Page 1 of 13

Legal Writing
INSTRUCTIONS

This Exam is divided into two sets comprising the Legal Memorandum
and the Legal Opinion. From the past exercises, you shall have learned how to
independently identify and frame a simple legal issue, conduct research about
it, and prepare a well-organized, grammatically correct legal memorandum
using correct legal citation. This memorandum should apply the relevant rules
of law to the facts of the case, present the significant legal cases dealing with
that issue, frame legitimate legal arguments that may be articulated by both
sides, and offer your conclusions as to the court's possible resolution of the
case.

You are presented with a hypothetical case plus research materials
(provisions of law and jurisprudence) that you may want to use in your work.

The laws and jurisprudence accompanying the problems are designed to
provide sufficient basis for preparing an excellent trial memorandum or legal
opinion. But you are free to include such laws, rules and principles not
provided that you feel will enhance your work.

For Part 1 of the Exams, choose the side of the dispute that you want to
uphold and defend and prepare a trial memorandum in support of your side.
Include the case caption. For Part 2 of the Exams, use your best judgment to
advise your client.

Do not write more than four arguments.

You will not be graded for a technically right or wrong answer but for the
quality of your legal advocacy. Your essays shall be assessed and graded as
follows:

English communication - 20%

Sorting out conflicting claims
Extracting relevant facts - 15%

Identification of issues - 15%

Preparation of legal arguments - 50%

Good luck!


Page 2 of 13

PART 1 - TRIAL MEMORANDUM:

Consider the following direct testimonies given in a hypothetical case for
annulment of contract. Assume that you are the lawyer for either one of the
parties. Using the information given, choose one side and write a memorandum
of arguments that the court may consider before deciding the case.

1. Testimony of Complainant

COURT STAFF: (After swearing in the witness) State your name and
personal circumstances
WITNESS: I am Luz Diaz, 65 years old, a widow and resident and
Mountain View Subdivision, Antipolo, Rizal.

ATTY. RICO SANTOS: With the Court's permission. Ms. Diaz, how long you
have been a resident of Mountain View?

A: Thirty (30) years, sir.
Q: Do you know Ms. Emma Crisostomo?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: How do you know her?
A: She is my neighbor in Mountain View for the last three (3) years.
Q: Where are you now suing Ms. Crisostomo?
A: Because her carpenter killed my dog.
Q: How did her carpenter do this?
A: His truck was parked in front of Emma's house and rolled backwards
crushing my dog.
Q: When did this happen?
A: In the afternoon of October 25, 2010.
Q: What is your dog's name?
A: Trix.
Q: What kind of dog was he?
A: He was a poodle.
Q: How old was Trix?
A: He would have turned eight years old last month if he hadn't died. He's
been with me since my husband passed away eight years ago.
Q: How did you find out about Trix's death?
A: I was taking my siesta by the day bed in my living room and noticed that
Trix was no longer by my feet. He always sleeps by my feet.
Q: What did you do when you noticed he wasn't there anymore?
A: I got up to look for him. I thought he was in the kitchen because he liked
to go there to rub his belly on the tile floor, but he was not there.
Q: Where did you look for him next?
A: I decided to go to the garden because he also liked playing with the
plants there.
Q: Did you find him there?
A: Before I even reached the garden, I heard a loud crashing bang. Then I
heard his cries.
Q: What did you do next?
A: I ran towards the gate because the sound came from outside. When I
opened the gate, I saw Trix under the wheel of a truck.
Q: What else did you see?
A: The truck was backed up against a tree by the sidewalk and Trix was
thrashing and squealing underneath the truck. Blood was coming out of his
mouth.
Q: What did you do then?
Page 3 of 13

