Lawyerly

GR No. 193914

2014-11-26

SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. DMC-CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES

SERENO, C.J.

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.'[33]

GR No. 204369

2014-09-17

ENRIQUETA M. LOCSIN v. BERNARDO HIZON

VELASCO JR., J.

Nevertheless, we find an award for nominal damages to be in order. Under prevailing jurisprudence, 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."[31] As expounded in Almeda v. Cariño,[32] a violation of the plaintiff's right, even if only technical, is sufficient to support an award of nominal damages. So long as there is a showing of a violation of the right of the plaintiff, as herein petitioner, an award of nominal damages is proper.[33]

GR No. 206806

2014-06-25

ARCO PULP v. DAN T. LIM

LEONEN, J.

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 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 of the Civil Code.[43]

GR No. 206806

2014-06-25

ARCO PULP v. DAN T. LIM

LEONEN, J.

(1) they may be imposed by way of example in addition to compensatory damages, and only after the claimant's right to them has been established; (2) that they cannot be recovered as a matter of right, their determination depending upon the amount of compensatory damages that may be awarded to the claimant; and (3) the act must be accompanied by bad faith or done in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner.[51]

GR No. 185891

2013-06-26

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v. JUANITA REYES

PEREZ, J.

We however sustain the award of nominal damages in the amount of P25,000.00 to only three of the four respondents who were aggrieved by the last-minute cancellation of their flights. 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.[21] Under Article 2221 of the Civil Code, 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.

GR No. 180257

2011-02-23

EUSEBIO GONZALES v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL

VELASCO JR., J.

Accordingly, this Court finds that such acts warrant the payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages. 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 x x x."[49] We further explained the nature of nominal damages in Almeda v. Cariño: x x x Its award is thus not for the purpose of indemnification for a loss but for the recognition and vindication of a right. Indeed, nominal damages are damages in name only and not in fact. When granted by the courts, they are not treated as an equivalent of a wrong inflicted but simply a recognition of the existence of a technical injury. A violation of the plaintiff's right, even if only technical, is sufficient to support an award of nominal damages. Conversely, so long as there is a showing of a violation of the right of the plaintiff, an award of nominal damages is proper.[50] (Emphasis Ours.)

GR No. 182555

2010-09-07

LENIDO LUMANOG v. PEOPLE

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

[199] Francisco v. Ferrer, Jr., G.R. No. 142029, February 28, 2001, 353 SCRA 261, 266-267, citing American Home Assurance Company v. Chua, G.R. No. 130421, June 28, 1999, 309 SCRA 250, 263, Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127326, December 23, 1999, 321 SCRA 524, 537, Singson v. Court of Appeals, 346 Phil. 831, 845 and De la Serna v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109161, June 21, 1994, 233 SCRA 325, 329-330.

GR No. 172611

2010-07-09

SPS. FEDERICO VALENZUELA AND LUZ BUENA-VALENZUELA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Article 2217[26] of the Civil Code defines what are included in moral damages while Article 2219 enumerates the cases where they may be recovered. Moral damages 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.[27] "The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good faith. It is not enough that one merely suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish, serious anxiety as the result of the actuations of the other party. Invariably such action must be shown to have been willfully done in bad faith or with ill motive."[28] In the same fashion, to warrant the award of exemplary damages, the wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith, and an award of damages would be allowed only if the guilty party acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless or malevolent manner.[29] As regards attorney's fees, the law is clear that in the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees may be recovered as actual or compensatory damages under any of the circumstances provided for in Article 2208[30] of the Civil Code.

GR No. 164549

2009-09-18

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SPS. AGUSTIN AND PILAR ROCAMORA

BRION, J.

We are not sufficiently convinced that PNB acted fraudulently, in bad faith, or in wanton disregard of its contractual obligations, simply because it increased the interest rates and delayed the foreclosure of the mortgages. Bad faith cannot be imputed simply because the defendant acted with bad judgment or with attendant negligence. Bad faith is more than these; it pertains to a dishonest purpose, to some moral obliquity, or to the conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of a known duty attributable to a motive, interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud.[33] Proof of actions of this character is undisputably lacking in this case. Consequently, we do not find the spouses Rocamora entitled to an award of moral and exemplary damages. Under these circumstances, neither should they recover attorney's fees and litigation expense.[34] These awards are accordingly deleted.

