negligence on the part of RCPI personnel in transmitting the wrong telegram, of which
RCPI must be held liable. Gross carelessness or negligence constitutes wanton misconduct.
. . . punitive damages may be recovered for wilful or wantonly negligent acts in respect of
messages, even though those acts are neither authorized nor ratified (Arkansas & L.R. Co. vs.
Stroude 91 SW 18; West vs. Western U. Tel. Co., 17 P807; Peterson vs. Western U. Tel. Co., 77
NW 985; Brown vs. Western U. Tel. Co., 6 SE 146). Thus, punitive damages have been
recovered for mistakes in the transmission of telegrams (Pittman vs. Western Union Tel. Co., 66
SO 977; Painter vs. Western Union Tel. Co., 84 SE 293) (emphasis supplied). 19
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto.
3. Prudential Guarantee Assurance Inc vs. Trans-Asia Shipping Lines
Facts: TRANS-ASIA is the owner of the vessel M/V Asia Korea. In consideration of payment of premiums,
PRUDENTIAL insured M/V Asia Korea for loss/damage of the hull and machinery arising from perils, inter
alia, of fire and explosion for the sum of P40 Million, beginning from the period of July 1, 1993 up to July
1, 1994.
On October 25, 1993, while the policy was in force, a fire broke out while [M/V Asia Korea was]
undergoing repairs at the port of Cebu. On October 26, 1993 TRANS-ASIA filed its notice of claim for
damage sustained by the vessel evidenced by a letter/formal claim. TRANS-ASIA reserved its right to
subsequently notify PRUDENTIAL as to the full amount of the claim upon final survey and determination
by average adjuster Richard Hogg International (Phil.) of the damage sustained by reason of fire.
TRANS-ASIA executed a document denominated "Loan and Trust receipt", a portion of which states that
Received from Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc., the sum of PESOS THREE MILLION ONLY
(P3,000,000.00) as a loan without interest under Policy No. MH 93/1353 [sic], repayable only in the event
and to the extent that any net recovery is made by Trans-Asia Shipping Corporation, from any person or
persons, corporation or corporations, or other parties, on account of loss by any casualty for which they
may be liable occasioned by the 25 October 1993: Fire on Board."
PRUDENTIAL later on denied Trans-Asias claim in stated in a letter that "After a careful review and
evaluation of your claim arising from the above-captioned incident, it has been ascertained that you are in
breach of policy conditions, among them "WARRANTED VESSEL CLASSED AND CLASS
MAINTAINED". Accordingly, we regret to advise that your claim is not compensable and hereby DENIED."
and asked for the return of the 3,000,000.
TRANS-ASIA filed a Complaint for Sum of Money against PRUDENTIAL with the RTC of Cebu City,
wherein TRANS-ASIA sought the amount of P8,395,072.26 from PRUDENTIAL, alleging that the same

represents the balance of the indemnity due upon the insurance policy in the total amount of
P11,395,072.26. TRANS-ASIA similarly sought interest at 42% per annum citing Section 243 of
Presidential Decreee No. 1460, otherwise known as the "Insurance Code," as amended.
PRUDENTIAL denied the material allegations of the Complaint and interposed the defense that
TRANS-ASIA breached insurance policy conditions, in particular: PRUDENTIAL posits that TRANSASIA violated an express and material warranty in the subject insurance contract, i.e., Marine Insurance
Policy No. MH93/1363, specifically Warranty Clause No. 5 thereof, which stipulates that the insured
vessel, "M/V ASIA KOREA" is required to be CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED. According to
PRUDENTIAL, on 25 October 1993, or at the time of the occurrence of the fire, "M/V ASIA KOREA" was
in violation of the warranty as it was not CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED. PRUDENTIAL submits
thatWarranty Clause No. 5 was a condition precedent to the recovery of TRANS-ASIA under the policy,
the violation of which entitled PRUDENTIAL to rescind the contract under Sec. 74 of the Insurance Code.
By way of a counterclaim, PRUDENTIAL sought a refund of P3,000,000.00, which it allegedly advanced
to TRANS-ASIA by way of a loan without interest and without prejudice to the final evaluation of the claim,
including the amounts of P500,000.00, for survey fees and P200,000.00, representing attorneys fees.
