Moral damages - G.R. No. 185833

G.R. No. 185833

"x x x.

Petitioner likewise raises the issue that the CA was wrong in awarding moral damages and attorney's fees to the private complainant claiming that during the trial, the latter's entitlement to the said monetary reliefs was not substantiated. This Court finds petitioner's claim, with regard to the award of moral damages, unmeritorious.

In Manuel v. People,[23] this Court tackled in substance the concept of the award of moral damages, thus:

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 defendant's wrongful act or omission. An award for moral damages requires the confluence of the following conditions: first, there must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant; second, there must be culpable act or omission factually established; third, the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and fourth, the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 or Article 2220 of the Civil Code.[24]


It is true that the private complainant is entitled to the award of moral damages under Article 2220[25] of the New Civil Code because the injury contemplated by the law which merits the said award was clearly established. Private complainant testified that he felt bad[26] and lost sleep.[27] The said testimony is substantial to prove the moral injury suffered by the private complainant for it is only him who can personally approximate the emotional suffering he experienced. For the court to arrive upon a judicious approximation of emotional or moral injury, competent and substantial proof of the suffering experienced must be laid before it.[28] The same also applies with private complainant's claim that his wife felt dizzy after the incident and had to be taken to the hospital.[29]

However, anent the award of attorney's fees, the same was not established. In German Marine Agencies, Inc. v. NLRC,[30] this Court held that there must always be a factual basis for the award of attorney’s fees. This present case does not contain any valid and factual reason for such award.
x x x."