Title
ExpertTravel and Tours, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 130030
Decision Date
Jun 25, 1999
Travel agency sued client for unpaid tickets; client proved payment via authorized agent. Court ruled payment valid, denied moral damages for unfounded suit.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 161110)

Factual Background

On October 7, 1987, Expertravel issued tickets to Ricardo Lo and later claimed non-payment of the due amount. Despite several demand letters sent by Expertravel to Lo, payment was allegedly ignored. Consequently, Expertravel filed a complaint for recovery of the amount due plus damages in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Lo refuted the allegations, asserting that the account was fully settled through a payment made via a check issued to the then Chairperson of Expertravel, Ms. Ma. Rocio de Vega. The trial court found in favor of Lo, leading to the dismissal of Expertravel's complaint and an award of moral damages and attorney's fees to Lo.

Court Decisions

The Regional Trial Court ruled on November 7, 1994, to dismiss Expertravel's suit, concluding that the payment received by Ms. de Vega was valid and binding on Expertravel, regardless of any lacking authority. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision on March 20, 1997, prompting Expertravel to file the present petition for review.

Legal Issues Presented

Expertravel presented two primary legal questions to the Supreme Court: (1) Whether moral damages can be recovered in a clearly unfounded suit, and (2) If moral damages can be awarded for negligence or quasi-delict that did not result in physical injury to the offended party.

Analysis of Moral Damages

The Supreme Court articulated that moral damages serve a compensatory function and aim to alleviate the mental anguish and emotional distress suffered by individuals due to wrongful acts or omissions. These damages are distinct from punitive damages and should be proportional to the suffering caused. For the recovery of moral damages, certain conditions must be met: there must be a sustained injury, a culpable act factually established, a proximate causation between the act and injury, and their basis must align with legal provisions outlined in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.

Principles Governing Moral Damages

Under the Civil Code, moral damages may be awarded in cases of breach of contract where bad faith or gross negligence is demonstrated. Specifically, moral damages in contractual breaches necessitate evidence of wrongful acts or omissions that caused injury, while in quasi-delict situations, merited claims may arise from situations involving either physical injury or intentional torts.

Judicial Precedent on Unfounded Lawsuits

The Supreme Court highlighted that although the initiation of unfounded civil suits could justify an award of attorney's fees, such grounds typically do not suffice for claiming moral damages. The rationale behind this is that the law does not intend to penalize the act of litigation itself, as the emotional distress incurred from being a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.