Trial court ruled in favor of Prudential. It ruled that a determination of the parties liabilities hinged on
whether TRANS-ASIA violated and breached the policy conditions on WARRANTED VESSEL CLASSED
AND CLASS MAINTAINED. It interpreted the provision to mean that TRANS-ASIA is required to maintain
the vessel at a certain class at all times pertinent during the life of the policy. According to the court a quo,
TRANS-ASIA failed to prove compliance of the terms of the warranty, the violation thereof entitled
PRUDENTIAL to rescind the contract.
The court of appeals reversed the decision. It ruled that PRUDENTIAL, as the party asserting the noncompensability of the loss had the burden of proof to show that TRANS-ASIA breached the warranty,
which burden it failed to discharge. PRUDENTIAL cannot rely on the lack of certification to the effect that
TRANS-ASIA was CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED as its sole basis for reaching the conclusion that
the warranty was breached. It opined that the lack of a certification does not necessarily mean that the
warranty was breached by TRANS-ASIA. Instead, it considered
PRUDENTIALs admission that at the time the insurance contract was entered into between the parties,
the vessel was properly classed by Bureau Veritas, a classification society recognized by the industry. It
similarly gave weight to the fact that it was the responsibility of Richards Hogg International (Phils.) Inc.,
the average adjuster hired by PRUDENTIAL, to secure a copy of such certification to support its
conclusion that mere absence of a certification does not warrant denial of TRANS-ASIAs claim under the
insurance policy.
Issue: WON THE AWARD IS GROSSLY UNCONSCIONABLE.
Ruling: We sustain the findings of the Court of Appeals that PRUDENTIAL was not successful in
discharging the burden of evidence that TRANS-ASIA breached the subject policy condition on CLASSED
AND CLASS MAINTAINED.
PRUDENTIAL is directed to pay TRANS-ASIA the amount of P8,395,072.26, representing the balance of
the loss suffered by TRANS-ASIA and covered by Marine Policy No. MH93/1363.
Likewise, PRUDENTIAL is directed to pay TRANS-ASIA, damages in the form of attorneys fees
equivalent to 10% of P8,395,072.26.
Sec. 244 of the Insurance Code grants damages consisting of attorneys fees and other expenses
incurred by the insured after a finding by the Insurance Commissioner or the Court, as the case may be,
of an unreasonable denial or withholding of the payment of the claims due. Moreover, the law imposes an
interest of twice the ceiling prescribed by the Monetary Board on the amount of the claim due the insured

from the date following the time prescribed in Section 242 or in Section 243, as the case may be, until the
claim is fully satisfied. Finally, Section 244 considers the failure to pay the claims within the time
prescribed in Sections 242 or 243, when applicable, asprima facie evidence of unreasonable delay in
payment.
To the mind of this Court, Section 244 does not require a showing of bad faith in order that attorneys fees
be granted. As earlier stated, under Section 244, a prima facieevidence of unreasonable delay in payment
of the claim is created by failure of the insurer to pay the claim within the time fixed in both Sections 242
and 243 of the Insurance Code. As established in Section 244, by reason of the delay and the
consequent filing of the suit by the insured, the insurers shall be adjudged to pay damages which shall
consist of attorneys fees and other expenses incurred by the insured.
As can be gleaned from the foregoing, there was an unreasonable delay on the part of PRUDENTIAL to
pay TRANS-ASIA, as in fact, it refuted the latters right to the insurance claims, from the time proof of loss
was shown and the ascertainment of the loss was made by the insurance adjuster. Evidently,
PRUDENTIALs unreasonable delay in satisfying TRANS-ASIAs unpaid claims compelled the latter to file
a suit for collection.
Succinctly, an award equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the unpaid proceeds of the policy as attorneys
fees to TRANS-ASIA is reasonable under the circumstances, or otherwise stated, ten percent (10%)
of P8,395,072.26. In the case of Cathay Insurance, Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, where a finding of an
unreasonable delay under Section 244 of the Insurance Code was made by this Court, we grant an award
of attorneys fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total proceeds. We find no reason to deviate from
this judicial precedent in the case at bar.