GR No. 171401

2007-12-13

ADELAIDA AMADO v. RENATO SALVADOR

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The award of exemplary damages is also improper. Exemplary damages are awarded only when a wrongful act is accompanied by bad faith or when the guilty party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless or malevolent manner.[53] Moreover, where a party is not entitled to actual or moral damages, an award of exemplary damages is likewise baseless.[54] As this Court has found, petitioners' refusal to turn over the subject property to Salvador is justified and cannot be the basis for the award of exemplary damages.

GR No. 170633

2007-10-17

MCC INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION v. SSANGYONG CORPORATION

NACHURA, J.

Nonetheless, the Court finds that petitioner knowingly breached its contractual obligation and obstinately refused to pay despite repeated demands from respondent. Petitioner even asked for several extensions of time for it to make good its obligation. But in spite of respondent's continuous accommodation, petitioner completely reneged on its contractual duty. For such inattention and insensitivity, MCC must be held liable for nominal damages. "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.'"[117] Accordingly, the Court awards nominal damages of P200,000.00 to respondent Ssangyong.

GR NO. 147477

2006-06-27

HERMENEGILDO M. TRINIDAD v. ESTRELLA ACAPULCO

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]

GR NO. 149226

2006-06-26

RUDIGARIO C. GATMAITAN v. DR. RICARDO B. GONZALES

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As to the claim for exemplary damages, Article 2229 of the Civil Code provides that exemplary or corrective damages are imposed in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. Exemplary damages are not recoverable as a matter of right.[25] The requirements of an award of exemplary damages are: (1) they may be imposed by way of example in addition to compensatory damages, and only after the claimant's right to them has been established; (2) that they can not be recovered as a matter of right, their determination depending upon the amount of compensatory damages that may be awarded to the claimant; (3) the act must be accompanied by bad faith or done in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner.[26] In this case, there is no award of moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. Hence, no grant of exemplary damages may be ordered.

GR NO. 165842

2005-11-29

EDUARDO P. MANUEL v. PEOPLE

CALLEJO, SR., J.

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 or omission.[65] An award for moral damages requires the confluence of the following conditions: first, there must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant; second, there must be culpable act or omission factually established; third, the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and fourth, the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 or Article 2220 of the Civil Code.[66]

GR NO. 157070

2005-01-14

JOSEFINA ESTOLAS v. RAYMUNDO ACENA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The law on damages prescribes that in order that one can have redress for an act which caused him damage, the act must not only be hurtful, it must also be wrongful.[10] There must be damnum et enjuria.[11] All in all, in order to recover moral damages, the claimant must prove the following: (1) there must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) there must be a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.[12] In herein case, the factual issue of whether or not the issuance by petitioner Estolas of Memorandum Order No. 30 was wrongful has been passed upon with finality by the MSPB way back in 1988 following our ruling in Acena v. Civil Service Commission.[13] It should be recalled that the MSPB Order set aside its earlier order dismissing respondent Acena's complaint for illegal dismissal because the CSC "through the Chairman has already rendered its final determination on the matter."[13] The relevant portions of the CSC resolution[14] being adverted to by the MSPB are quoted hereunder:Records show that then RTC President Lydia N. Profeta issued on December 9, 1985 an appointment to Mr. Acena as Associate Professor and the same was received in the Commission National Capital Region Office on January 6, 1986. Thereafter, on January 9, 1986, Mr. Acena wrote RTC President Profeta that he prefers to remain as Administrative Officer because this Commission might approve his appointment as temporary because he does not possess a masteral degree. He asked that his appointment as Associate Professor be withdrawn and that he will refund whatever he received as salary of Associate Professor in excess of his salary as Administrative Officer. In a letter dated January 13, 1986, RTC President Profeta wrote Mr. Acena that his appointment as Associate Professor was withdrawn. The letter of Mr. Acena and the letter of President Profeta were received on April 8, 1986 by the National Capital Region. On April 10, 1986 by way of a 1st indorsement, the said appointment of Mr. Acena as Associate Professor, together with other appointments, were returned without action by the National Capital Region to the RTC.

GR No. 149280

2002-05-09

MOF COMPANY v. EDWIN ENRIQUEZ

MENDOZA, J.

On the other hand, the award of moral and exemplary damages should be deleted. In view of Art. 2220 of the Civil Code, it has been held that "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."[27] Since the law presumes good faith, the person claiming moral damages must prove bad faith or ill motive by clear and convincing evidence.[28] The evidence presented by respondent in this case is insufficient to overcome the presumption of good faith in favor of petitioner.

