MORAL DAMAGES

Settled is the rule that moral damages are recoverable only where the dismissal or suspension of the
employee was attended by bad faith or fraud, or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done
in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy 1. Bad faith does not simply mean
negligence or bad judgment. It involves a state of mind dominated by ill will or motive. It implies a
conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or some moral
obliquity.

When respondent barred complainants from entering work, without any reason at all, is bad faith and
oppressive to the complainants. It was driven by ill motive of the respondent to retaliate against the
complainants because of the latter’s action in bringing the slander issue or a criminal offense at the
Barangay level. Respondent dishonest oppressive motive evidenced by its refusal to even asking for
an apology during the Barangay hearing nor settle the issue amicably.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

The claim for exemplary damages is anchored on the belief that such damages are designed to
permit the courts to mould behaviour that has socially deleterious consequences, and their
imposition is required by public policy to suppress the wanton acts of the offender. Further the
Supreme Court explained in Mecenas v. Court of Appeals 2, that exemplary damages are designed
by our civil law to permit the courts to reshape behaviour that is socially deleterious in its
consequence by creating negative incentives or deterrents against such behavior.

Thus, in Garcia v. NLRC3 this court ruled that in labor cases, the court may award exemplary
damages if the dismissal was effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner. Since
complainants were dismissed in a wanton, oppressive, and malevolent manner, they are therefore
be granted for exemplary damages.

ATTORNEY’S FEE

Despite prayer of amicable settlement at Barangay level, respondents continuously denied the
complainants plea to enter work. Thus, complainants’ claim for attorney's fees are also justified. It is
settled that where an employee was forced 'to litigate and incur expenses to protect his rights and
interest, as in the instant case, he is entitled to an award of attorney's fees 4. Complainants are thus
granted attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent of the total award.

1
G.R. No. 198656 September 8, 2014, NANCY S. MONTINOLA, Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE
AIRLINES, Respondnet.
2
Mecenas v. Court of Appeals, 259 Phil. 556, 574 (1989) [Per J. Feliciano, Third Division].
3
G.R. No. 110518, August 1, 1994, 234 SCRA 632 [Per J. Cruz, First Division]. This case involved retrenchment.
While this court denied moral and exemplary damages, the case provides definitions on when these awards are
appropriate in labor cases.
4
Building Case Corp. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 94237, February 26, 1997
NOMINAL DAMAGES
Termination without valid cause is unlawful and must be recognized by the company. In the New
Civil Code, Art. 2221. 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. The respondent violated the
complainant’s right to due process or the two notice rule, thus this violation must be recognized.

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.5 Thus, in Saludo v. Court of Appeals 6, nominal damages were granted because while
petitioner suffered no substantial injury, his right to be treated with due courtesy was violated by the
respondent, Transworld Airlines, Inc. Nominal damages were likewise awarded in Northwestern
Airlines v. Cuenca7, and Areola v. Court of Appeals, 8 where a right was violated, but produced no
injury or loss to the aggrieved party.

5
Francisco v. Ferrer, 405 Phil. 741, 751 (2001), citing Areola v. Court of Appeals,236 SCRA 643,
654 (1994).
6
G.R. No. 95536, 23 March 1992, 207 SCRA 498
7
G.R. No. L-22425, 31 August 1965.
8
G.R. No. 95641, 22 September 1994, 236 SCRA 643, 654.