simex vs. ca

8/12/2019 Simex vs. CA

1/6

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 88013 March 19, 1990

SIMEX INTERNATIONAL (MANILA), INCORPORATED, petitioner,vs.THE HONORALE CO!RT O" APPEALS a#$ TRADERS RO%AL AN&,respondents.

Don P. Porcuincula for petitioner.

San Juan, Gonzalez, San Agustin & Sinense for private respondent.

CR!', J.:

We are concerned in this case with the question of damages, specifically moraland exemplary damages. The negligence of the private respondent has alreadybeen established. All we have to ascertain is whether the petitioner is entitled tothe said damages and, if so, in what amounts.

The parties agree on the basic facts. The petitioner is a private corporation

engaged in the exportation of food products. It buys these products from variouslocal suppliers and then sells them abroad, particularly in the United tates,!anada and the "iddle #ast. "ost of its exports are purchased by the petitioneron credit.

The petitioner was a depositor of the respondent ban$ and maintained achec$ing account in its branch at %omulo Avenue, !ubao, &ue'on !ity. (n "ay)*, +-+, the petitioner deposited to its account in the said ban$ the amount of+//,///.//, thus increasing its balance as of that date to +/,0-/.12. 1ubsequently, the petitioner issued several chec$s against its deposit but wassuprised to learn later that they had been dishonored for insufficient funds.

The dishonored chec$s are the following3

+. !hec$ 4o. )+*0+ dated "ay ), +-+, in favor of !alifornia "anufacturing!ompany, Inc. for +5,2-/.//3

). !hec$ 4o. )+*2)5 dated "ay )-, +-+, in favor of the 6ureau of Internal%evenue in the amount of 0,0-5.103


2/6

0. !hec$ 4o. )+*2*+ dated 7une 2, +-+, in favor of "r. 8reg edre9o in theamount of 1,/-/.//:

2. !hec$ 4o. )+*22+ dated 7une *, +-+, in favor of "alabon ;onglife Trading!orporation in the amount of 2),/5.//3

*. !hec$ 4o. )+*212 dated 7une +/, +-+, in favor of "alabon ;onglife Trading!orporation in the amount of +),*0.//3

5. !hec$ 4o. )+*211 dated 7une , +-+, in favor of ea


3/6

The respondent court found with the trial court that the private respondent wasguilty of negligence but agreed that the petitioner was nevertheless not entitled tomoral damages. It said3

The essential ingredient of moral damages is proof of bad faith CDe Aparicio vs.arogurga, +*/ !%A )-/E. Indeed, there was the omission by the defendantno proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral,nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages may be adudicated.> Thatis why the determination of the amount to be awarded Cexcept liquidateddamagesE is left to the sound discretion of the court, according to >thecircumstances of each case.>

?rom every viewpoint except that of the petitioner=s, its claim of moral damagesin the amount of +,///,///.// is nothing short of preposterous. Its businesscertainly is not that big, or its name that prestigious, to sustain such anextravagant pretense. "oreover, a corporation is not as a rule entitled to moraldamages because, not being a natural person, it cannot experience physicalsuffering or such sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mentalanguish and moral shoc$. The only exception to this rule is where the corporationhas a good reputation that is debased, resulting in its social humiliation. 9

We shall recogni'e that the petitioner did suffer inury because of the private

respondent=s negligence that caused the dishonor of the chec$s issued by it. Theimmediate consequence was that its prestige was impaired because of thebouncing chec$s and confidence in it as a reliable debtor was diminished. Theprivate respondent ma$es much of the one instance when the petitioner wassued in a collection case, but that did not prove that it did not have a goodreputation that could not be marred, more so since that case was ultimatelysettled. 10It does not appear that, as the private respondent would portray it, thepetitioner is an unsavory and disreputable entity that has no good name toprotect.

!onsidering all this, we feel that the award of nominal damages in the sum of)/,///.// was not the proper relief to which the petitioner was entitled. Under

Article )))+ of the !ivil !ode, >nominal damages are adudicated in order that aright of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may bevindicated or recogni'ed, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff forany loss suffered by him.> As we have found that the petitioner has indeedincurred loss through the fault of the private respondent, the proper remedy is theaward to it of moral damages, which we impose, in our discretion, in the sameamount of )/,///.//.


5/6

4ow for the exemplary damages.

The pertinent provisions of the !ivil !ode are the following3

Art. ))). #xemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example orcorrection for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated orcompensatory damages.

Art. ))0). In contracts and quasi


6/6

its discovery. uch ineptness comes under the concept of the wanton mannercontemplated in the !ivil !ode that calls for the imposition of exemplarydamages.

After deliberating on this particular matter, the !ourt, in the exercise of its

discretion, hereby imposes upon the respondent ban$ exemplary damages in theamount of */,///.//, >by way of example or correction for the public good,> inthe words of the law. It is expected that this ruling will serve as a warning anddeterrent against the repetition of the ineptness and indefference that has beendisplayed here, lest the confidence of the public in the ban$ing system be furtherimpaired.

A!!(%DI48;F, the appealed udgment is hereby "(DI?I#D and the privaterespondent is ordered to pay the petitioner, in lieu of nominal damages, moraldamages in the amount of )/,///.//, and exemplary damages in the amount of*/,///.// plus the original award of attorney=s fees in the amount of *,///.//,

and costs.

( (%D#%#D.

Narvasa, Gancayco, Grino-Aquino and edialdea, JJ., concur.

"oo-#o-/

+ !ollo, p. 2.

) #xhibits +

simex vs. ca

Documents