Title
Francisco vs. Ferrer, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 142029
Decision Date
Feb 28, 2001
A wedding cake was undelivered due to negligence, causing distress. Court awarded nominal damages for breach of contract, rejecting moral and exemplary damages due to lack of bad faith.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 142029)

Relevant Facts

On November 19, 1992, Rebecca Lo and her daughter Annette Ferrer formally ordered a three-layer wedding cake from Fountainhead Bakeshop for delivery on December 14, 1992, at the Cebu Country Club. They made an initial deposit of P1,000 and subsequently paid the full amount. However, on the wedding day, the cake could not be delivered, leading to considerable distress for the respondents. Despite assurances from the bakery regarding delivery delays, they were ultimately informed that no cake would be delivered due to a lost order slip. An inadequate substitute cake was procured under distress, and when the ordered cake finally arrived, it was found to be a two-layered version rather than the agreed three-layered cake.

Procedural History

On March 12, 1993, the respondents filed an action for breach of contract with damages against the petitioners in the Regional Trial Court in Cebu City. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents on May 19, 1995, awarding them P3,175 as the cost of the wedding cake, P30,000 in moral damages, P10,000 in attorney’s fees, and costs of litigation. The petitioners subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on July 5, 1999, modified the trial court's decision by increasing the moral damages award to P250,000 and adding P100,000 in exemplary damages.

Legal Issues

The main legal issues presented to the appellate court were whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the award of moral damages and whether its justification for awarding exemplary damages was valid. The petitioners contended that the courts below had misapplied the standards for awarding moral damages as established in prevailing law.

Standard for Moral Damages

Under Article 2219 of the Civil Code, moral damages can be recovered in breach of contract cases where the breach was a result of actions that are "palpably wanton, reckless, malicious, in bad faith, oppressive or abusive." The Supreme Court emphasized that not merely suffering mental anguish is sufficient; rather, claimants must offer clear evidence of bad faith or gross negligence. Consequently, the Court found that the respondents failed to establish any wrongful intent or conduct on the part of the petitioners which would merit an award for moral damages.

Analysis of Exemplary Damages

Exemplary damages are awarded to deter wrongful conduct and must be grounded in the existence of bad faith or wanton behavior. The Court scrutinized the basis upon which the Court of Appeals awarded such damages and concluded that the actions of the petitioners, while negligent, did not rise to the level necessary for an exemplary damages award. The Court reiterated that moral damages, which serve to compensate for actu

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.