#1: MARCELO JERVOSO & NORMA CLOSA vs. PEO & CA GR# 89306 September 13, 1990 J.

GRINO-AQUINO *petition for review FACTS: Petitioners Marcelo Jervoso was convicted of homicide for the fatal stabbing of Rogelio Jervoso and Norma Closa for slight physical injuries. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was appreciated in their favor. The CA affirmed the decision of the lower court with modification, sentencing the accused the imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P30,000. ISSUE: W/N the order to indemnify the heirs of the deceased is proper despite the reservation made by said heirs of their right to file a separate civil action? RULING: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the CA with modification, deleting the award of indemnity for damages. Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides: “When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. “Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under Article 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused. “A waiver of any of the civil actions extinguishes the others. The institution of, or the reservation of the right to file, any of the said civil actions separately waives the others.

Eva A. for they are not entitled to recover damages twice from the same criminal act of the accused. “In no case may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the accused. The respondent judge dismissed the civil case upon Japzon’s Motion to Dismiss. ABAD SANTOS *petition FACTS: Dr. Japzon was accused of homicide through reckless imprudence for the death of Cleto Madeja after an appendectomy. the heirs of the deceased are precluded from recovering damages in the criminal case against the accused. Japzon may proceed independently of the criminal action against her. . #2: CARMEN MADEJA vs. FELIX CARO & EVA ARELLANO-JAPZON GR# L-51183 December 21. The civil action against Dr.“The reservation of the right to institute the separate civil actions shall be made before the prosecution starts to present its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation. A civil case was then instituted while the criminal case was pending. ISSUE: W/N an instant civil action may be instituted only after final judgment has been rendered in the criminal action? RULING: The Supreme Court granted the petition and dismissed the Order appealed from.” Having reserved and filed in the RTC of Manila a separate civil action to recover the civil liability of the accused arising from the crimes charged. HON. 1983 J. The spouse of the deceased. Carmen Madeja. reserved her right to file a separate civil action for damages.

went to Tropical Palace Hotel to watch the performance of Reycard Duet. named Baez. 32.000 as moral damages & P10. a civil action for damages. The trial court awarded the Spouses P1. felt some chill.Section 2. As the waiter. P50. provided the right is reserved as required in the preceding section. She also sensed that some persons were laughing at or pitying her. 33. entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution. Rule 111 of the Rules of Court in relation to Article 33 of the Civil Code is the applicable provision. may be brought by the injured party. vs. 1984 J. later on. and physical injuries.000. respectively.000 as exemplary damages. . and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. an independent civil action entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action. may be brought by the injured party during the pendency of the criminal case. The Spouses filed an action to recover damages for the embarrassment and the fact that the management did not even offer an apology on that night. reducing the amount of moral and exemplary damages to P15.” “Article 33: In case of defamation. AQUINO * FACTS: Private respondents Spouses Lelisa & Arturo Sena. and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. was about to serve the drinks they had ordered.” #3: BAGUMBAYAN CORP. fraud. with their 4 children. IAC.540 as actual damages. Rule 111 of the Rules of Court: In the cases provided for in Articles 31. and to teach the management a lesson. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution. When she was took by a waitress to the ladies’ room.000 and P5. she had to remove her dress and underwear but was not given any towel to cover herself nor able to sit as there was no chair. the tray containing it overturned and fell on her. She was drenched and. The IAC affirmed the judgment of the lower court with modification. LELISA SENA & ARTURO SENA GR# L-66274 September 30. to wit: “Section 2.