A: I cried and screamed for Nilda, my helper, and shouted for the guards
who roamed the subdivision, but no one came.
Q: Did you try to save Trix?
A: I could not save him even If I wanted to, because there was no one in the
truck's driver seat. I do not know how to drive, so I just kept crying and
screaming.
Q: What happened to Trix then?
A: He kept on howling until he stopped moving and making any sound. He
died soon after.
Q: Did you know who owned the truck?
A: Yes, it has always been parked in front of Emma's house ever since she
began renovating it. I knew it belonged to one of her carpenters.
Q: Did you complain to Emma?
A: Yes, I banged on her gate as soon as Trix died.
Q: What did Emma do?
A: She called the owner of the truck. I kept on crying and crying because I
loved Trix very much but she did not do anything.
Q: What did Emma say to you, if any?
A: She said that it was not her carpenter's fault that Trix was run over by
the truck because it was properly parked. She said that it was only an
accident.
Q: What did you say to her?
A: I told her that the truck could not have been properly parked because it
moved by itself. She got mad afterwards.
Q: Why did she get mad?
A: She said that I should not blame the carpenter because Trix was not
supposed to be out on the streets in the first place. She even said it was
good riddance because Trix was a pest.
Q: How did you react to what she said?
A: I got very mad too. I told her that she should get me another dog because
Trix was my only companion. I took care of him like a baby.
Q: What did Ms. Crisostomo say?
A: She refused all my demands and insisted that it was my fault.

ATTY.SANTOS: That is all, your honor.

2. Statement of Defendant

COURT STAFF: State your name and personal circumstances.

WITNESS: I am Emma Crisostomo, 42 years old, married and a housewife.

ATTY.REY REYES: Do you know the complainant in this case, Ms. Luz Diaz?
A. Yes, sir.
Q: How do you know her?
A: She is our neighbor in the subdivision.
Q: When did you first meet Ms. Diaz?
A: I met her for the first time three (3) years ago when we moved into the
subdivision. Her dog pulled out the plants in my yard and I knocked on her
door to complain.
Q: Is this the same dog that is the subject of this case?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Ms. Diaz testified that it was your carpenter's fault that the truck ran
over her dog. What can you say about that?
Page 4 of 13

A: It is not anyone's fault but hers because the dog should not be out
roaming the streets. It was a pesky dog and I have complained about it many
times.
Q: What were your other complaints about the dog?
A: Well, the dog dug holes in my lawn. It would frequently deposit its wastes
on our driveway and also pee in front of our house, leaving a foul smell.
One time, it even chased my little girl down the road.
Q: How many times have you complained about the dog to Ms. Diaz?
A: About eight (8) to ten (10) times in the last three (3) years. I even
complained to the homeowners' association after it chased my little girl.
Q: Is Ms. Diaz a member of the homeowners' association?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What did the homeowners' association do?
A: The homeowners association passed a board resolution banning
wandering dogs in the subdivision. It warned Ms. Diaz about her dog.
Q: I have here a document entitled Board Resolution No. 3, series of 2009
issued by the Mountain View Subdivision Homeowners' Association. Does this
document have any relation to the board resolution you mentioned?
A: Yes, it is the same document.

ATTY. REYES: Your honor, we would like to have this document marked as
Exhibit 1.

COURT: Mark it

ATTY. REYES: Ms. Crisostomo, did the board resolution mention any penalties
for wandering dogs?
A: Yes, sir. The board resolution says that wandering dogs will be caught
and thrown into the municipal dog pound.
Q: Ms. Diaz says that you should be held liable for the careless way that
your carpenter parked his truck along the street. What can you say about that?
A: My construction foreman assured me that the truck was properly parked
in front of our house. He followed subdivision rules when he parked the
truck. besides, if the dog was not out on its own, it would not have been
killed. Luz has only itself to blame for letting her dog roam the streets freely.
ATTY. REYES: That is all, your honor.

3. Statement of witness for defendant.

COURT STAFF: State your name and personal circumstances.

WITNESS: I am Gregorio Timbol, 53 years old, married and a carpenter.

ATTY. REY REYES: Mr. Timbol, how long have you been working as a
carpenter?
A: Thirty-five (35) years, sir, for as long as I can remember.
Q: On October 25, 2010, were you working on a project?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What project were you working on then?
A: I was working on the renovation of Mrs. Emma Crisostomo's house.
Q: Was there anything unusual that happened on that day?
A: Yes, sir. Mrs. Diaz's dog pot killed in an accident.
Q: How did this accident happen?
A: It got run over by my truck which was parked in a sloping part of the
street in front of Mrs. Crisostomo's house.
Q: Was the truck old?
Page 5 of 13

A: It was an old model, sir. I bought it second hand and had it overhauled
and repainted.
Q: How did you park the truck?
A: I followed the subdivision rules, sir. I parked it in front of Mrs.
Crisostomo's house and put two large rocks against the back wheels to make
sure that it doesn't roll back down the street.
Q: Mrs. Diaz says that you carelessly parked the truck. What can you say
about this?
A: That is not true, sir. I followed all subdivision guidelines.
Q: Then why did the truck roll backwards?
A: The rocks were no longer there when I took a look at the scene after the
accident happened. Someone must have removed them.

