REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Third Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch ___
Tarlac City Tarlac

DAPHNE SANTOS
Plaintiff,

Civil Case No.

- versus- For: Damages

SIMON DELA CRUZ

Defendants.
x-------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF, through the undersigned counsel and before this

Honorable Court most respectfully state and allege that:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is of legal age, single, Filipino, and resident of #2 Ilang-

ilang St., Brgy. Pablo, Tarlac City where she may be served with
orders, notices and processes of this Honorable Court;

2. Defendant is of legal age, single, Filipino, and resident of #33

Jasmin St., Brgy. Pablo, Tarlac City where he may be served with
orders, notices and processes of this Honorable Court;

CAUSE OF ACTION

3. Plaintiff and Defendant were lovers since high-school;

4. Sometime in 2015 Plaintiff and Defendant started living together

as husband and wife, without the benefit of marriage;

5. On December 14, 2019, Defendant proposed to marry herein

Plaintiff, with the consent of their families;

6. The engagement became known to the public, as the video1 of

Defendant proposing marriage to the Plaintiff became viral in

1 Screenshots of the video uploaded on Facebook is hereto attached as ANNEX “A.”

 social media and reached Three Million Three Hundred Twenty
Three Thousand Eighty Six (3,323,086) views to this date;

7. Defendant told the Plaintiff that he wanted to get married

immediately because he was informed by his manager of the
company’s plan to reassign him in Metro Manila;

8. Sometime in January 2020, Plaintiff and Defendant secured their

respective marriage licenses and other documents required by
the Office of the Civil Registrar2 of their municipality;

9. The wedding was set to May 25, 2020. Plaintiff posted in her
social media account the details of their wedding.;

10. In order to make necessary arrangements for their

wedding, Plaintiff resigned from her job as Supervisor in
International Wiring System;

11. All the necessary arrangements were already in order by

the end of February 2020;

12. The wedding expenses3 amounted to Four Hundred

Thousand and Six Hundred Pesos (P 400,600.00);

13. Plaintiff agreed to use her savings and separation pay to

cover all the expenses to their wedding;

14. On March 7, 2020, Defendant was reassigned in their

branch office in Manila;

15. Defendant told the Plaintiff that he will come home every
weekend. However, when the Enhanced Community Quarantine
was imposed in the entire Luzon, Defendant was not able to
come home since then;

16. On May 3, 2020, Plaintiff discovered that she is two (2)

months pregnant4 with the Defendant’s child. She was about to
inform the Defendant about her pregnancy when she read the
private message sent by the Defendant, informing her that he
can no longer marry her because he met another woman during
the quarantine period, and he is in love with her;

17. Plaintiff attempted to communicate with the Defendant,

however, to no avail;

2 Copies of the marriage license and documents required by the Municipal Registrar is hereto attached as
ANNEX “B.”
3 A copy of the receipts for representing the expenses covered for the wedding is hereto attached as

ANNEX “C”
4 A copy of the ultrasound result is hereto attached as ANNEX “D”
 18. On August 17, 2020 Plaintiff travelled to Defendant’s
current house in Manila, where she discovered that the latter is
already cohabiting with another woman named Anne;

19. Defendant apologized to the Plaintiff and told he cannot

marry her because Anne is already pregnant with their child;

20. Plaintiff discovered that the news about the cancellation of

the wedding were posted in the comment sections on the social
media platform where their viral video was posted;

21. Plaintiff suffered major depression and had to undergo

treatment5 due to emotional suffering, stress, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, and humiliation caused by the
Defendant;

22. On September 19, 2020, due to major depression Plaintiff

suffered a miscarriage6;

GROUNDS

23. Article 21 of the New Civil Code provides that:

Article 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to

another in manner that is contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for
the damage [Emphasis supplied X X X.

24. In the instant case, the Defendant’s willful act of cohabiting

with Plaintiff for five (5) years and promising her to marry, only to
call off the wedding two (2) months thereafter, after all necessary
arrangements were made not only besmirched the reputation of
the Plaintiff but made her suffer serious emotional and physical
injury caused by Defendant’s acts, which is likewise caused the
Plaintiff to suffer major depression and miscarriage;

25. Article 2217 of the New Civil Code defines moral damage
as:

Article 2217. 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
5 A copy of the medical certificate finding Plaintiff to have suffered major depression and official receipts
for the treatment is hereto attached as ANNEX “E-1” and ANNEX “E-2” respectively.
6 A copy of the hospital bills during the Plaintiff’s hospitalization due to miscarriage is hereto attached as

ANNEX “F.”
 defendant's wrongful act for omission [Emphasis
supplied]. X X X

26. Article 2219 (10) identifies violation of Article 21 of the

Civil Code as a ground for recovery of moral damages, to wit:

Article 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the

following and analogous cases:

(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28,
29, 30, 32, 34, and 35 [Emphasis supplied]. X X X

27. In the instant case, the acts of Defendant necessarily

caused moral damage to the Plaintiff. The pain caused by
Defendant to the Plaintiff made her suffer major depression, due
to the sleepless nights and emotional stress.

