NOMINAL DAMAGES

Article 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been
violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.

Article 2222. The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source
enumerated in article 1157, or in every case where any property right has been invaded.

Article 2223. The adjudication of nominal damages shall preclude further contest upon the right
involved and all accessory questions, as between the parties to the suit, or their respective heirs and
assigns.

Elements of Nominal Damages

1. Plaintiff has a right;

2. Such right is violated; and
3. The purpose of awarding damages is to vindicate or recognize the right violated.

Nominal damages are adjudged in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated
or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him (NCC, Art. 2221)

It is generally based on the ground that every injury from its very nature legally imports
damage, or that the injury complained of would in the future be evidence in favor of the
wrongdoer, especially where, if continued for a sufficient length of time, the invasion of the
plaintiff’s rights would ripen into a prescriptive right in favor of the defendant.

The award of nominal damages was justified by the Code Commission by stating that there
are instances when the vindication or recognition of the plaintiff’s right is of utmost
importance to him,

In the instance observing the vindication or recognition of the plaintiff’s right, the awarding of
nominal damages does not run counter to the maxim, “De minimis non curate lex.” (A
common law principle whereby judges will not sit in judgment of extremely minor
transgressions of the law. It has been restated as: the law does not concern itself with trifles:
the law ignores insignificant details.)

Nature of Nominal Damages

Nominal damages are small sums fixed by the court without regard to the extent of the harm
done to the

injured party. They are damages in name only and are allowed simply in recognition of a
technical injury based on a violation of a legal right (Robes Francisco Realty v. CFI, G.R. No. L-
41093 October 30, 1978).

Amount of Award

The assessment of nominal damages is left to the discretion of the court according to the
circumstances of the case. (Ventanilla vs. Centeno, 1 SCRA 215 [1961]).

Generally, nominal damages by their nature are small sums fixed by the court without regard
to the extent of the harm done to the injured party.
However, it is generally held that a nominal damage is a substantial claim, if based upon the
violation of a legal right; in such case, the law presumes damage although actual or
compensatory damages are not proven. In truth, nominal damages are damages in name only
and not in fact, and are allowed, not as an equivalent of wrong inflicted, but simply in
recognition of the existence of a technical injury. (Robes-Francisco Realty and Development
Corporation vs. Court of First Instance, 86 SCRA 59).

Competent proof not necessary

The award of nominal damages is also justified in the absence of competent proof of the
specific amounts of actual damages suffered. (People vs. Dianos, 297 SCRA 191; Sumaplong vs.
Court of Appeals,

268 SCRA 764 [1997]; People v. Gopio, 346 SCRA 408 [2000]).

Nominal damages were awarded in Sumaplong vs. Court of Appeals (268 SCRA 764, 775-776
[1997]), an attempted homicide case where the victim’s left ear was mutilated and a
permanent scar remained in the latter’s forearm. In the said case, the Supreme Court observed
that nominal damages is proper “whenever there has been a violation of an ascertained legal
right, although no actual damages resulted or none are shown.” The Court observed further
that “there is no room to doubt that some species of injury was caused to the complainant
because of the medical expenses he incurred in having his wounds treated, and the loss of
income due to his failure to work during his hospitalization.” However, only nominal damages
were awarded because there was absence of competent proof of the same actual damages.

Cannot be awarded with actual or compensatory damages

Nominal damages cannot co-exist with actual or compensatory damages. (Armovit vs. Court
of Appeals, 184 SCRA 476 [1990]). The purpose of nominal damages is to vindicate or
recognize a right that has been violated, in order to preclude further contest thereof; and not
for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. An award of
compensatory damages is a vindication of a right. It is in itself a recognition that plaintiff’s
right was violated, hence, the award of nominal damages is unnecessary and improper. (Vda.
De Medina vs. Cresencia, 99 SCRA 506, 510 [1956]).
TEMPERATE OR MODERATE DAMAGES

Article 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than
compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been
suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of the case, be provided with certainty.