ATTY. REYES: That is all, your honor.

Laws and jurisprudence that may apply

1. Article 694 of the Civil Code
A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of
property, or anything else which:
(1) Injuries or endangers the health or safety of others; or
(2) Annoys or offends the senses; or
(3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or
(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or
street, or any body of water; or
(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property.

2. Article 695 of the Civil Code
Nuisance is either public or private. A public nuisance affects a
community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons, although
the extent of the annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals may be
unequal. A private nuisance is one that is not included in the foregoing
definition.

3. Article 699 of the Civil Code
The remedies against a public nuisance are:
(1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance: or
(2) A civil action; or
(3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.

4. Article 704 of the Civil Code
Any private person may abate a public nuisance which is specially
injurious to him by removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which
constitutes the same, without committing a breach of the peace, or doing
unnecessary injury. But it isnecessary:
(1) That demand be first made upon the owner or possessor of the
property to abate the nuisance;
(2) That such demand has been rejected;
(3) That the abatement be approved by the district health officer and
executed with the assistance of the local police; and
(4)That the value of the destruction does not exceed three thousand
pesos.

5. Article 705 of the Civil Code
The remedies against a private nuisance are:
(1) A civil action; or
Page 6 of 13

(2) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.

6. Article 1159 of the Civil Code
Obligations arising from contracts having the force of law between the
contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.

7. Article 2176 of the Civil Code
Whenever by act or omission causes damages to another, there being
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties,
is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

8. Article 2179 of the Civil Code
When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and proximate
cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the
defendants lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts
shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

9. Article 2180 of the Civil Code
The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for ones
own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are
responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their
company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated
persons who are under their authority and live in their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise
responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the
branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even
though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special
agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the
task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in Article 2176
shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be
liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long
as they remain in their custody.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons
herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent damage.

10. Secosa vs. Francisco, G.R. No. 160039, June 29, 2004, 433 SCRA 273,
277
When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, there
instantly arises a presumption that there has been negligence on the part of
the employer, either in the selection of his employee or in the supervision
over him after his selection. The presumption may be rebutted by a clear
showing that the employer exercised the care and diligence of a good father of
the family in the selection and supervision of his employee.

11. Philippine National Railways vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157658,
October 15, 2007, 536 SCRA 147, 154
Page 7 of 13

Negligence is the failure to observe, for the protection of the interests of
another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the
circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury - all
that the law requires is for a person to use that care and diligence expected of
sensible men under comparable circumstances.

12. Ramos vs. C.O.L. Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 184905, August 28, 2009,
597 SCRA 526, 535-536
Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces
the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. And more
comprehensively, the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing
the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all
constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close
causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain
immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause
which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for
the first event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have
reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury
to some person might probably result therefrom.

PART 2 - LEGAL OPINION:

Below is an exchange between you and a hypothetical client. Based on
the information given, write (1) a brief legal opinion/advice specifying the
relevant facts of the case, the legal problems raised by your hypothetical client,
your assessment of the issues involved, and the possible courses of action that
may be taken under the law; and (2) one legal document that may be used in
connection with your recommended course of action.

Judy Ann Sanchez has come to consult you about the possibility of her
bringing a lawsuit against McBee as a result of the injuries she sustained after
she fell from the food chains staircase. Judy Ann brought along her daughter,
Mara Clarita, to the interview. Mara Clarita witnessed what happened. The
following is your interview with her.

Interview with Mara Clarita Sanchez, accompanied by client, Judy Ann
Sanchez
January 10, 2011

Q: Mara, where were you on October 18, 2010?
A: I was at McBee-Metropark Branch with my mother, Judy Ann.
Q: Did you see your mother fall from the staircase?
A: Yes.
Q: What exactly happened?
A: We have just ordered some spaghetti and sundaes. Since the
ground floor was already filled with people, we decided to eat at the second
floor. But when we reached the staircase, we found out that there was a
birthday party upstairs and it was closed to the public.
Q: So where did you eat?
A: I approached a crew and asked if he could find a table for us.
Q: What did he do?
A: He said that the birthday party was about to end so we can go up
and eat there.
Q: Did you go upstairs?
A: Yes. My mother went up first.
Page 8 of 13

