6. KINDS
The word “damages” involve any and all manifestations of life:
physical or material, moral or psychological, mental or spiritual,
financial, economic, social, political and religious. (Castro vs. Acro
Taxicab Co., 82 Phil. 359, 381). It is in recognition of these
different facets of damages that the Civil Code identified and
defined all the different kinds of damages that may be awarded in
this jurisdiction. Thus, Article 2197 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 2197. Damages may be: (MENTAL)
(1) Actual or compensatory;
(2) Moral;
(3) Nominal;
(4) Temperate or moderate;
(5) Liquidated; or
(6) Exemplary or corrective.
I.
ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGE
Article 2199 of the Civil Code provides that “except as provided by
law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation
only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved.
Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory dam-
ages.” The Supreme Court described this type of damage in Algarra
vs. Sandejas (supra, at p. 32):
“The words ‘actual damages’ shall be construed to
include all damages that the plaintiff may show he has
suffered in respect to his property, business, trade,
profession, or occupation, and no other damages
whatever.” (Gen. Stat. Minn., 1894, sec. 5418). “Actual
damages are compensatory only.” (Lord, Owen & Co. vs.
Wood, 120 Iowa, 303, 94 N. W., 842.)
“The purpose of the law in awarding actual
damages is to repair the wrong that has been done, to
compensate for the injury inflicted, and not to impose a
penalty.
KINDS OF ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES:
1. Loss of what a person already possesses (daño emergente)
2. Failure to receive as a benefit that would have pertained to him
(lucro cesante).
(a) the victim was self-employed earning less than the minimum
wage under the current labor laws and judicial notice was taken of
the fact that in the victim’s line of work, no documentary evidence
is available; and
(b) the victim was employed as a daily wage worker earning less
than the minimum wage under the current labor laws (People v.
Muyco, 331 SCRA 192 [1999]; People v. Dindo Pajotal, et al, G.R.
No. 142870, November 14, 2001).
NON-WORKING VICTIMS
Earning capacity may be impaired even if no actual earning is lost
in the meantime.
In a number of cases, the Supreme Court recognized the entitle-
ment of the heirs of the deceased for loss of earning capacity of
the deceased even if the said deceased was not working at the time
of the accident. What is important is that there is proof of loss of
earning capacity and not necessarily actual loss of income.
Section 2206 of the Civil Code provides that the defendant shall be
liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the
indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter “unless the
deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused
by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death.”
Thus, the heirs of the deceased may still be entitled to damages
even if the actual income of the latter as a farmer was not duly
established so long as there is indication that the said deceased
had earning capacity at the time of his death (People of the
Philippines v. Elger Guzman, G.R. No. 132750, December 14,
2001).
In Metro Manila Transit Corporation et al. v. Court of Appeals et al.
(G.R. Nos. 116617/126395, November 16, 1998), the Supreme
Court awarded damages in favor of the plaintiffs for the death of
their non-working minor child who was killed because of the
negligent driving of a bus driver. The Supreme Court used the
minimum wage for non-agricultural workers in computing the net
earnings.
Life Expectancy
The formula used in Villa Rey Transit shows that life expectancy of
the deceased is not only relevant but also an important element in
fixing the amount recoverable. It is important to emphasize in this
connection that it is the life of the deceased or victim that is the
element of the formula for computing loss of earning capacity and
not that of the heirs (Gregorio Pestano et al. v. Spouses Teotimo
& Paz C. Sumayang, G.R. No. 139875, December 4, 2000).
In determining the life expectancy of the victim, the Supreme Court
had repeatedly used the American Expectancy Table of Mortality or
the Actuarial of Combined Experience Table of Mortality that are
used by insurers. The table being used by insurance companies is
adopted because “there is a link here with actuarial tables, which
were created by life assurance companies for the purpose of
determining what capital sum should be charged for an annuity,
since the insurer is obviously vitally concerned to make the
estimate of the annuitant’s life expectancies.
II.
MORAL DAMAGES
a. Concept.
