Motion for Reconsideration 1

Civil Case No. BCV-2002-852

Republic of The Philippines

Fourth Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 19
Calamba, Laguna

WILFREDO MONSANTO
Plaintiff
Civil Case No. BCV 2002-852
-versus- For Damages

BENJO SAMOSA
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER

DATED 18 DECEMBER 2019

COMES NOW, the defendant, by and through the undersigned counsel

and within the reglementary period prescribed by the Rules of Court hereby
respectfully moves for the Reconsideration of the Order of the Honorable Court
dated 18 December 2019, copy of which was received via registered mail on 16
January 2020. The Order is rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the
defendant. Ordering defendant to pay plaintiffs the amount of Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) each as moral damages, and the amount of
P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees plus cost of suit. The present Motion for
Reconsideration is mounted on the following grounds:

I. THAT THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN FINDING

DEFENDANT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES IN FAVOR OF THE
PLAINTIFFS

The Honorable Court failed to address the issue on whether or not

defendant had the intention to prejudice or injure the plaintiff when the
defendant made a request to arrange for an objective apprehension /
investigation on the plaintiffs based on the confirmation of the fellow crew
members in M/V Lynx that plaintiff MONSANTO is a user carrier of
Motion for Reconsideration 2
Civil Case No. BCV-2002-852

prohibited drugs acquired in BALI, Indonesia. Defendant as master of the

ship had the duty as well as the right to act upon any mishap, unfortunate
events, or any unusual incidents happening under his control and
command. The law dictates upon the defendant to make such request,
otherwise, he will be remised of his duty as master of the ship. It would be
detrimental to the interests and security of the ship navigating
international waters, if the defendant fails to make a report of an incident
and request that an action be immediately taken based on the said report.
It is worth stating that defendant was merely exercising his duty as master
of the ship pursuant to Chapter IX-Management for the Safe Operation of
Ships of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Seas
(SOLAS’74).1 During the trial, the honorable court was able to correctly
observe that the telex message that the defendant sent was well within his
authority as ship captain. The conclusion drawn by the court is stated
below:
Page 6516
COURT:
The telex merely suggested for an investigation.
ATTY. FULGENCIA:
Yes, your Honor, but affected the Plaintiff.
They could no longer apply.
COURT:
Yes, there might have been some prejudice there or any charge
there but actually there was no charge that was filed. The
telex within the authority of their office or the employer.

The Honorable Court recognized that fact that the telex message that
defendant set was done in defendant’s duty as ship captain. Furthermore,
the telefax message was obviously part and parcel of the duty of the
defendant to make. The telefax message is for the attention of Mr. Antonio
M. Espinosa and Mr. Roar Valgermo only. This implies the confidential
nature of the message. It is considered as an official privilege
communication between the defendant, as a master of a ship and his

1 The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) is an international maritime
safety treaty. It ensures that ships flagged by signatory States comply with the minimum safety
standards in construction, equipment and operation. The SOLAS Convention in its successive
forms is generally regarded as the most important of all international treaties concerning the
safety of merchant ships.
Motion for Reconsideration 3
Civil Case No. BCV-2002-852

principal company in Manila. The said telefax message was not circulated
or publicized, much less read by other person not privy to an investigation
of the incident or those directly supervising the defendant’s work. The
request for investigation merely stated relevant facts and pertinent matters
to the investigation of the discovery of the white powdery substance. The
information regarding the probable involvement of the plaintiffs in the
discovery of the white powdery substance suspected to be prohibited or
illegal drugs was merely conveyed to the defendant by the plaintiff’s fellow
crew. It is but natural that as master of the ship, defendant had to further
investigate on the matter thus requesting for objective investigation as he
is duty bound to do so. There is no conclusive showing that the telefax
message containing the request for investigation were written with
knowledge that these were false or in reckless disregard of what was false
or not.

