Wassmer V Velez 12 SCRA 648
Wassmer V Velez 12 SCRA 648
SUPREME COURT
Manila Sued by Beatriz for damages, Velez filed no answer and was declared in
default. Plaintiff adduced evidence before the clerk of court as
EN BANC commissioner, and on April 29, 1955, judgment was rendered ordering
defendant to pay plaintiff P2,000.00 as actual damages; P25,000.00 as
G.R. No. L-20089 December 26, 1964 moral and exemplary damages; P2,500.00 as attorney's fees; and the
costs.
BEATRIZ P. WASSMER, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. On June 21, 1955 defendant filed a "petition for relief from orders,
FRANCISCO X. VELEZ, defendant-appellant. judgment and proceedings and motion for new trial and reconsideration."
Plaintiff moved to strike it cut. But the court, on August 2, 1955, ordered
Jalandoni & Jamir for defendant-appellant. the parties and their attorneys to appear before it on August 23, 1955 "to
Samson S. Alcantara for plaintiff-appellee. explore at this stage of the proceedings the possibility of arriving at an
amicable settlement." It added that should any of them fail to appear "the
petition for relief and the opposition thereto will be deemed submitted for
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
resolution."
The facts that culminated in this case started with dreams and hopes,
On August 23, 1955 defendant failed to appear before court. Instead, on
followed by appropriate planning and serious endeavors, but terminated
the following day his counsel filed a motion to defer for two weeks the
in frustration and, what is worse, complete public humiliation.
resolution on defendants petition for relief. The counsel stated that he
would confer with defendant in Cagayan de Oro City — the latter's
Francisco X. Velez and Beatriz P. Wassmer, following their mutual residence — on the possibility of an amicable element. The court granted
promise of love, decided to get married and set September 4, 1954 as two weeks counted from August 25, 1955.
the big day. On September 2, 1954 Velez left this note for his bride-to-be:
Plaintiff manifested on June 15, 1956 that the two weeks given by the
Dear Bet — court had expired on September 8, 1955 but that defendant and his
counsel had failed to appear.
Will have to postpone wedding — My mother opposes it.
Am leaving on the Convair today. Another chance for amicable settlement was given by the court in its
order of July 6, 1956 calling the parties and their attorneys to appear on
Please do not ask too many people about the reason why July 13, 1956. This time. however, defendant's counsel informed the
— That would only create a scandal. court that chances of settling the case amicably were nil.
Paquing On July 20, 1956 the court issued an order denying defendant's aforesaid
petition. Defendant has appealed to this Court. In his petition of June 21,
But the next day, September 3, he sent her the following telegram: 1955 in the court a quo defendant alleged excusable negligence as
ground to set aside the judgment by default. Specifically, it was stated
NOTHING CHANGED REST ASSURED RETURNING that defendant filed no answer in the belief that an amicable settlement
VERY SOON APOLOGIZE MAMA PAPA LOVE . was being negotiated.
PAKING A petition for relief from judgment on grounds of fraud, accident, mistake
or excusable negligence, must be duly supported by an affidavit of merits
stating facts constituting a valid defense. (Sec. 3, Rule 38, Rules of accessories, was bought. Bridal showers were given and gifts received
Court.) Defendant's affidavit of merits attached to his petition of June 21, (Tsn., 6; Exh. E). And then, with but two days before the wedding,
1955 stated: "That he has a good and valid defense against plaintiff's defendant, who was then 28 years old,: simply left a note for plaintiff
cause of action, his failure to marry the plaintiff as scheduled having been stating: "Will have to postpone wedding — My mother opposes it ... " He
due to fortuitous event and/or circumstances beyond his control." An enplaned to his home city in Mindanao, and the next day, the day before
affidavit of merits like this stating mere conclusions or opinions instead of the wedding, he wired plaintiff: "Nothing changed rest assured returning
facts is not valid. (Cortes vs. Co Bun Kim, L-3926, Oct. 10, 1951; soon." But he never returned and was never heard from again.
Vaswani vs. P. Tarrachand Bros., L-15800, December 29, 1960.)
Surely this is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. As stated,
Defendant, however, would contend that the affidavit of merits was in fact mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to
unnecessary, or a mere surplusage, because the judgment sought to be formally set a wedding and go through all the above-described
set aside was null and void, it having been based on evidence adduced preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is
before the clerk of court. In Province of Pangasinan vs. Palisoc, L-16519, about to be solemnized, is quite different. This is palpably and
October 30, 1962, this Court pointed out that the procedure of unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which defendant must be held
designating the clerk of court as commissioner to receive evidence is answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21 aforesaid.
sanctioned by Rule 34 (now Rule 33) of the Rules of Court. Now as to
defendant's consent to said procedure, the same did not have to be Defendant urges in his afore-stated petition that the damages awarded
obtained for he was declared in default and thus had no standing in court were excessive. No question is raised as to the award of actual damages.
(Velez vs. Ramas, 40 Phil. 787; Alano vs. Court of First Instance, L- What defendant would really assert hereunder is that the award of moral
14557, October 30, 1959). and exemplary damages, in the amount of P25,000.00, should be totally
eliminated.
In support of his "motion for new trial and reconsideration," defendant
asserts that the judgment is contrary to law. The reason given is that Per express provision of Article 2219 (10) of the New Civil Code, moral
"there is no provision of the Civil Code authorizing" an action for breach damages are recoverable in the cases mentioned in Article 21 of said
of promise to marry. Indeed, our ruling in Hermosisima vs. Court of Code. As to exemplary damages, defendant contends that the same
Appeals (L-14628, Sept. 30, 1960), as reiterated in Estopa vs. could not be adjudged against him because under Article 2232 of the
Biansay (L-14733, Sept. 30, 1960), is that "mere breach of a promise to New Civil Code the condition precedent is that "the defendant acted in a
marry" is not an actionable wrong. We pointed out that Congress wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner." The
deliberately eliminated from the draft of the new Civil Code the provisions argument is devoid of merit as under the above-narrated circumstances
that would have it so. of this case defendant clearly acted in a "wanton ... , reckless [and]
oppressive manner." This Court's opinion, however, is that considering
It must not be overlooked, however, that the extent to which acts not the particular circumstances of this case, P15,000.00 as moral and
contrary to law may be perpetrated with impunity, is not limitless for exemplary damages is deemed to be a reasonable award.
Article 21 of said Code provides that "any person who wilfully causes loss
or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs PREMISES CONSIDERED, with the above-indicated modification, the
or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage." lower court's judgment is hereby affirmed, with costs.
The record reveals that on August 23, 1954 plaintiff and defendant Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon,
applied for a license to contract marriage, which was subsequently issued Regala, Makalintal, and Zaldivar, JJ.,concur.
(Exhs. A, A-1). Their wedding was set for September 4, 1954. Invitations
were printed and distributed to relatives, friends and acquaintances (Tsn.,
5; Exh. C). The bride-to-be's trousseau, party drsrses and other apparel
for the important occasion were purchased (Tsn., 7-8). Dresses for the
maid of honor and the flower girl were prepared. A matrimonial bed, with