The Civil Code provides that moral damages include physical
suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and
similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral
damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the
defendant’s wrongful act for omission. (Article 2217, Civil Code).
The award of moral damages is designed to compensate the
claimants for actual injury and is not meant to enrich the complain-
ant at the expense of the defendant. They are awarded only to
enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusement
that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone by
reason of the defendant’s culpable action. (Kierulf vs. Court of
Appeals, 269 SCRA 433 [1997]; Zenith Insurance Corporation vs.
Court of Appeals, 185 SCRA 308 [1990]). Its aim is the restoration
within the limits of the possible the spiritual status quo ante.
(Visayan Sawmil Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 378
[1993]).
It must be understood to be in the concept of grants not punitive
or corrective in nature, calculated to compensate the claimant for
the injury suffered. In other words, moral damages are not
awarded to punish the defendant but to compensate the victim.
(People vs. Aringue, 283 SCRA 291 [1997]; Morales vs. Court of
Appeals, 274 SCRA 282 [1997]; Del Mundo vs. Court of Appeals,
240 SCRA 348 [1996]; De la Serna vs. Court of Appeals, 233 SCRA
325 [1994]; Bautista vs. Mangaldan Rural Bank, Inc., 230 SCRA
16 [1994]; Zenith Insurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 185 SCRA
398 [1990]; Simex International (Manila), Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, 183 SCRA 360 [1990]; Robleza vs. Court of Appeals, 174
SCRA 354 [1989]).
b. Proof and Proximate Cause.
No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral dam-
ages may be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages is left
to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of
each case. (Article 2216, Civil Code). However, there must be proof
that the defendant caused physical suffering, mental anguish,
fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings,
moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury to the plaintiff.
Without allegation and proof of such sufferings, no moral damages
can be awarded. (Compania Maritima vs. Allied Free Worker’s
Union, 77 SCRA 24). Nevertheless, the language of the law need
not be used to warrant the award of moral damages. (Mirana-
Ribaya vs. Carbonell, 95 SCRA 672). So long as there is satisfactory
proof of the psychological and mental trauma actually suffered by
a party, the grant to him of moral damages is warranted. (Del
Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 58 [1997]).
Aside from the fact that there is a need for the claimant to sat-
isfactorily prove the existence of the factual basis of the damages,
it is also necessary to prove its causal relation to the defendant’s
act. (Raagas vs. Traya, 22 SCRA 839 [1968]). While moral
damages is incapable of pecuniary estimation, they are recoverable
if they are the proximate cause of the defendant’s wrongful act or
omission. (Enervida vs. De la Torre, 55 SCRA 339; Yutuk vs. Manila
Electric Co., 2 SCRA 337 [1961]).
The exception to the rule that the factual basis for moral damages
must be alleged are criminal cases. Moral damages may be
awarded to the victim in criminal proceedings in such amount as
the court deems just without the need for pleading or proof of the
basis thereof. (People vs. Prades, G.R. No. 127569, July 30, 1998;
People vs. Moreno, G.R. No. 126921, August 28, 1998; People vs.
Bagayong, G.R. No. 126518, December 2, 1998).
Cases when Moral Damages are allowed.
Articles 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code enumerate the cases when
moral damages may be awarded by the courts:
“Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the follow-
ing and analogous cases:
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
32, 34, and 35.
Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for
awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the
circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies
to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or
in bad faith.’’
For instance, it is well settled that no moral damages may be
awarded in the absence of a wrongful act or omission or of fraud
or bad faith. (Ong Yui vs. Court of Appeals, 91 SCRA 223; Castillo
vs. Castillo, 95 SCRA 40; St. Peter Memorial Park, Inc. vs. Cleofas,
92 SCRA 389).
BREACH OF CONTRACT MUST BE MALICIOUS
The same rule applies to cases involving breach of contract, that
is, no moral damages may be awarded where the breach of
contract is not malicious. (Francisco vs. GSIS, 7 SCRA 577 [1963];
Mercado vs. Lira, 3 SCRA 124 [1961]; Martinez vs. Gonzales, 6
SCRA 331 [1962]).