The court failed to look into the presence of bad faith and malice on
the part of the defendant. To reiterate our stand, the defendant would have
been remised of his duty and obligations if he would just sit idly and do
no action with regard to the unusual incident that happened under his
command and control. Defendant was merely acting on his duties and
should not be mistaken to be moved by malice or any bad faith. In the case
of Ilocos Norte Electric Company v Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 5 (1989), the
court ruled that the result of the investigation whereby the crewing
manager cleared the plaintiffs of any wrong doing does not per se make
the act of the defendant in requesting for an investigation wrongful and
subject the defendant to the payment of moral damages. If damage results
from a person exercising his legal rights, it is damnum absque injuria.

In that there is material distinction between damages and injury.

Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt, or
harm which results from the injury; and damages are the recompense or
compensation awarded for the damage suffered. Thus, there can be
damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was
not the result of a violation of a legal duty. These situations are often called
Motion for Reconsideration 4
Civil Case No. BCV-2002-852

damnum absque injuria.2 In the case of The Board of Liquidators v Kalaw

et al., L-18805, August 14, 1967, 20 SCRA 987 the Supreme Court stated,
in order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for injuries of which he
complains, he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of
duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff a concurrence of injury to
the plaintiff and legal responsibility by the person causing it.

The underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the premise
that an individual was injured in contemplation of law. Thus, there must
first be the breach of some duty and the imposition of liability merely
because the plaintiff suffered some pain and suffering. 3 In order that the
law will give redress for an act causing damage, that act must be not only
hurtful, but wrongful. There must be damnum absque injuria.4 If, as may
happen in many cases, a person sustains actual damage, that is, harm or
loss to his person or property, without sustaining any legal injury, that is,
an act or omission which the law does not deem an injury, the damage is
regarded as damnum absque injuria.5

The award of moral damages is proper when the following

circumstances concur: (1) there is an injury, whether physical, mental or
psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) there is 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
Art. 2219.6 In order that moral damages may be awarded, there must be
pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the like.
7

In Spouses Cristino v Court of Appeals G.R. No. 116100, February 9,

1996 the Court pronounced that the proper exercise of a lawful right
cannot constitute a legal wrong for which an action will lie, although the

2 22AM Jur 2d, Damages, ZSec. 4, 35-36, 13

3 Plummer v Abbott Laboratories (DC RI), 568, F Supp. 920, CCH Prod Liab Reo 9878.
4 Comstock v Wilson 257 NY 231. 177 NE 421, 76 ALR 676; Halderman v Bruckhart, 45, 45 Pa

514.
5 U.S.-Premier Malt Roducts Co. v Kasser, 23 F (2d) 98.
6 Expertravel & Tours, Inc, v Court of Appeal, G.R. No. 130030, June 25, 1999, 309 SCRA 141.
7 San Miguel Brewery, Inc. v Magno, 21 SCRA 292 (1967).
Motion for Reconsideration 5
Civil Case No. BCV-2002-852

act may result in damage to another, for no legal right has been invaded.
One may use any lawful means to accomplish a lawful purpose and though
the means adopted may cause damage to another, no cause of action
arises in the latter’s favour. An injury or damage occasioned thereby is
damnum absque injuria. The courts can give no redress for hardship to an
individual resulting from action reasonably calculated to achieve a lawful
means.

In order that the principle of abuse of right provided in Article 21 of

the Civil Code can be applied, it is essential that the following requisites
concur: (1) The defendant should have acted in a manner that is contrary
to morals, good customs or public policy; (2) the acts should be wilful; and
(3) There was damage or injury to the plaintiff.8 The act of defendant in
exercising his duty and responsibility as the ship captain is a valid exercise
thereof, hence not contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
Corollary, the Honorable Court failed to recognize that absence of bad faith
or malice on the part of defendant follows that such award of moral
damages cannot be proper.

Kierulf v CA, 336 Phil. 414, 432 (1997) the Supreme Court 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. 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. In
Cocoland Development Corporation v National Labor Relations Commission,
the Court held that “additional facts must be pleaded and proven to
warrant the grant of moral damages under the Civil Code, these being, x x
x social humiliation, wounded feelings, grave anxiety, etc. that resulted
therefrom.”