28. In the case of Wassmer vs. Velez, G.R. No. L-20089.

December 26, 1964, the Supreme Court held that:

Ordinarily, a mere breach of promise to marry is not an

actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go
through all the necessary preparations and publicity, only
to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be
solemnized, is quite different. This is palpably and
unjustifiably contrary to good customs, for which the
erring promisor must be held answerable in damages
in accordance with Article 21 of the New Civil Code.

When a breach of promise to marry is actionable under

Article 21 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be
awarded under Article 2219 (10) of the said Code.
Exemplary damages may also be awarded under
Article 2232 of said Code where it is proven that the
defendant clearly acted in a wanton, reckless and
oppressive manner [Emphasis supplied]. X X X

29. In this case, Defendant’s act of breaching his promise after

setting up the wedding is unjustifiably contrary to good customs,
hence, an actionable wrong which entitles Plaintiff to recover
from moral damages. Likewise, Defendant’s act of impregnating
another woman a few months before the agreed date of the
wedding is a wanton and oppressive act of causing damage to
the Plaintiff.

PRAYER
 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, it is most
respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered in favor of the
PLAINTIFF and against the RESPONDENT by:

1. Ordering the Defendant to reimburse the cost of wedding

expenses amounting to four hundred thousand six hundred
pesos (Php 400,600.00);
2. Ordering the Defendant to reimburse the expenses incurred
in the psychological treatment amounting to fifty thousand
eight hundred pesos (Php 50,800.00);
3. Ordering the Defendant to reimburse the expenses for the
hospitalization of the Plaintiff during miscarriage;
4. Ordering Defendant to pay five hundred thousand pesos (Php
500,000.00) for moral and exemplary damages.
5. Ordering the Defendant to pay one hundred thousand pesos
(Php 100,000.00) for attorney’s fee.

Plaintiff prays for such other reliefs that are just and equitable under
the premises.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this February 3, 2021 at Tarlac

City, Philippines.

ATTY. ANTHONY GONZALES

Counsel for Plaintiff
12343 Lily St., San Vicente, Tarlac City
Mobile No.: 09139030920
Email Address: zzzzz@gmail.com
Roll No. 1234
IBP No. 7837898398
PTR No. 983893298, 01/20/21, Tarlac

Copy Furnished:

DAPHNE SANTOS
(Exact Address) Manila

EXPLANATION

Due to the distance and time constraints, the foregoing pleading

was served to Defendant’s counsel by registered mail.
 ATTY. ANTHONY GONZALES

CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, DAPHNE SANTOS, after having been sworn to in

accordance with law hereby depose and say THAT:

1. I am the herein named plaintiff;

 2. I have caused the preparation and filing of the
foregoing complaint, that I have read the allegations
therein, and that they are true and correct of my own
personal knowledge and belief and based on authentic
documents;

3. Other than the foregoing complaint, I have not

commenced any other action or proceeding involving the
same issue before the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals
or any divisions thereof or before any tribunal or agency
and that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no such
action or proceeding pending before any tribunal;

4. If other than the foregoing complaint, I should learn

that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending in any tribunal, I will notify this Honorable Court of
the same within five (5) days from such notice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

January 28, 2021 at Tarlac City, Philippines.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me a Notary

Public, for and in the City of Tarlac, the affiant, DAPHNE
SANTOS exhibited to me her valid Identification Card numbered
TIN-123-456-789, bearing her photograph and signature as
competent proof of her identity.

Doc No.: 40 (SGD)Atty. Penolope Cruz

Page No. 5 Notary Public for Tarlac City
Book No.II Notarial Commission No. 123-2019
PTR No. 123456; 01-02-13;D.C.
Series of 2020.
IBP Life Member Roll 12348
MCLE Compliance No. III-123459; 01-
10-2020
Issued at Tarlac City

VERIFICATION

I, DAPHNE SANTOS, after having been sworn to in

accordance with law hereby depose and say THAT:

1. I am the herein named plaintiff;

 2. The allegations in the pleading are true and correct
based on his or her personal knowledge, or based on
authentic documents;

3. The pleading is not filed to harass, cause

unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the
cost of litigation; and

4. The factual allegations therein have evidentiary

support or, if specifically so identified, will likewise
have evidentiary support after a reasonable
opportunity for discovery.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

January 28, 2021 at Tarlac City, Philippines.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me a Notary

Public, for and in the City of Tarlac, the affiant, DAPHNE
SANTOS exhibited to me her valid Identification Card numbered
TIN-123-456-789, bearing her photograph and signature as
competent proof of her identity.

Doc No.: 41 (SGD)Atty. Penelope Cruz

Page No. 6 Notary Public for Tarlac City
Book No.II Notarial Commission No. 123-
Series of 2020. 2019
PTR No. 123456; 01-02-13;D.C.
IBP Life Member Roll 12348
MCLE Compliance No. III-
123459; 01-10-2020
Issued at Tarlac City

ANNEX “A”
ANNEX “B”
ANNEX “C”
 ANNEX
“D”
ANNEX “E-1”