CONDITIONS FOR THE AWARD OF MORAL DAMAGES
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 a 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.
WHEN RECOVERABLE IN CASE OF BREACH OF CONTRACT
Under the provisions of this law, 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. By special rule in
Article 1764, in relation to Article 2206, of the Civil Code, moral
damages may also be awarded in case the death of a passenger
results from a breach of carriage.
WHEN RECOVERABLE IN CASE OF QUASI DELICT
In culpa aquiliana, or quasi-delict, (a) when an act or omission
causes physical injuries, or (b) where the defendant is guilty of
intentional tort, moral damages may aptly be recovered. This rule
also applies, as aforestated, to contracts when breached by tort.
WHEN RECOVERABLE IN CULPA CRIMINAL
In culpa criminal, moral damages could be lawfully due when the
accused is found guilty of physical injuries, lascivious acts, adultery
or concubinage, illegal or arbitrary detention, illegal arrest, illegal
search, or defamation. Malicious prosecution can also give rise to
a claim for moral damages. The term “analogous cases,” referred
to in Article 2219, following the ejusdem generis rule, must be held
similar to those expressly enumerated by the law.’’
Unfounded Suits
It is also well settled that moral damages (and attorney’s fees
under paragraph [4] of Article 2208 of the Civil Code) cannot be
assessed against the plaintiff by the mere fact that he filed a case
against the defendant so long as the same was done in good faith.
(Grapilon vs. Mun. Council of Carigara, 2 SCRA 103 [1961];
National Rice and Corn Corporation vs. Antonio, 2 SCRA 643
[1961]; Solis & Yarisantos vs. Salvador, 14 SCRA 887 [1965];
Francel Realty Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 156 [1996];
Mijares vs. Court of Appeals, 271 SCRA 558 [1997]). The rule
applies even if the plaintiff’s case is declared to be unfounded. (De
la Pena vs. Court of Appeals, 231 SCRA 456 [1994]). No damages
can be charged on those who may exercise the right to litigate in
good faith even if done erroneously (“J” Marketing Corporation v.
Sia, Jr., 285 SCRA 580 [1998]).
Nevertheless, there are instances when award of moral damages
(as well as attorney’s fees) is justified if there is clear abuse of
court processes. There can be no blanket clearance against the
filing of all types of cases (Cometa v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA
459 [1999]). Although no person should be penalized for the
exercise of the right to litigate, this right must be exercised in good
faith. Absence of good faith is established if the plaintiff clearly has
no cause of action against the defendant but he recklessly filed the
suit anyway and wantonly pursued pointless appeals, thereby
causing the defendant to spend valuable time, money and effort in
unnecessarily defending himself, incurring damages in the process
(Industrial Insurance Co. v. Pablo Bondad, G.R. No. 136722, April
12, 2000, 330 SCRA 706, 707).
Labor Cases
Moral damages may be recovered where the dismissal of the
employee was attended by bad faith or fraud or constitute an act
oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals,
good customs, or public policy. (Triple Eight Integrated Services,
Inc. vs. NLRC, 299 SCRA 608, 620-621 [1998]; Hilario vs. NLRC,
252 SCRA 555 [1996]; Estiva vs. NLRC, 225 SCRA 169 [1993]).
Criminal Taking of Life.
In a number of cases, the Supreme Court upheld the rule that in
the present stage of our case law involving criminal taking of
human life, evidence must be adduced by the offended party to
warrant an award of moral damages (See: People v. Acaya, 327
SCRA 269 [2000];People v. Pirame, 327 SCRA 552 [2000]).
However, the rule was clarified by stating that no such proof is
necessary in case of violent death. The Supreme Court explained
in Carlos Arcona y Moban v. The Court of Appeals and the People
of the Philippines (G.R. No. 134784, December 9, 2002; see also
People v. Cabote, G.R. 136143, November 15, 2001 and People v.