	GR No. 193914 2014-11-26	SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. DMC-CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES SERENO, C.J.
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.'[33]
	GR No. 204369 2014-09-17	ENRIQUETA M. LOCSIN v. BERNARDO HIZON VELASCO JR., J.
Nevertheless, we find an award for nominal damages to be in order. Under prevailing jurisprudence, 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."[31] As expounded in Almeda v. Cariño,[32] a violation of the plaintiff's right, even if only technical, is sufficient to support an award of nominal damages. So long as there is a showing of a violation of the right of the plaintiff, as herein petitioner, an award of nominal damages is proper.[33]
	GR No. 206806 2014-06-25	ARCO PULP v. DAN T. LIM LEONEN, J.
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 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 of the Civil Code.[43]
	GR No. 206806 2014-06-25	ARCO PULP v. DAN T. LIM LEONEN, J.
(1) they may be imposed by way of example in addition to compensatory damages, and only after the claimant's right to them has been established; (2) that they cannot be recovered as a matter of right, their determination depending upon the amount of compensatory damages that may be awarded to the claimant; and (3) the act must be accompanied by bad faith or done in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner.[51]
	GR No. 185891 2013-06-26	CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v. JUANITA REYES PEREZ, J.
We however sustain the award of nominal damages in the amount of P25,000.00 to only three of the four respondents who were aggrieved by the last-minute cancellation of their flights. 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.[21] Under Article 2221 of the Civil Code, 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.
	GR No. 180257 2011-02-23	EUSEBIO GONZALES v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL VELASCO JR., J.
Accordingly, this Court finds that such acts warrant the payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages. 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 x x x."[49] We further explained the nature of nominal damages in Almeda v. Cariño: x x x Its award is thus not for the purpose of indemnification for a loss but for the recognition and vindication of a right. Indeed, nominal damages are damages in name only and not in fact. When granted by the courts, they are not treated as an equivalent of a wrong inflicted but simply a recognition of the existence of a technical injury. A violation of the plaintiff's right, even if only technical, is sufficient to support an award of nominal damages. Conversely, so long as there is a showing of a violation of the right of the plaintiff, an award of nominal damages is proper.[50] (Emphasis Ours.)
	GR No. 182555 2010-09-07	LENIDO LUMANOG v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
[199] Francisco v. Ferrer, Jr., G.R. No. 142029, February 28, 2001, 353 SCRA 261, 266-267, citing American Home Assurance Company v. Chua, G.R. No. 130421, June 28, 1999, 309 SCRA 250, 263, Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127326, December 23, 1999, 321 SCRA 524, 537, Singson v. Court of Appeals, 346 Phil. 831, 845 and De la Serna v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109161, June 21, 1994, 233 SCRA 325, 329-330.
	GR No. 172611 2010-07-09	SPS. FEDERICO VALENZUELA AND LUZ BUENA-VALENZUELA DEL CASTILLO, J.
Article 2217[26] of the Civil Code defines what are included in moral damages while Article 2219 enumerates the cases where they may be recovered. Moral damages 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.[27] "The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good faith. It is not enough that one merely suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish, serious anxiety as the result of the actuations of the other party. Invariably such action must be shown to have been willfully done in bad faith or with ill motive."[28] In the same fashion, to warrant the award of exemplary damages, the wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith, and an award of damages would be allowed only if the guilty party acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless or malevolent manner.[29] As regards attorney's fees, the law is clear that in the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees may be recovered as actual or compensatory damages under any of the circumstances provided for in Article 2208[30] of the Civil Code.
	GR No. 164549 2009-09-18	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SPS. AGUSTIN AND PILAR ROCAMORA BRION, J.
We are not sufficiently convinced that PNB acted fraudulently, in bad faith, or in wanton disregard of its contractual obligations, simply because it increased the interest rates and delayed the foreclosure of the mortgages. Bad faith cannot be imputed simply because the defendant acted with bad judgment or with attendant negligence. Bad faith is more than these; it pertains to a dishonest purpose, to some moral obliquity, or to the conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of a known duty attributable to a motive, interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud.[33] Proof of actions of this character is undisputably lacking in this case. Consequently, we do not find the spouses Rocamora entitled to an award of moral and exemplary damages. Under these circumstances, neither should they recover attorney's fees and litigation expense.[34] These awards are accordingly deleted.
