1. DISTINGUISH BETWEEN INJURY, DAMAGE, AND DAMAGES.

(1) Injury is an illegal invasion of a legal right.

(2) Damage is the loss, hurt, or harm, resulting from the injury.
(3) Damages is the recompense or compensation awarded.

2. WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS TO RECOVER DAMAGES DUE TO AN ABUSE OF RIGHT?

1. There is a legal right or duty
2. Exercised in bad faith
3. The intent of prejudicing or injuring another. (ELEAZAR PADILLO v. RURAL BANK OF NABUNTURAN,
INC. and MARK OROPEZA GR. No. 199338 January 21, 2013)

3. IN WHAT CASES MAY MORAL DAMAGES BE AWARDED?

Under Art. 2219, moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
1. A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
2. Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
3. Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
4. Adultery or concubinage;
5. Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
6. Illegal search;
7. Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
8. Malicious prosecution;
9. Acts mentioned in article 309;
10. Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.

4. AFTER TEN YEARS AS A COUPLE, A PROPOSED TO B, WHO WAS ECSTATIC AND IMMEDIATELY
ACCEPTED THE PROPOSAL. AFTER TWO YEARS OF PLANNING DURING WHICH ALL THE NECESSARY
ARRANGEMENTS AND CORRESPONDING PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY B’S FAMILY, A DISAPPEARED AND
NEVER SHOWED HIMSELF TO B OR HER FAMILY AGAIN. B SUED A UNDER ARTICLE 21 FOR BREACH
OF PROMISE TO MARRY. IN HIS DEFENSE, A ALLEGED THAT BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY IS NOT
AN ACTIONABLE WRONG, AND HE CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR DAMAGES UNDER ARTICLE 21. MAY
A BE HELD LIABLE FOR DAMAGES?

Yes. Mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong, but when it is done contrary to
morals, good customs, and public policy and with intent to injure, such breach is actionable. The
case of Wassmer v. Velez [G.R. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964] is applicable. In that case, the bride
had already set a wedding and went through all necessary preparations and publicity, only to walk
out when the marriage was about to be solemnized. It was palpably contrary to morals, good
customs, and public policy. In this case, the same set of circumstances was present.

5. WHAT IS EXEMPLARY DAMAGES?

Exemplary damages are awarded to deter others from committing the same atrocious acts.

6. BEA SENT A SOCIAL CONDOLENCE TELEGRAM THROUGH FACILITIES OF GA COMPANY. HOWEVER,

THE TELEGRAM WAS WRITTEN ON A HAPPY BIRTHDAY CARD. MAY BEA RECOVER EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES?

Yes, in contracts and quasi contracts, exemplary damages may be awarded if the defendant acted
in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. There was a gross negligence
on the part of its personnel in transmitting the telegram, of which GA Company must be liable.
Gross carelessness or negligence constitute wanton misconduct ( RCPI vs CA GR No 79578, March
13, 1991)
7. DISTINGUISH ACTUAL FROM NOMINAL DAMAGES.
Actual damages Nominal damages
Damages in satisfaction of, or in Nominal damages are adjudicated in order
recompense for, loss or injury sustained 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.
Awarded when: Awarded when:
1. When there is a pecuniary loss 1. There is an invasion or violation of any
suffered by plaintiff; legal or property right.
2. When he has alleged and prayed for
such relief (Manchester Dev’t Corp vs.
CA, G.R. No. 75919 May 7, 1987);
3. When he has duly proved it; 4. When
provided by law or by stipulation.
Indemnification for damages is not The assessment of nominal damages is left
limited to damnum emergens (actual to the discretion of the trial court according
loss) but extends to lucrum cessans (a to the circumstances of the case. Generally,
cession of gain or amount of profit lost). nominal damages by their nature are small
sums fixed by the court without regard to
the extent of the harm done to the injured
party. However, it is generally held that a
nominal damage is a substantial claim, if
based upon the violation of a legal right; in
such a case, the law presumes damage
although actual or compensatory damages
are not proven [Gonzales v. People, G.R. No.
159950, February 12, 2007].
Must be pleaded and proven. There must Need not be pleaded and proven. One does
be pleading and proof of actual damages not ask for nominal damages, and it is in
suffered for the same to be recovered. In lieu of the actual, moral, temperate, or
addition to the fact that the amount of liquidated damages. A violation of the
loss must be capable of proof, it must plaintiff’s right, even if only technical, is
also be actually proven with a reasonable sufficient to support an award of nominal
degree of certainty, premised upon damages. Conversely, so long as there is a
competent proof or the best evidence showing of a violation of the right of the
obtainable. The burden of proof of the plaintiff, an award of nominal damages is
damage suffered is, consequently, proper [Gonzales v PCIB, G.R. No.180257
imposed on the party claiming the same, February 23, 2011].
who should adduce the best evidence
available in support thereof... In the
absence of corroborative evidence, it has
been held that selfserving statements of
account are not sufficient basis for an
award of actual damages [Oceaneering
Contractors v Baretto, G.R. No. 184215,
February 9, 2011].