rape. and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 32. (7) Libel. 3 of this article. (10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21. besmirched reputation. (4) Adultery or concubinage. (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest. and similar injury.” The instant case is not specifically mentioned in Article 2219. in the order named. 27. litigation expenses and attorney’s fees. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. or abused. (9) Acts mentioned in Article 309. Though incapable of pecuniary computation. abducted. . 26. 28. moral shock. social humiliation. ordering the petitioner to pay Lelisa Sena the sum of P5. “Article 2220: Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that. The Civil Code provides: “Article 2217: Moral damages include physical suffering. 9 of this article. mental anguish. serious anxiety. slander or any other form of defamation. (3) Seduction. raped. ascendants.000 to cover her actual damages. 34. wounded feelings. “Article 2219: Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries. descendants. (8) Malicious prosecution. under the circumstances. abduction. (6) Illegal search. The award of moral and exemplary damages were eliminated. The spouse.ISSUE: Is the award of damages proper? RULING: The Supreme Court modified the decision of the IAC. may also recover moral damages. The appellate court erred in considering it as analogous to the cases mentioned therein without indicating what specific case the instant case resembles or is analogous to. The parents of the female seduced. and 35. 29. referred to in No. such damages are justly due. (2) Quasi-delict causing physical injuries. fright. 30. or other lascivious acts. moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission.

he was forced to sleep at the airport.What we call moral damages are treated in American jurisprudence as compensatory damages awarded for mental pain and suffering or mental anguish resulting from a wrong. The CA affirmed the decision of the lower court. *petition for review on certiorari FACTS: The private respondent. then. The trial court rendered judgment ordering RCPI and GLOBE to jointly and severally pay the sum of P213. the said international conference had to be cancelled. vs. Due to the lateness of the hour. or intentionally caused the mental anguish. damages for mental anguish are limited to cases in which there has been a personal injury or where the defendant willfully. filed a complaint for compensatory damages for the failure of RCPI and GLOBE to deliver the said cablegrams. Also. Mental anguish is intense mental suffering. 1978. President of the World Association of Law Students (WALS).000 as moral damages. at least where maliciousness.000? . sent 2 cablegrams overseas through RCPI. #4 RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES. Merger was not duly informed of the said conference. RUFUS RODRIGUEZ GR# 83768 February 28. Mental suffering means distress or serious pain as distinguished from annoyance. regret or vexation. ISSUE: W/N. However. One is addressed to Taha in Sudan to advise of his arrival on the September 18. wantonness. when he arrived in Sudan. Rufus Rodriguez. under the attendant facts and circumstances. Nor will damages generally be awarded for mental anguish which is not accompanied by a physical injury. 1990 J. and the other to Merger in Athens to inform her of the scheduled conference in Sudan. the petitioner is liable for moral damages in the amount of P100. wantonly. included therein is the amount of P100.148. INC. GUTIERREZ. or intentional conduct is not involved. Rodriguez. recklessly. Generally. JR. no one was there to meet him. As a result.

.. Edilberto Manero. Aside from prison sentence. #5 PEO vs. among others. diversion or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone. for anyone has to know that a telegram is not an adequate preparation for such an international conference. JR. Rudy Lines. accused Norberto Manero.000 as award for moral damages would be reasonable considering the facts and circumstances surrounding the petitioner’s liability. Jr. the same when found excessive should be reduced to a more reasonable amount. the award of P100. The Court is convinced that Rodriguez suffered a certain degree of mental anguish.RULING: The Supreme Court modified the appealed Decision by reducing the amount of moral damages to P10. Given that the private respondent is not entirely blameless for the cancellation of the international conference. ET. His suffering was caused by the non-appearance of Taha who did not receive the telegram sent by the respondent due to the gross negligence of RCPI. that after so much preparation and travel on the part of Rodriguez. GR#s 86883 to 85 January 29. by reason of the defendants’ culpable action.000 as moral damages. Rudy Lines. Elpidio Manero. the dismay arising from the fact. RCPI is liable for moral damages. AL. Efren Plenago and Roger Bedano were ordered to pay P100. NORBERTO MANERO. The award of moral damages must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. Hence. Severino Lines. his pains were all nothing. P10. Efren Plenago & Roger Bendano) J. Rufino Robles).. attempted murder (Fr.000. However. fear and anxiety considering his experience at the airport of a foreign country. Rodrigo Espia. and arson (motorcycle). moreover. BELLOSILLO * FACTS: The accused were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes murder. There is. Moral damages are emphatically not intended to enrich a complainant at the expense of a defendant. Although the amount of moral damages is a matter largely left to the sound discretion of a court. They are awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means.000 as moral damages is excessive and unconscionable. 1993 (appellants: Severino Lines.

