This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2002-04-03 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| If at all, the wrongful issuance of the writ of attachment, as ruled out by this Court, merely resulted in actual damages to appellee. But such is not automatically awarded for it is subject to proof. Appellee's claim that it lost major contracts after a credit investigation revealed that its accounts were garnished is a bare allegation not merely unsupported by solid evidence but is also speculative. The alleged $35,000.00 remittance refused by the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank does not inspire belief for failure of appellee to produce documentary proof to buttress its claim."[45] We agree with the Court of Appeals that the trial court erred in awarding moral and exemplary damages to petitioner. The mere fact that a complaint is dismissed for lack of legal basis will not justify an award of moral damages to the prevailing party.[46] Even the dismissal of a "clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding" will not entitle the winning party to moral damages.[47] For moral damages to be awarded, the case must fall within the instances enumerated in Article 2219, or under Article 2220, of the Civil Code. [48] Moreover, in the absence of fraud, malice, wanton recklessness or oppressiveness, exemplary damages cannot be awarded. [49] | |||||