ERLINDA FRANCISCO AND JULIANA PAMAONG (petitioners)
vs.
RICARDO FERRER, JR., ANNETTE FERRER, ERNESTO LO AND REBECCA LO (respondents)
G.R. No. 142029
February 28, 2001
FACTS: The petitioners failed to deliver the wedding cake on the wedding day as ordered and paid for. Petitioners gave the lame excuse that delivery was probably delayed because of the traffic, when in truth, no cake could be delivered because the order slip got lost. The respondents filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, for breach of contract with damages. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of plaintiffs and against Erlinda Francisco who is ordered to pay an amount of P30, 000 for moral damages. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals which modified the appealed decision increasing the award of moral damages from thirty thousand (P30,000.00) to two hundred fifty thousand pesos (P250,000.00) and awarded an additional exemplary damages of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00).
ISSUE: Whether the petitioners are liable for moral and exemplary damages?
RULING: The Court granted the petition and reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals. To recover moral and exemplary damages in an action for breach of contract, the breach must be palpable wanton, reckless, malicious, in bad faith, oppressive or abusive. The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence, for the law always presumes good faith. The Court found no such fraud or bad faith.
Nevertheless, the Court found the petitioners liable for nominal damages (an amount of P10,000) for insensitivity, inadvertence or inattention to their customer’s anxiety and need of the hour. “Nominal damages are ‘recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind or where there has been a breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages whatsoever have been or can be shown.” Nominal damages may be awarded “to a plaintiff whose right has been violated or invaded by the defendant, for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right, not for indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered.”
vs.
RICARDO FERRER, JR., ANNETTE FERRER, ERNESTO LO AND REBECCA LO (respondents)
G.R. No. 142029
February 28, 2001
FACTS: The petitioners failed to deliver the wedding cake on the wedding day as ordered and paid for. Petitioners gave the lame excuse that delivery was probably delayed because of the traffic, when in truth, no cake could be delivered because the order slip got lost. The respondents filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, for breach of contract with damages. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of plaintiffs and against Erlinda Francisco who is ordered to pay an amount of P30, 000 for moral damages. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals which modified the appealed decision increasing the award of moral damages from thirty thousand (P30,000.00) to two hundred fifty thousand pesos (P250,000.00) and awarded an additional exemplary damages of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00).
ISSUE: Whether the petitioners are liable for moral and exemplary damages?
RULING: The Court granted the petition and reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals. To recover moral and exemplary damages in an action for breach of contract, the breach must be palpable wanton, reckless, malicious, in bad faith, oppressive or abusive. The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence, for the law always presumes good faith. The Court found no such fraud or bad faith.
Nevertheless, the Court found the petitioners liable for nominal damages (an amount of P10,000) for insensitivity, inadvertence or inattention to their customer’s anxiety and need of the hour. “Nominal damages are ‘recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind or where there has been a breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages whatsoever have been or can be shown.” Nominal damages may be awarded “to a plaintiff whose right has been violated or invaded by the defendant, for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right, not for indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered.”
No comments:
Post a Comment