Rodriguez gave the 2 a room wherein they stayed for about an hour. met at an early hour on one morning. . under promise of marriage. but the minister decline to marry the couple for it appears from the cedula of the accused that he was a married man. Moral damages can not be awarded because the heirs never presented any evidence showing that they suffered mental anguish. who are co-workers. a friend of the accused. then. they went to work. Moral damages and their causal relation to the defendant’s acts should be satisfactorily proved by the claimant. Buenaventura Sarmiento. Before moral damages may be awarded. 1914 J. there must be proof of moral suffering. and a Petronila Silverio. deleting the award of moral damages. BUENAVENTURA SARMIENTO GR# L-9059 March 14. #6 THE UNITED STATES vs. went home at around 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the same day and returned accompanied by some relatives and friends. They compelled the accused to marry the young woman. A complaint was then filed against the accused for inducing the young woman to have sexual intercourse with him by means of deceit. The trial court convicted the accused of the crime of seduction and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 4 months. and to pay the sum of P500 as civil indemnification to the injury done to her. to wit. much less did they take the witness stand. CARSON * FACTS: The accused. After having breakfast.ISSUE: W/N the award of moral damages is proper? RULING: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision appealed from with modification. They entered a street vehicle and went to the house of one Jacinto Rodriguez. The young woman.

the 2 lived together. The Court does not think that a conviction of the crime of seduction can be sustained on the evidence. he answered in affirmative but later on told her that he was engaged to another girl. One day. RECTO * FACTS: September 12. this time. other than that she had already made up her mind to enter into illicit relations with the accused when she entered the vehicle. There is also evidence in the record to the effect that she knew the accused was a married man. The complainant. the complainant would refuse the accused and even intimidated of breaking up with him. had been persistent with his repeated indecent proposal to the complainant. Upon becoming aware of her pregnancy.ISSUE: W/N the accused is guilty of seduction? RULING: The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower and acquitted the accused of the offense charged against him. . To constitute seduction there must in all cases be some sufficient promise or inducement. no satisfactory explanation of the conduct of the young woman. But the accused would renew his protestations of love. she yielded thereafter without restraint. During these times. And since the complainant felt that she had already lost for granting that first favor. nor does one suggest itself at this time. #7 PEOPLE vs. after a month or so. long before they had their illicit relations. However. in accompanying the accused in the street vehicle. who was in relation with the 17-year old complainant (Corazon Arcadio). and the woman must yield because of the promise or other inducement. the complainant once again asked the accused if he is ready to fulfill his promise to marry her. In the case at bar. gave in to the request of the accused. CRISPIN IMAN GR# 42660 J. was offered at the trial. 1935 The accused Crispin Iman. the accused once again avail the opportunity to convince the complainant with a renewal of his promise to marry her. while the parents of the complainant were not at home. At first.

and in his presence. reported the matter to the Chief of Police of Plaridel. certain members of the raiding party confiscated a number of purely personal items belonging to the plaintiffs. constituting deceit in the crime of seduction and. In view thereof. or that the same has been given before or after the woman has yielded to the importunities of the man carries no weight. and the military men violated several Constitutional rights of the plaintiffs. AL. ET. YAP *petition for certiorari FACTS: General Fabian Ver ordered Task Force Makabansa (TFM) to conduct pre-emptive strikes against known communist-terrorist. to indemnify the complainant the sum of P500. Despite of which. AL. the accused once again renewed his promise to marry the complainant. ET. sentencing the accused to 4 months to arresto mayor. They were also denied visits of relatives and lawyers. vs. The trial court finds the accused guilty of seduction by means of the false promise of marriage under Article 338 of the Revised Penal Code. #8 ROGELIO ABERCA. inasmuch as such fact is established in the decision of the trial court. Promise of marriage is one of the essential elements. MAJ. 1988 J. employing most cases defectively issued judicial search warrants. to acknowledge the child had by him with her and to give the child a monthly support of P15 until the age of majority. GEN. During these raids. FABIAN VER. recognized by the courts. They were interrogated in violation of their rights to silence and counsel. Plaintiffs were arrested without proper warrants issued by the courts. ISSUE: W/N the trial court erred in convicting the accused? RULING: The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision appealed from. the appellant’s contention as to the necessity that said promise be reiterated under circumstances of strong probability. GR# L-69866 April 15. the accused failed to fulfill such promise. .The parents of the complainant. TFM raided several places.

