Facts:

The case of Tomas Bagalay vs. Genaro Ursal was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on July 29, 1954. The plaintiff, Tomas Bagalay, initiated an action against the defendant, Genaro Ursal, who served as the City Assessor of Cebu. The plaintiff sought to recover moral damages amounting to ₱10,000 and ₱2,500 for attorney's fees and costs. The basis of the plaintiff's claim stemmed from a letter sent by the defendant, which informed him of his delinquency in the payment of realty taxes for the years 1947 to 1951 on a parcel of land assessed at ₱1,800. The total amount due, including penalties, was ₱98.45, and the letter warned that failure to pay by May 9, 1952, would result in the property being advertised for sale to satisfy the tax and penalties owed. The plaintiff alleged that the contents of the letter caused him significant mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, moral shock, and social humiliation, which he claimed besmirched his repu...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Plaintiff and Appellant: Tomas Bagalay
   • Defendant and Appellee: Genaro Ursal, City Assessor of Cebu

2. Nature of the Case:

   • The plaintiff filed an action to recover moral damages amounting to P10,000 and P2,500 for attorney's fees and costs.

3. Allegations of the Plaintiff:

   • The defendant, in his capacity as City Assessor, wrote and mailed a letter to the plaintiff informing him that he was delinquent in paying realty taxes from 1947 to 1951 on a parcel of land assessed at P1,800, amounting to P98.45, including penalties.
   • The letter warned that unless the amount was paid by May 9, 1952, the property would be advertised for sale to satisfy the tax and penalty due.
   • The plaintiff claimed that the letter caused him mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, moral shock, social humiliation, besmirched his reputation, and wounded his feelings, which he estimated at P10,000.

4. Procedural History:

   • The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it did not state a cause of action.
   • The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, and the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied.
   • The plaintiff appealed the decision.

5. Key Factual Issue:

   • The plaintiff did not allege in the complaint whether the realty tax and penalty had been paid.

Issue:

1. Whether the plaintiff's complaint states a valid cause of action for moral damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code.
2. Whether the defendant's act of writing and mailing the letter in his official capacity constitutes a basis for moral damages.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff is not entitled to recover moral damages, and the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the plaintiff.

Ratio:

1. Application of Article 27 of the Civil Code:

   • Article 27 of the Civil Code allows an action for damages if a public servant or employee refuses or neglects without just cause to perform an official duty, causing material suffering or moral loss.
   • In this case, the defendant did not refuse or neglect his official duty. On the contrary, he performed his duty by informing the plaintiff of the delinquency in realty taxes.

2. No Basis for Moral Damages:

   • The plaintiff's claim for moral damages is unfounded because the defendant's actions were within the scope of his official duties.
   • The alleged mental anguish, fright, anxiety, and other damages claimed by the plaintiff were deemed to be the result of oversensitiveness rather than any wrongful act by the defendant.

3. No Allegation of Payment:

   • The plaintiff failed to allege in the complaint whether the realty tax and penalty had been paid, which further weakens his claim for damages.

4. Conclusion:

   • The defendant's act of writing and mailing the letter was a lawful exercise of his official duty and did not constitute a basis for moral damages.