Panado, 348 SCRA 679, 690-691 [2000]; People v. Cortez, 348
SCRA 663 [2000]) that “as borne out by human nature and
experience, a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about
emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim’s family. It is
inherently human to suffer sorrow, torment, pain and anger when
a loved one becomes the victim of a violent or brutal killing. Such
violent death or brutal killing not only steals from the family of the
deceased his precious life, deprives them forever of his love,
affection and support, but often leaves them with the gnawing
feeling that an injustice has been done to them. For this reason,
moral damages must be awarded even in the absence of any
allegation and proof of the heirs’ emotional suffering.”
Factors to Consider in Determining Amount.
There is no hard and fast rule in the determination of what would
be a fair amount of moral damages, since each case must be
governed by its own peculiar circumstances. (Philippine National
Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 136). The Court should take
into consideration the circumstances obtaining in the case and
assess damages according to its discretion (Fule v. Court of
Appeals, 286 SCRA 698 [1998]).
There are, however, factors specified by law and established by
jurisprudence that could affect the amount to be recovered. An
example of these is Article 2218 of the Civil Code which provides
that in the adjudication of moral damages, the sentimental value
of property, real or personal, may be considered.
(1) Extent of Humiliation
The extent of humiliation may also determine the amount of moral
damages that can be awarded. Thus, in one case, moral damages
was awarded and fixed because of the humiliation caused by the
dicriminatory acts of an airline company. (Philippine Airlines vs.
Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 621 [1997]). In another, moral
damages was awarded because the plaintiff was slapped in the
face. (Ford vs. Court of Appeals, 186 SCRA 21 [1990]).
(2) Pain and Suffering
The extent of pain and suffering likewise determines the award
(Valenzuela vs. Court of Appeals, supra at p. 37). For instance, an
increase in the amount of moral damages was justified in an
attempted homicide case where the accused bit the ear of the
complainant causing mutilation. The nature of the injuries and the
degree of physical suffering endured by the complainant warrants
an increase. The tragic incident left indelible marks on the
complainant’s body and will serve as a constant reminder of his
traumatic experience. (Sumaplong vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA
764, 776 [1997]). The award was also justified in another case
because of the pain and disfigurement suffered by the respondent,
a pretty girl of 16 whose left arm was scraped of flesh from
shoulder to elbow (De Leon Brokerage Co. v. Court of Appeals, No.
L-15247, February 28, 1962; see also Ong v. Court of Appeals, 301
SCRA 387 [1999]; Salao v. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 493
[1998]).
(3) Official, political, social and financial standing.
Official, political, social and financial standing of the offended party
and the business and financial position of the offender affect the
amount of damages. (Lopez vs. Pan American World Airways, 16
SCRA 431; Zulueta vs. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 43 SCRA
397; Kierulf vs. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 133 [1997]). In
another case, the Supreme Court ruled that the age of the claimant
is material in the determination of the amount of moral damages
due to the plaintiff. (Zamboanga Trans Co., Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, 30 SCRA 717 [1969]; Domingding vs. Ng, 103 Phil. 111;
Yutuk v. Manila Electric Co., May 31, 1961).
The Court considered the credit standing of the plaintiff in awarding
moral damages in Producer’s Bank of the Philippines v. Court of
Appeals (G.R. No. 111584, September 17, 2001, 365 SCRA 326).
The wrongful dishonor of a check that was issued by the plaintiff
affected his credit standing. The plaintiff was a businessman
engaged in several businesses and his suppliers discontinued the
credit line that they extended causing his businesses to collapse.
The Court quoted Leopoldo Araneta v. Bank of America (40 SCRA
144 [1971]) where it was explained that: “The financial credit of a
businessman is a prized and valuable asset, it being a significant
part of the foundation of his business. Any adverse reflection
thereon constitutes some financial loss to him.”
III.
NOMINAL DAMAGES
IV.
TEMPERATE OR MODERATE DAMAGES
V.
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
VI.
EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE DAMAGES