8. CORPORATION (GROW) IS ENGAGED IN THE PLACEMENT OF WORKERS FOR OVERSEAS

EMPLOYMENT. THE ANDERSON’S WERE HIRED BY CO-PETITIONER MS RETAIL KSC THROUGH GROW
AS CIRCUS PERFORMERS IN KUWAIT. AUGUST 2008, RESPONDENTS WENT TO THAILAND FOR AN
 APPROVED VACATION LEAVE. THE ANDERSON’S THEN PROCEEDED TO THE PHILIPPINES AND NEVER
RETURNED TO WORK. THE HR SEND AN EMAIL TO THE ANDERSON’S SAYING THAT FAILURE TO
RETURN TO WORK WILL GIVE REASON FOR THEIR DISMISSAL FOR CAUSE. IGNORING THE EMAIL,
THEY WERE TERMINATED SEPTEMBER 2008. THE ANDERSON’S FILED A CASE FOR CONSTRUCTIVE
DISMISSAL. THE CA GRANTED THE ANDERSON’S NOMINAL PAY FOR THE DISMISSAL.

WHETHER THE ANDERSON’S ARE ENTITLED TO NOMINAL DAMAGES.?

Yes. Under the OIR of the Labor Code, to be totally free from liability, the employer must not only
show sufficient ground for termination but also that it complied with procedural due process by
giving the employees two notices: 1. Notice of intention to dismisses, indicating the acts or
omissions coupled with an opportunity for the employees to answer the charges against them; and
2. Notice of the decision to dismiss. The petitioner’s failure to furnish a written notice of the
charges against respondents, thus denying them a reasonable opportunity to explain their side
rendered them liable for nominal damages. Nominal damages is adjudicated in order than a right of
a plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded, may be vindicated or recognized. The amount is
addressed to the senses of the court.

9. W AND SPOUSES X CO-OWNS PROINDIVISO A RESIDENTIAL LAND ABUTTING A 10M WIDE

SUBDIVISION ROAD. OPPOSITE OF THE SAID ROAD ARE THE ADJACENT LOTS OF SPOUSES Y AND
SPOUSES Z. SPOUSES Z ELEVATED AND CEMENTED A PORTION OF THE SUBDIVISION ROAD. THEY
ALSO BACKFILLED A PORTION OF THE PERIMETER FENCE SEPARATING THE RANA AND Y PROPERTIES
WITHOUT ERECTING A RETAINING WALL. W, ET AL. FILED A COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT OF
NUISANCE AS THE PORTION AFFECTED THE INGRESS AND EGRESS OF W AND SPOUSES X. SPOUSES
Z CLAIMED THAT W AND SPOUSES X DO NOT NEED THE SUBJECT PORTION AS THEIR PROPERTY
FACES AN EXISTING ROAD. W, ET AL. LEVELED THE SUBJECT PORTION WHICH HAMPERED SPOUSES
Z’S INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THEIR RESIDENCE. WHETHER THE PARTIES ARE ENTITLED FOR
DAMAGES BASED ON NUISANCE?
Yes. W’s demolition of Spouses Z’s subject portion is unwarranted. Damages should be awarded to
Spouses Z but their entitlement to such only stands in theory because the actual award thereof is
precluded by the damage they have caused against W, et al. When Spouses Z constructed the
subject portion, they introduced a nuisance per accidents that transgressed the rights of W, et
al. to an unobstructed use and free passage over the subdivision road. The award of damages in
favor of each other are offset against each other. (RANA v. WONG and sps. WONG GR. No. 192861
| 30 June 2014)

10. WHEN IS TEMPERATE OR MODERATE DAMAGES MAY BE AWARDED BY THE COURT?

When it finds that pecuniary has been suffered but its amount cannot be provided with certainty.

11. A ALLEGED THAT SPS. B ARE THE MAJORITY STOCKHOLDERS OF RAII, A DOMESTIC CORPORATION
ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF OPERATING AMUSEMENT CENTERS. A AND SPS. B ENTERED INTO
VARIOUS MOA’S WHICH INCLUDED A PROVISION SAYING THAT THE PARTIES WOULD EQUALLY
SHARE (50-50) IN THE NET PROFITS AND SPS. B WOULD REMIT A’S SHARE ON THE 15TH AND 30TH
OF EVERY MONTH. A FILED THIS CASE FOR FAILURE OF SPS. B TO REMIT. BOTH RTC AND CA
DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE AS HE ONLY PROVIDED THE GROSS
SALES AND NOT THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE AMUSEMENT CENTERS AND THE COURT CANNOT
ASCERTAIN THE NET PROFIT DUE TO HIM.

Whether A is entitled to temperate damages?

YES. Under Art. 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate or moderate damages may be recovered when the
court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the
case, be provided with certainty. In computing the amount of temperate or moderate damages, it is left
to the discretion of the court, but the amount must be reasonable, bearing in mind that temperate
damages should be more than nominal but less than compensatory. In this case, the court recognized
that Sps. B had exclusive control over the operations of the amusement centers including financial
statements and A was constrained to rely on the various computations of the revenues earned as
certified by the mall-owners. Although A failed to prove the exact amount he should receive from
respondents, he still should have received remittances representing net profits pursuant to the MOA.