Q: What happened next?
A: On her way up, she met the McBee mascot (which was a pink bee)
who was hurrying down with another crew member. Since the mascot was so
big, he hit my mother by the shoulder.
Q: What happened then?
A: My mother lost her balance. She missed four steps and hit her
head, shoulders, back and buttocks on each step.
Q: What did you when you saw your mother?
A: I was shocked and temporarily rendered motionless. When I
realized what happened, I immediately rushed to my mothers side. I told the
crew to call an ambulance.
Q: What did you mother do?
A: She was crying. She complained of extreme back pain and could
not stand up.
Q: What happened next?
A: The store manager approached us. She said that it would be faster
if we use her car on the way to the hospital. Two crew members carried my
mother and we brought her to the nearest hospital for treatment.

When you asked Judy Ann what she has done so far with the case, she
told you that she asked the management of McBee-Metropark Branch to pay
her P100,000 in damages for what she suffered. Although the management
paid for the hospital bills, she suffered pain and was greatly inconvenienced by
the weekly physical therapy she was undergoing since the accident. When you
asked about the managements response to her demand for damages, she gave
you the following letter:

December 15, 2010

Judy Ann Sanchez
911 Bluewhale Street
Palanan, Makati City

Dear Ms. Sanchez:

I am writing in reference to your letter dated November 18, 2010 address
to ms. Anna Batungbacal, Manager of the McBee-Metropark Branch. She
endorsed your letter to me as Operations Manager in charge of the McBee-
Metropark Branch.

We, at McBee-Metropark Branch are very sorry for any inconvenience
your family may have experienced in connection with your unfortunate
accident last October 18, 2010. As Ms. Batungbacal and I told you during our
hospital visit on October 19, 2010, we truly understand how you and your
family feel about the incident. We assure you that we will continue to shoulder
all expenses related to your weekly physical therapy until such time that
you are fully restored to your previous health.

Our conversation helped us understand each others situation. I hope
that with thus, any past misunderstanding has been cleared up, and we can
now put this unfortunate incident behind us.

Please accept my sincerest apologies in behalf of the McBee-Metropark
Branch team. We truly hope to see you and your family in our store again.

Thank you.
Page 9 of 13


Very truly yours,

McBee Foods Corporation

By:

Ted Pallone
Operations Manager - Metro Manila (South) Area

Laws and jurisprudence that may apply

1. Article 2176 of the civil Code
Whoever by act or omission causes damages to another, there being
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this
Chapter.

2. Article 2179 of the Civil Code
When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and proximate
cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was
only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the
defendants lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts
shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

3. Article 2180 of the Civil Code
The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for ones
own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible.
xxx xxx xxx
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise
responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the
branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even
though the former are not engaged in any business or industry:
xxx xxx xxx
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons
herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage.

4. Article 1170 of the Civil Code
Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud,
negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor
thereof, are liable for damages.

5. Article 2202 of the Civil Code
In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages
which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission
complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or
could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.

6. Article 2203 of the Civil Code
Page 10 of 13

The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good
father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission
in question.

7. Article 2214 of the Civil Code
In quasi-delicts the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce
the damages that he may recover.

8. Article 2215 of the Civil Code
In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts, the court may equitably
mitigate the damages under circumstances other than the case referred to in
the preceding article, as in the following instances:
(1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract;
(2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract;
(3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded, that the
defendant acted upon the advice of counsel;
(4) That the loss would have resulted in any event;
(5) That since the filing of the action, the defendant has done his best to
lessen the plaintiffs loss or injury.

9. Article 2216 of the Civil Code
No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal,
temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages, may be adjudicated. The
assessment of such damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of
the court, according to the circumstances of each case.

10. Article 2217 of the Civil Code
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
defendants wrongful act for omission.

11. Article 2219 of the Civil Code
Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
xxx xxx xxx

12. Article 2221 of the Civil Code
Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff,
which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or
recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss
suffered by him.

13. Article 2229 of the Civil Code
Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or
correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated
or compensatory damages.

14. Article 2231 of the Civil Code
In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant
acted with gross negligence.

15. Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129792,
December 21, 1999, 321 SCRA 375
Page 11 of 13

An accident pertains to an unforeseen event in which no fault or
negligence attaches to the defendant. It is a fortuitous circumstance, event or
happening; an event happening without any human agency, or if happening
wholly or partly through human agency, an event which under the
circumstances is unusual or unexpected by the person to whom it
happens.
On the other hand, negligence is the omission to do something which a
reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent
and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is the failure to observe, for the
protection of the interest of another person, that degree of care, precaution and
vigilance which the circumstance justly demands, whereby such other person
suffers injury.
Accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory; one cannot exist
with the other. Accident occurs when the person concerned is exercising
ordinary care, which is not caused by fault of any person and which could not
have been prevented by any means suggested by common prudence.

16. Child Learning Center, Inc. v. Tagorio, G.R. No. 150920, November 25,
2005, 476 SCRA 236
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies (1) the accident was of such
character as to warrant an inference that it would not have happened except
for the defendants negligence; (2) the accident must have been caused by an
agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management or control of the
person charged with the negligence complained of; and (3) the accident must
not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the
person injured.

17. Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
159270, August 22, 2005, 467 SCRA 569
The test for determining whether a person is negligent in doing an act
whereby injury or damage results to the person or property of another is this:
could a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom negligence is
attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence
of the course actually pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to
refrain from that course or to take precautions to guard against its
mischievous results, and the failure to do so constitutes negligence.
Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the admonition born
of this provision, is always necessary before negligence can be held to exist.

18. Saludaga v. Far Eastern University, G.R. No. 179337, April 30, 2008, 553
SCRA 741
In order for force majeure to be considered, respondents must show that
no negligence or misconduct was committed that may have occasioned the
loss. An act of God cannot be invoked to protect a person who has failed to
take steps to forestall the possible adverse consequences of such a loss. Ones
negligence may have concurred with an act of God in producing damage and
injury to another; nonetheless, showing that the immediate or proximate cause
of the damage or injury was a fortuitous event would not exempt one from
liability. When the effect is found to be partly the result of a persons
participation - whether by active intervention, neglect or failure to act - the
whole occurrence is humanized and removed from the rules applicable to acts
of God.

19. Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
159270, August 22, 2005, 467 SCRA 569
Page 12 of 13

Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party,
contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the
standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection.

20. Mangaliag v. Catubig-Pastoral, G.R. No. 143951, October 25, 2005, 474
SCRA 153
It must be remembered that moral damages, though incapable of
pecuniary estimation, are designed to compensate and alleviate in some way
the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar
injury unjustly caused a person. Moral damages are awarded to enable the
injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to
alleviate the moral suffering he/she has undergone, by reason of the
defendants culpable action. It award is aimed at restoration, as much as
possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; thus, it must be proportionate to the
suffering inflicted. Since each case must be governed by its own peculiar
circumstances, there is no hard and fast rule in determining the proper
amount.

21. B.F. Metal (Corporation) v. Lomotan, G.R. No. 170813, April 16, 2008, 551
SCRA 618
In the case of moral damages, recovery is more an exception rather than
the rule. Moral damages are not punitive in nature but are designed to
compensate and alleviate the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious
anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation, and similar harm unjustly caused to a person. In order to an
award of moral damages can be aptly justified, the claimant must be able to
satisfactorily prove that he has suffered such damages and that the injury
causing it has sprung from any of the cases listed in Articles 2219 and 2220 of
the Civil code. Then, too, the damages must be shown to be the proximate
result of a wrongful act or omission. The claimant must establish the factual
basis of the damages and its causal tie with the acts of the defendant. In fine,
an award of moral damages would require, firstly, evidence of besmirched
reputation or physical, mental or psychological suffering sustained by the
claimant; secondly, a culpable act or omission factually established; thirdly,
proof that the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause
of the damages sustained by the claimant; and fourthly, that the case is
predicated on any of the instances expressed or envisioned by Article 2219 and
Article 2220 of the Civil Code.

22. Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Alejandro, G.R. No. 175587,
September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 738
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, and not for indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss
suffered by him. 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. They are recoverable where
some injury has been done but the pecuniary value of the damage is not
shown by evidence and is thus subject to the discretion of the court according
to the circumstances of the case.

23. B.F. Metal (Corporation) v. Lomotan, G.R. No. 170813, April 16, 2008, 551
SCRA 618
Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or
correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or
Page 13 of 13

compensatory damages. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter
of right; the court will decide whether or not they should be adjudicated. In
quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with
gross negligence. 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.




~ END EXAM ~