A. Concept (Arts. 2217-2218)
Moral Damages: 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 defendant's wrongful act or omission. (Art. 2217)
2 Exceptions To Rule That Moral Damages Are Not Recoverable In Breach Of Contract of Carriage:’
1. Death of Passengers (Art. 1764, 2206)
2. Fraud or Bad Faith Even If Death Did Not Result (Art. 2220).
Example:
Downgrading from first class to tourist class is considered in bad faith so as to merit an award of moral and exemplary damages (Lopez vs. PANAM 16 SCRA 431)
B. When Recoverable (Arts. 2219-2220) 1. In criminal offense/quasi-delict resulting in physical injuries
2. In Seduction, Abduction, Rape And Other Lascivious Acts 3. In Acts Referred To In Arts. 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 34 & 35, NCC
4. In Cases Of Malicious Prosecution 5. In libel, slander, etc.
Case Studies:
Soberano vs. Manila Railroad Company (18 SCRA 732)
In case of physical injuries, moral damages are recoverable only by the party injured and not by his next of kin, unless there is express statutory provision to the contrary (Strebel vs. Figueras, 96 Phil. 321; Araneta, et al., vs. Arreglado, et al., 110 Phil. 529).The rule is well-settled in this jurisdiction that in case of breach of contract of carriage, moral damages are recoverable only "where the defendant has acted fraudulently or in bad faith" (Art. 2220, new Civil Code), and the terms fraud and bad faith have reference to "wanton, reckless, oppressive, malevolent conduct," or, in the very least, to negligence so gross as to amount to malice". (Fores vs. Miranda; 105 Phil. 266;
Necessito, etc. vs. Paras, et al., 104 Phil. 75).
Necesito vs. Paras (104 Phil 75)
Under Article 2220 of the new Civil Code, in case to suits for breach of contract, moral damages are recoverable only where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith, and there is none in the case at bar. In case of accident due to a carrier's negligence, the heirs of a deceased passenger may recover moral damages, even though a passenger who is injured, but manages to survive, is not entitled to them. This special rule (Arts. 1264 and 2206, No. 3) in case of death controls the general rule of Article 2220.
Barons Marketing Corp. vs. CA (286 SCRA 96)
Having ruled that private respondent's acts did not transgress the provisions of Article 21, petitioner cannot be entitled to moral damages or, for that matter, exemplary damages. While the amount of exemplary damages need not be proved, petitioner must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded. As we have observed above, petitioner has failed to discharge this burden.
Republic vs. Tuvera (516 SCRA 113)
A juridical person is not entitled to moral damages under Article 2217 of the Civil Code. It may avail of moral damages under the analogous cases listed in Article 2219, such as for libel, slander or any other form of defamation. Suffice it to say that the action at bar does not involve any of the analogous cases under Article 2219, and indeed upon an intelligent reading of Article 2219, it is difficult to see how the Republic could sustain any of the injuries contemplated therein. Any lawyer for the Republic who poses a claim for moral damages in behalf of the State stands in risk of serious ridicule.
Simex Intl. Inc. vs. CA (183 SCRA 360)
A corporation is not as a rule entitled to moral damages because, not being a natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or such sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish and moral shock. The only exception to this rule is where the corporation has a good reputation that is debased, resulting in its social humiliation. As the Court sees it, the initial carelessness of the respondent bank,
aggravated by the lack of promptitude in repairing its error, justifies the grant of moral damages. This rather lackadaisical attitude toward the complaining depositor constituted the gross negligence, if not wanton bad faith. Moral damages are not susceptible of pecuniary estimation. Article 2216 of the Civil Code specifically provides that "no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages may be adjudicated." That is why the determination of the amount to be awarded (except liquidated damages) is left to the sound discretion of the court, according to "the circumstances of each case."
Jardine Davies vs. CA (333 SCRA 684)
This Court has awarded in the past moral damages to a corporation whose reputation has been besmirched. In the instant case, respondent FEMSCO has sufficiently shown that its reputation was tarnished after it immediately ordered equipment from its suppliers on account of the urgency of the project, only to be canceled later. We thus sustain respondent appellate court's award of moral damages. We however reduce the award from P2,000,000.00 to P1,000,000.00, as moral damages are never intended to enrich the recipient.
Air France vs. Carrascoso (18 SCRA 155)
Under Article 2219 (10), Civil Code, moral damages are recoverable when Carrascoso was ousted by petitioner's manager who gave his seat to a white man. The responsibility of an employer for the tortuous act of its employees-need not be essayed. It is well settled in law. (Article 2180, Civil Code.) For the willful malevolent act of petitioner's manager, petitioner's his employer, must answer. Article 21 of the Civil Code provides:. “Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage." Acontract to transport passengers is quite different in kind and degree from any other contractual relation. (See Section 4, Chapter 3, Title VIII, Civil Code.) And this, because of the relation which an air-carrier sustains with the public. Its business is mainly with the travelling public. It invites people to avail of the comforts and advantages it offers. The contract of air carriage, therefore, generates a relation attended with a public duty. Neglect or malfeasance of the carrier's employees, naturally, could give ground for an action for damages.
Japan Airlines vs. Simangan (552 SCRA 341)
As a general rule, moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damages predicated on a breach of contract for it is not one of the items enumerated under Article 2219 of the Civil Code. (Calalas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122039, May 31, 2000, 332 SCRA 356, 365, citing Flores v. Miranda, 105 Phil. 267 (1959). As an exception, such damages are recoverable: (1) in cases in which the mishap results in the death of a
passenger, as provided in Article 1764, in relation to Article 2206 (3) of the Civil Code;
and (2) in the cases in which the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith, as provided in Article 2220. (Id., citing Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Esguerra, G.R. No. L-31420, October 23, 1982, 117 SCRA 741; Sabena Belgian World Airlines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82068, March 31, 1989, 171 SCRA 620; China Airlines, Ltd. v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73835, January 17, 1989, 169 SCRA 226.) The acts committed by JAL against respondent amounts to bad faith. As found by the RTC, JAL breached its contract of carriage with respondent in bad faith. JAL personnel summarily and insolently ordered respondent to disembark while the latter was already settled in his assigned seat. He was ordered out of the plane under the alleged reason that the genuineness of his travel documents should be verified.