The privacy of communication and correspondence. The right to the equal protection of the laws. ISSUE: W/N the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus bars a civil action for damages for illegal searches conducted by military personnel and other violations of rights and liberties guaranteed under the Constitution? RULING: The Supreme Court granted the petition and remanded the case to the respondent court for further proceedings. The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use. or any private individual who directly or indirectly obstructs. . The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel. The liberty of abode and of changing the same. the trial court dismissed the case. Bienvenido Balaba. On Motion for Reconsideration. Freedom of suffrage. house. violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) Freedom of religion. Upon Motion to Dismiss by the herein petitioners. papers. to have a speedy and public trial. Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention. defeats. The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form.The plaintiffs filed an action to recover damages. Article 32 of the Civil Code states: “Any public officer or employee. to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The right of the accused against excessive bail. the trial court granted the same as regards Major Rodolfo Aguinaldo & Master Sgt. and dismissed the case as regards the other respondents. The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the Government for redress of grievances. Freedom of speech. The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law. Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication. The right to be secure in one’s person. The right against deprivation of property without due process of law. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Freedom of access to the courts. Exemplary damages may also be “The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute. Also. or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession. except when the person confessing becomes a State witness.” This provides a sanction to the deeply cherished rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. adjudicated. as enumerated. “The indemnity shall include moral damages. Article 32 of the Civil Code.(17) (18) (19) to meet the witnesses face to face. What is suspended is merely the right of the individual to seek release from detention through the writ of habeas corpus as a speedy means of obtaining his liberty. whether or not the defendant’s act or omission constitutes a criminal offense the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages. or to master and servant relationship. The suspension does not render valid an otherwise illegal arrest or detention. But no such relationship exists between superior officers of the military and their subordinates. unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional. Only judges are excluded from liability under the said article. the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not destroy petitioners’ right and cause of action for damages for illegal arrest and detention. Certain basic rights and liberties are immutable and cannot be sacrificed to the transient needs or imperious demands of the ruling power. and for other relief. Article 32 of the Civil Code speaks of an officer or employee or person ‘directly’ or ‘indirectly’ responsible for the violation of the constitutional rights and liberties of another. which renders any public officer or employee or any private individual liable in damages for violating the Constitutional rights and liberties of another. Freedom from excessive fines. and other violations of their constitutional rights. Also. “In any of the cases referred to in this article. provided their acts or omissions do not constitute a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute. Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against ones self. and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in behalf. does not exempt the respondents from responsibility. and must be proved by a preponderance of evidence. or from being forced to confess guilt. or cruel and unusual punishment. . The doctrine of respondent superior is applicable to the case. which is generally limited in its application to principal and agent. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted).

Meanwhile. CA. DANIEL PANGANIBAN & PAULA RAMIREZ PANGANIBAN GR# L-52358 May 30. On appeal.Thus. The person indirectly responsible has also to answer for the damages or injury caused to the aggrieved party. the appellate court reduced the damages. ISSUE: W/N the award of moral damages is proper? RULING: The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court. and set aside the decision of the CFI. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the Panganibans. it is not the actor alone who must answer for damages under Article 32. Upon receiving a statement of account. social humiliation. besmirched reputation and other injuries. the Spouses sent a check through mail. 1983 J. requesting the settlement of an unpaid balance from the medicines they had purchased. The Spouses filed an action to recover damages due to the clearly unfounded case filed by the petitioner against them.000. the counsel of the petitioner prepared a complaint against the Spouses. for it is clear that even before the hearing filed by Inhelder Corporation the spouses had already sent the payment. #10: INHELDER CORPORATION vs. the moral damages awarded is reduced to P10. the petitioner sent a letter to the Spouses acknowledging the receipt of the check sent by the latter. . MELENCIO-HERRERA * FACTS: The counsel for the petitioner sent a letter to the private respondents. Spouses Panganiban. among the damages awarded is the sum of P100. A few days afterwhich.000 for the nervous breakdown suffered by plaintiff Paula Panganiban and for the mental anguish.

