TERESA GUTIERREZ YAMAUCHI VS ROMEO F.

SUÑIGA, G.R. NO. 199513

As for moral and exemplary damages, Yamauchi argued that Suñiga misrepresented himself and acted in
bad faith during the whole period of engagement. Yamauchi averred that he considered hiring Suñiga
believing that he was a licensed architect. However, she later found out that he was in fact not one. In
their meetings, never did Suñiga correct Yamauchi's belief that he was not a licensed architect. The law
allows the grant of exemplary damages, in cases like this to serve as a warning to the public and as a
deterrent against the repetition of this kind of underhanded actions. The RTC's award of ₱50,000.00
seems just and reasonable under the circumstances.

VIVIAN B. TORREON AND FELOMINA F. ABELLANA

VS GENEROSO APARRA, JR., FELIX CABALLES, AND
CARMELO SIMOLDE, G.R. NO. 188493

The same rules on damages are applicable whether or not the death occurred as a result of a crime or a
quasi-delict. To summarize, the heirs are entitled to recover:

As exemplary damages, when the crime is attended by one or more aggravating circumstances, — an
amount to be fixed in the discretion of the court, the same to be considered separate from fines.

The Court affirms the award for exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are imposed by way of
example or to correct a wrongful conduct. It is imposed as a punishment for highly reprehensible
conduct, meant to deter serious wrongdoing. Specifically, in cases of quasi-delicts, it is granted if the
respondent acted with gross negligence.

In Kierulf v. Court of Appeals, it summarized the requirements for exemplary damages to be awarded:

Exemplary damages are designed to permit the courts to mold behavior that has socially deleterious
consequences, and its imposition is required by public policy to suppress the wanton acts of an offender.
However, it cannot be recovered as a matter of right. It is based entirely on the discretion of the court.

JUDITH D. DARINES and JOYCE D. DARINES VS

EDUARDO QUIÑONES and ROLANDO QUITAN G.R.
NO. 206468
Pursuant to Articles 2229 and 2234 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be awarded only in
addition to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages. Since petitioners are not entitled
to either moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages, then their claim for exemplary
damages is bereft of merit. The CA correctly held that, since no moral damages was awarded then, there
is no basis to grant exemplary damages and attorney's fees to petitioners.

MARIANO C. MENDOZA AND ELVIRA LIM VS

SPOUSES LEONORA J. GOMEZ AND GABRIEL V.
GOMEZ, G.R. NO. 160110
In motor vehicle accident cases, exemplary damages may be awarded where the defendant’s
misconduct is so flagrant as to transcend simple negligence and be tantamount to positive or affirmative
misconduct rather than passive or negative misconduct. In characterizing the requisite positive
misconduct which will support a claim for punitive damages, the courts have used such descriptive
terms as willful, wanton, grossly negligent, reckless, or malicious, either alone or in combination.

(NEXT SLIDE NA TO KAHIT MAY SPACE PA UNG UNA) In the

case at bar, having established respondents’ right to compensatory damages, exemplary damages are
also in order, given the fact that Mendoza was grossly negligent in driving the Mayamy bus. His act of
intruding or encroaching on the lane rightfully occupied by the Isuzu truck shows his reckless disregard
for safety.