This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
2015-09-23 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| This Court further finds the awards for moral, "temperate/compensatory" and exemplary damages lacking in factual and legal bases. As correctly argued by petitioners, these damages were not pleaded in respondent's complaint nor proven during trial. A perusal of the complaint, as amended, reveals that respondent was praying for "P100,000.00 as damages for the violation."[29] He did not specifically pray that it was for moral, temperate or exemplary damages. It is well-settled that in order that moral damages may be awarded, there must be pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the like.[30] And even if the moral damages were specifically pleaded in his complaint, nothing on the records would show that respondent testified on said damages. | |||||
|
2015-01-14 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| In awarding damages in libel cases, the court is given ample discretion to determine the amount, depending upon the facts of the particular case.[29] Article 2219 of the Civil Code expressly authorizes the recovery of moral damages in cases of libel, slander or any other form of defamation. However, "while no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded, x x x it is nevertheless essential that the claimant should satisfactorily show the existence of the factual basis of damages and its causal connection to defendant's acts."[30] Considering that respondent sufficiently justified his claim for damages (i.e. he testified that he was "embarrassed by the said letters [and] ashamed to show his face in [sic] government offices"[31]), we find him entitled to moral and exemplary damages. | |||||
|
2014-09-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In the same vein, exemplary damages cannot be awarded in favor of petitioner. Well-settled that this species of damages is allowed only in addition to moral damages such that no exemplary damages can be awarded unless the claimant first establishes his clear right to moral damages.[30] Consequently, despite our finding that respondents acted in a fraudulent manner, petitioner's claim for exemplary damages is unavailing at this point. | |||||
|
2009-05-08 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The rule in our jurisdiction is that exemplary damages are awarded in addition to moral damages. In Mahinay v. Velasquez, Jr.,[14] we held:Neither is respondent entitled to exemplary damages. "If the court has no proof or evidence upon which the claim for moral damages could be based, such indemnity could not be outrightly awarded. The same holds true with respect to the award of exemplary damages where it must be shown that the party acted in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner." Furthermore, this specie of damages is allowed only in addition to moral damages such that no exemplary damages can be awarded unless the claimant first establishes his clear right to moral damages. (emphasis ours) In light of our ruling on non-entitlement to moral damages, the CA's award of exemplary damages should be deleted. | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Finally, petitioners are not entitled to damages they prayed for in their counterclaim and cross-claim filed before the RTC. In order that moral damages may be awarded, there must be proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the like. While petitioners alleged in their Answer with counterclaim and cross-claim that they suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety and sleepless nights, they failed to prove them during the trial. There is nothing in their testimonies that will support their claim for damages. In fact, petitioner Robert Tio's testimony was not even offered by counsel for such purpose.[43] It should be stressed that mere allegations do not suffice; they must be substantiated by clear and convincing proof.[44] | |||||
|
2007-12-19 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As to Patricia's entitlement to damages, this Court has held that while no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded, the amount of indemnity being left to the discretion of the court, it is nevertheless essential that the claimant should satisfactorily show the existence of the factual basis of damages and its causal connection to defendant's acts.[24] This is so because moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, 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.[25] Moreover, additional facts must be pleaded and proven to warrant the grant of moral damages under the Civil Code, these being, social humiliation, wounded feelings, grave anxiety, etc. that resulted from the act being complained of.[26] In the present case, both the RTC and the CA were not convinced that Patricia is entitled to damages. Quoting the RTC, the CA held thus:With respect to Patricia, she did not even bother to know the details of the case against her, she left everything to the hands of her mother Alice. Her attitude towards the case appears weird, she being a banker who seems so concerned of her reputation. | |||||
|
2007-12-19 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Neither was there reason to award exemplary damages. Since respondents were not entitled to moral damages, neither should they be awarded exemplary damages.[89] And if respondents were not entitled to moral and exemplary damages, neither could they be awarded attorney's fees and litigation expenses.[90] | |||||
|
2006-10-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In Mahinay v. Velasquez, Jr.,[11] we held that: In order that moral damages may be awarded, there must be pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the like. While respondent alleged in his complaint that he suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and moral shock, he failed to prove them during the trial. Indeed, respondent should have taken the witness stand and should have testified on the mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and other emotional and mental suffering he purportedly suffered to sustain his claim for moral damages. Mere allegations do not suffice; they must be substantiated by clear and convincing proof. No other person could have proven such damages except the respondent himself as they were extremely personal to him. As private respondent is not entitled to moral damages, a fortiori, she is not entitled to exemplary damages. This is clear in Article 2234 of the Civil Code, which provides: ART. 2234. While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved, the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded. In case liquidated damages have been agreed upon, although no proof of loss is necessary in order that such liquidated damages may be recovered, nevertheless, before the court may consider the question of granting exemplary in addition to the liquidated damages, the plaintiff must show that he would be entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages were it not for the stipulation for liquidated damages. Hence, exemplary damages is allowed only in addition to moral damages such that no exemplary damages can be awarded unless the claimant first establishes his clear right to moral damages.[12] In the instant case, private respondent failed to satisfactorily establish her claim for moral damages, thus she is not likewise entitled to exemplary damages. | |||||
|
2006-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In order that moral damages may be awarded, there must be pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the like, and while no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded, it is nevertheless essential that the claimant should satisfactorily show the existence of the factual basis of damages and its causal connection to defendant's acts.[34] Claims must be substantiated by clear and convincing proof[35] and there must be clear testimony on the anguish and other forms of mental sufferings as mere allegations will not suffice.[36] Allegations of besmirched reputation, embarrassment and sleepless nights are insufficient for it must be shown that the proximate cause thereof was the unlawful act or omission of the opposing party.[37] | |||||