Article 2225. Temperate damages must be reasonable under the circumstances.

Elements of Temperate Damages

1. Some pecuniary loss;

2. Loss is incapable of pecuniary estimation; and
3. The damages awarded are reasonable.

Nature of temperate damages

The allowance of temperate damages when actual damages were not adequately proven is
ultimately a rule drawn from equity, the principle affording relief to those definitely injured
who are unable to prove how definite the injury (Equitable PCI Bank v. Tan, G.R. No. 165339,
August 23, 2010).

Temperate damages may be awarded in the following cases:

1. In lieu of actual damages; or

2. In lieu of loss of earning capacity.

Rationale behind the temperate or moderate damages

The rationale behind temperate damages is precisely that from the nature of the case, definite
proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered. When the court is convinced that there has been
such loss, the judge is empowered to calculate moderate damages, rather than let the
complainant suffer without redress from the defendant’s wrongful act (GSIS v. Spouses Labung
Deang, G.R. No. 135644, September 17, 2001).

In Rogelio E. Ramos, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. (G.R. No. 124354, December 29, 1999) the
Supreme Court sustained the award of temperate damages to answer for the anticipated
increase in future medical expenses. The Supreme Court observed that our present laws on
actual damages cannot cover such adjustments because our rules (on actual or compensatory
damages) generally assume that at the time of litigation, the injury suffered as a consequence
of an act of negligence has been completed and that the cost can be liquidated. However,
these provisions neglect to take into account those situations, where the resulting injury
might be continuing and possible future complications directly arising from the injury, while
certain to occur, are difficult to predict. The Court concluded that temperate damages should
be awarded to meet pecuniary loss certain to be suffered but which could not, from the
nature of the case, be made with certainty. In other words, temperate damages can and
should be awarded on top of actual or compensatory damages in instances where the injury is
chronic and continuing. And because of the unique nature of such cases, no incompatibility
arises when both actual and temperate damages are provided for.
Cases:
ROGELIO E. RAMOS and ERLINDA RAMOS, et al, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et. al
G.R. No. 124354 (December 29, 1999)

FACTS:

The victim in this case was rendered comatose by medical malpractice. The trial court awarded
a total of P632,000.00 pesos (should be P616,000.00) in compensatory damages to the
plaintiff, "subject to its being updated" covering the period from 15 November 1985 up to 15
April 1992, based on monthly expenses for the care of the patient estimated at P8,000.00.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the award of temperate damages to answer for the anticipated increase in
future medical expenses be sustained.

RULING:

Yes.

Well-settled is the rule that actual damages which may be claimed by the plaintiff are those
suffered by him as he has duly proved. The Civil Code provides:

Art. 2199. — Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate

compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such
compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages.

Ideally, a comatose patient should remain in a hospital or be transferred to a hospice

specializing in the care of the chronically ill for the purpose of providing a proper milieu
adequate to meet minimum standards of care. In the instant case for instance, Erlinda has to
be constantly turned from side to side to prevent bedsores and hypostatic pneumonia.
Feeding is done by nasogastric tube. Food preparation should be normally made by a
dietitian to provide her with the correct daily caloric requirements and vitamin supplements.
Furthermore, she has to be seen on a regular basis by a physical therapist to avoid muscle
atrophy, and by a pulmonary therapist to prevent the accumulation of secretions which can
lead to respiratory complications.

Given these considerations, the amount of actual damages recoverable in suits arising from
negligence should at least reflect the correct minimum cost of proper care, not the cost of the
care the family is usually compelled to undertake at home to avoid bankruptcy. However, the
provisions of the Civil Code on actual or compensatory damages present us with some
difficulties.

Our rules on actual or compensatory damages generally assume that at the time of litigation,
the injury suffered as a consequence of an act of negligence has been completed and that the
cost can be liquidated. However, these provisions neglect to take into account those
situations, as in this case, where the resulting injury might be continuing and possible future
complications directly arising from the injury, while certain to occur, are difficult to predict.