	GR No. 171401 2007-12-13	ADELAIDA AMADO v. RENATO SALVADOR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The award of exemplary damages is also improper. Exemplary damages are awarded only when a wrongful act is accompanied by bad faith or when the guilty party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless or malevolent manner.[53] Moreover, where a party is not entitled to actual or moral damages, an award of exemplary damages is likewise baseless.[54] As this Court has found, petitioners' refusal to turn over the subject property to Salvador is justified and cannot be the basis for the award of exemplary damages.
	GR No. 170633 2007-10-17	MCC INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION v. SSANGYONG CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
Nonetheless, the Court finds that petitioner knowingly breached its contractual obligation and obstinately refused to pay despite repeated demands from respondent. Petitioner even asked for several extensions of time for it to make good its obligation. But in spite of respondent's continuous accommodation, petitioner completely reneged on its contractual duty. For such inattention and insensitivity, MCC must be held liable for nominal damages. "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.'"[117] Accordingly, the Court awards nominal damages of P200,000.00 to respondent Ssangyong.
	GR NO. 147477 2006-06-27	HERMENEGILDO M. TRINIDAD v. ESTRELLA ACAPULCO 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]
	GR NO. 149226 2006-06-26	RUDIGARIO C. GATMAITAN v. DR. RICARDO B. GONZALES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the claim for exemplary damages, Article 2229 of the Civil Code provides that exemplary or corrective damages are imposed in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. Exemplary damages are not recoverable as a matter of right.[25] The requirements of an award of exemplary damages are: (1) they may be imposed by way of example in addition to compensatory damages, and only after the claimant's right to them has been established; (2) that they can not be recovered as a matter of right, their determination depending upon the amount of compensatory damages that may be awarded to the claimant; (3) the act must be accompanied by bad faith or done in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner.[26] In this case, there is no award of moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. Hence, no grant of exemplary damages may be ordered.
	GR NO. 165842 2005-11-29	EDUARDO P. MANUEL v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
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 or omission.[65] An award for moral damages requires the confluence of the following conditions: first, there must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant; second, there must be culpable act or omission factually established; third, the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and fourth, the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 or Article 2220 of the Civil Code.[66]
	GR NO. 157070 2005-01-14	JOSEFINA ESTOLAS v. RAYMUNDO ACENA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The law on damages prescribes that in order that one can have redress for an act which caused him damage, the act must not only be hurtful, it must also be wrongful.[10] There must be damnum et enjuria.[11] All in all, in order to recover moral damages, the claimant must prove the following: (1) there must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) there must be a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.[12] In herein case, the factual issue of whether or not the issuance by petitioner Estolas of Memorandum Order No. 30 was wrongful has been passed upon with finality by the MSPB way back in 1988 following our ruling in Acena v. Civil Service Commission.[13] It should be recalled that the MSPB Order set aside its earlier order dismissing respondent Acena's complaint for illegal dismissal because the CSC "through the Chairman has already rendered its final determination on the matter."[13] The relevant portions of the CSC resolution[14] being adverted to by the MSPB are quoted hereunder:Records show that then RTC President Lydia N. Profeta issued on December 9, 1985 an appointment to Mr. Acena as Associate Professor and the same was received in the Commission National Capital Region Office on January 6, 1986. Thereafter, on January 9, 1986, Mr. Acena wrote RTC President Profeta that he prefers to remain as Administrative Officer because this Commission might approve his appointment as temporary because he does not possess a masteral degree. He asked that his appointment as Associate Professor be withdrawn and that he will refund whatever he received as salary of Associate Professor in excess of his salary as Administrative Officer. In a letter dated January 13, 1986, RTC President Profeta wrote Mr. Acena that his appointment as Associate Professor was withdrawn. The letter of Mr. Acena and the letter of President Profeta were received on April 8, 1986 by the National Capital Region. On April 10, 1986 by way of a 1st indorsement, the said appointment of Mr. Acena as Associate Professor, together with other appointments, were returned without action by the National Capital Region to the RTC.
	GR No. 149280 2002-05-09	MOF COMPANY v. EDWIN ENRIQUEZ MENDOZA, J.
On the other hand, the award of moral and exemplary damages should be deleted. In view of Art. 2220 of the Civil Code, it has been held that "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."[27] Since the law presumes good faith, the person claiming moral damages must prove bad faith or ill motive by clear and convincing evidence.[28] The evidence presented by respondent in this case is insufficient to overcome the presumption of good faith in favor of petitioner.

ERLINDA FRANCISCO v. RICARDO FERRER