Malicious prosecution. Antonio Co Kit and Pedro Danao signed a promissory note for P10. technically. Under Article 1249 of the Civil Code. But the lack of such advice should not justify qualifying the said case as clearly unfounded. AL. could not be considered as substantially unfounded. the bank filed a petition for foreclosure Danao’s parcel of land located in Baguio . GR# L-48276 September 30. payment should be held effective only when such check was actually cashed by. to be the basis of a suit. ET. Inhelder Corporation. the counsel for the bank sent a letter to Antonio Co Kit and Pedro Danao demanding payment of the unpaid balance from the said promissory note.000 with the People’s Bank and Trust Company. It is not clear that the account of the Panganibans had already been paid from the date the check has been received by the petitioner. CA. Given as a security for the credit line of P20.000 was a parcel of land in the City of Baguio. and that it was initiated deliberately knowing that the charge was false and groundless. requires the elements of malice and want of probable cause. PARAS *petition for review on certiorari FACTS: Spouses Pedro & Concepcion Danao applied for a commercial credit line of P20. which was granted. PEDRO DANAO. Although. such procedure was not followed because of the failure of the corresponding advice from the petitioner’s counsel. It should be difficult to conclude that the first case was a clearly unfounded civil action.Judicial discretion granted to the courts in the assessment of damages must always be exercised with balanced restraint and measured objectivity. vs. 1987 J. Eventually. If that did not eventuate . The 2 agreed to pay jointly and severally although the check for the proceeds of the note was issued in the name of Antonio Co Kit. #11 DR. together with the buildings and improvements thereon. Neither may it be said that the collection case was malicious. AL. then the account would still be unpaid. or credited to the account of. Several years after that.000. and the complaint in the Collection Case. There must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person. the better procedure would have been to withhold a complaint pending determination of whether or not the check was good. ET.

the filing alone of the foreclosure application should not be a ground for an award of moral damages. However.000. alleging that the plaintiff’s alleged indebtedness mentioned in the defendant’s petition for foreclosure and in the consequent notice of public auction sale was the balance due on a clean loan granted to Antonio Co Kit. Moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission. In view of the embarrassing circumstances attendant to the foreclosure notice. .000. instead of legal notices or classified ads. such as publication of the notice of extrajudicial foreclosure and sale at public auction. as successor to the People’s Bank and Trust Company. and was a distinct and separate transaction from the plaintiff’s credit line and therefore not covered nor secured by the plaintiff’s properties mortgaged to the defendant bank. ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in reducing the moral damages awarded by the lower court? RULING: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the CA with modification. is left to the discretion of the court. Spouses Danao filed a complaint for damages against BPI. which allegedly bespoke the bank’s malicious intent to embarrass and harass the Danao spouses which actuations are contrary to the canons of conduct provided in Articles 19. Also. the main bone of contention is not only the filing of the petition for foreclosure proceedings but the manner in which the same was carried out. reducing the award of moral damages to P30. but later on executed a cancellation of the real estate mortgage. 20 and 21 of the Civil Code. in the case at bar. among others in the amount of P100. stating that that mortgagors had fully paid the obligation secured by the mortgage. The assessment of such damages. except liquidated ones. When the award of moral damages is far too excessive compared to the actual losses sustained by the claimants the former may be reduced. according to the circumstances of the case. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the lower court with modification. by increasing the award of moral damages to P60. the reduction of moral damages is justified where the negligence of petitioner bank and its employees is not wanton and reckless.City. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to indemnify. the Court increased the award of moral damages by the CA. As a general rule.000 as moral damages.