In these cases, the amount of damages which should be awarded, if they are to adequately
and correctly respond to the injury caused, should be one which compensates for pecuniary
loss incurred and proved, up to the time of trial; and one which would meet pecuniary loss
certain to be suffered but which could not, from the nature of the case, be made with
certainty. 80 In other words, temperate damages can and should be awarded on top of actual
or compensatory damages in instances where the injury is chronic and continuing. And
because of the unique nature of such cases, no incompatibility arises when both actual and
temperate damages are provided for. The reason is that these damages cover two distinct
phases.

As it would not be equitable — and certainly not in the best interests of the administration of
justice — for the victim in such cases to constantly come before the courts and invoke their
aid in seeking adjustments to the compensatory damages previously awarded — temperate
damages are appropriate. The amount given as temperate damages, though to a certain
extent speculative, should take into account the cost of proper care.

In the instant case, petitioners were able to provide only home-based nursing care for a
comatose patient who has remained in that condition for over a decade. Having premised our
award for compensatory damages on the amount provided by petitioners at the onset of
litigation, it would be now much more in step with the interests of justice if the value awarded
for temperate damages would allow petitioners to provide optimal care for their loved one in
a facility which generally specializes in such care. They should not be compelled by dire
circumstances to provide substandard care at home without the aid of professionals, for
anything less would be grossly inadequate. Under the circumstances, an award of
P1,500,000.00 in temperate damages would therefore be reasonable. 81

ARANETA v. BANK OF AMERICA

G.R. No. L-25414 (July 30, 1971)

FACTS:

On June 30, 1961, Araneta issued a check for $500 payable to cash and drawn against Bank of
America (BOA). At the time he had a credit balance of $532.81 in his account. However when
the check was received by the bank on September 8, 1961,it was dishonored and stamped
“Account Closed”. Upon inquiry by Araneta, BOA admitted that it was an error, and sent an
apology to the payee of said check Harry Gregory of Hongkong.

On May 25 and 31, 1962, Araneta issued check 110 for $500 and check 111 for $150 both
payable to cash, both drawn against BOA. Despite the sufficiency of Araneta’s funds, both
checks were also dishonored and stamped “Account Closed.”

Araneta thus sent a letter to BOA demanding damages in the sum of $20,000. The bank, while
admitting responsibility offered to pay only P2,000. On December 11, 1962, Araneta filed a
complaint against bank of America for P120,000 for:

Actual or compensatory Damages – P30,000

Moral damages – P20,000

Temperate damages – P50,000

Exemplary Damages – P10,000

 Attorney’s fees –P10,000

The Trial Court awarded all items prayed for, but the Court of Appeals eliminated the award of
compensatory and temperate damages and reduced moral damages to P8,000, exemplary
damages to P1,000 and attorney’s fees to P1,000.

ISSUE:

Whether or not temperate damages can be awarded without proof of actual pecuniary loss?

RULING:

Yes. Judgment modified. Temperate damages is increased to P5,000.

The Code Commission, in explaining the concept of temperate damages under Article 2224,
makes the following comment:

In some States of the American Union, temperate damages are allowed. There
are cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot
be offered, although the court is convinced that there has been such loss. For
instance, injury to one's commercial credit or to the goodwill of a business firm is
often hard to show with certainty in terms of money. Should damages be denied for
that reason? The judge should be empowered to calculate moderate damages in
such cases, rather than that the plaintiff should suffer, without redress from the
defendant's wrongful act.

The petitioner, as found by the Court of Appeals, is a merchant of long standing and good
reputation in the Philippines. Some of his record is cited in the decision appealed from. The
Supreme Court are of the opinion that his claim for temperate damages is legally justified.
Considering all the circumstances, including the rather small size of the petitioner's account
with the respondent, the amounts of the checks which were wrongfully dishonored, and the
fact that the respondent tried to rectify the error soon after it was discovered, although the
rectification came after the damage had been caused, the court believe that an award of
P5,000 by way of temperate damages is sufficient.