8 Jurado, D.P., Personal and Family Law, 1984 ed., 41.

Motion for Reconsideration 6
Civil Case No. BCV-2002-852

Certainly, an award of moral damages must be anchored on a clear

showing that the party claiming the same actually experienced mental
anguish, besmirched reputation, sleepless nights, wounded feelings, or
similar injury.9 Plaintiffs fell short in proving their claim that they have
suffered sleepless nights, emotional stress, and with an apprehension that
they could no longer go back to their jobs as seamen as a result of the
incident between the defendant. A portion of the 18 December 2019 Order
states that:

“However, the said claim is quite excessive, considering that

fact that their names were cleared as early as September 2000,
and eventually they were not ban from employment as seaman,
and as in fact as early as January 2001, they have already
boarded the same vessel.”

The award of moral damages in favor of the plaintiffs should be given

utmost reconsideration as there was no clear showing that plaintiffs
suffered injury as they were immediately employed back by the same
vessel. To punish defendant arbitrarily for merely exercising his duty and
responsibility to protect the integrity and safety of the ship goes against
the very principle of our laws, which seeks to protect and uphold those
in the right.

II. THAT THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN AWARDING

ATTORNEY’S FEES

An award of attorney’s fees has always been the exception rather than
the rule and there must be some compelling legal reason to bring the case
within the exception and justify the award. 10

The general rule is that attorney’s fees cannot be recovered as part of

damages because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right
to litigate. They are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. The

9 De Guzman v Tumolva, G.R. No. 188072, 19 October 2011, 659 SCRA 725, 734.
10 Espino v Spouses Bulut, G.R. No. 183811, 30 May 2011, 649 SCRA 453, 462 citing Hanin Heavy
Industries and Construction Co., Ltd. V Dynamic Planners and Construction Corp., G.R. nos
169408 and 170144, 30 April 2008, 553 SCRA 541.
Motion for Reconsideration 7
Civil Case No. BCV-2002-852

power of the court to award attorney’s fees under Article 2208 demands
factual, legal, and equitable justification. Even when a claimant is compelled
to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still
attorney’s fees may not be awarded where no sufficient showing of bad faith
could be reflected in a party’s persistence in a case other than an erroneous
conviction of the righteousness of his cause. 11

Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur

expenses to protect his rights, still, attorney’s fees may not be awarded where
no sufficient showing of bad faith could be reflected in a party’s persistence
in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his
cause. 12

The award of attorney’s fees of P100,000.00 should be under utmost

reconsideration as well. The Order may have been favourable to the plaintiffs
but it does not necessarily follow that there should be an award of attorney’s
fees. Moreover, there was no clear showing that the actions of the defendant
was predicated upon bad faith or abuse of right intending to injure the
plaintiffs paving way to filing a case against defendant. The glaring absence
of a compelling legal reason to justify the award of attorney’s fees only
solidifies defendant’s stand that he acted out of his duty and responsibility
as ship captain as he is expected by law and by his position.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, it is respectfully

prayed of the Honorable Court that the Order date 18 December 2019 be
RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered in favour of the
defendant.

FURTHER, the herein defendant prays for such and other reliefs as may
be deemed just and equitable in the premises.

11ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 528, 529 (1999).
12Development Bank of The Philippines c. Traverse Development Corporation, G.R. No. 169293,
5 October 2011, 658 SCRA 614, 624 citing ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v Court of
Appeals, 361 Phil. 499, 528 (1999).
Motion for Reconsideration 8
Civil Case No. BCV-2002-852

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Silang Cavite for CALAMBA . __ January 2020

ATTY. XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXX

NOTICE & COPY FURNISHED

zxxxxxxx
Counsel for the Plaintiffs

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please be informed that the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration will

be submitted for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court
immediately upon receipt thereof.
xxxxxx

EXPLANATION

Service of this pleading on the above-named parties is done through public

and/or private courier or registered mail due to the distance of the
undersigned office to the other party’s address, making personal service and
filing with the honorable court not practicable.

xxxxx

Copy furnish:

xxxxxxx
Dasmarinas St., Binondo Manila