FILIPINAS BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC., petitioner, vs.

AGO MEDICAL AND

EDUCATIONAL CENTER-BICOL CHRISTIAN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, (AMEC-
BCCM) and ANGELITA F. AGO, respondents.

Whether AMEC is entitled to moral damages

FBNI contends that AMEC is not entitled to moral damages because it is a

corporation.

A juridical person is generally not entitled to moral damages because, unlike a

natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or such sentiments as wounded
feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish or moral shock. The Court of Appeals
cites Mambulao Lumber Co. v. PNB, et al. to justify the award of moral damages.

However, the Courts statement in Mambulao that a corporation may have a good
reputation which, if besmirched, may also be a ground for the award of moral damages
is an obiter dictum.

Nevertheless, AMECs claim for moral damages falls under item 7 of Article 221 of
the Civil Code. This provision expressly authorizes the recovery of moral damages in
cases of libel, slander or any other form of defamation. Article 2219(7) does not qualify
whether the plaintiff is a natural or juridical person. Therefore, a juridical person such as
a corporation can validly complain for libel or any other form of defamation and claim for
moral damages.

Moreover, where the broadcast is libelous per se, the law implies damages. In such
a case, evidence of an honest mistake or the want of character or reputation of the party
libeled goes only in mitigation of damages. [ Neither in such a case is the plaintiff
required to introduce evidence of actual damages as a condition precedent to the
recovery of some damages. In this case, the broadcasts are libelous per se. Thus,
AMEC is entitled to moral damages.

However, we find the award of P300,000 moral damages unreasonable. The record
shows that even though the broadcasts were libelous per se, AMEC has not suffered
any substantial or material damage to its reputation. Therefore, we reduce the award of
moral damages from P300,000 to P150,000.
 HERMAN C. CRYSTAL vs. BPI

Neither is BPI entitled to moral damages. A juridical person is generally not entitled to
moral damages because, unlike a natural person, it cannot experience physical
suffering or such sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish or
moral shock. The Court of Appeals found BPI as being famous and having gained its
familiarity and respect not only in the Philippines but also in the whole world because of
its good will and good reputation must protect and defend the same against any
unwarranted suit such as the case at bench. In holding that BPI is entitled to moral
damages, the Court of Appeals relied on the case of People v. Manero, wherein the
Court ruled that [i]t is only when a juridical person has a good reputation that is
debased, resulting in social humiliation, that moral damages may be awarded.

We do not agree with the Court of Appeals. A statement similar to that made by the
Court in Manero can be found in the case of Mambulao Lumber Co. v. PNB, et al., thus:

x x x Obviously, an artificial person like herein appellant corporation cannot

experience physical sufferings, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
wounded feelings, moral shock or social humiliation which are basis of
moral damages. A corporation may have good reputation which, if
besmirched may also be a ground for the award of moral
damages. x x x (Emphasis supplied)

Nevertheless, in the more recent cases of ABS-CBN Corp. v. Court of Appeals, et

al., and Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Ago Medical and Educational Center-
Bicol Christian College of Medicine (AMEC-BCCM), the Court held that the
statements in Manero and Mambulao were mere obiter dicta, implying that the award of
moral damages to corporations is not a hard and fast rule. Indeed, while the Court may
allow the grant of moral damages to corporations, it is not automatically granted; there
must still be proof of the existence of the factual basis of the damage and its causal
relation to the defendants acts. This is so because moral damages, though incapable of
pecuniary estimation, are in the category of an award designed to compensate the
claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer.

The spouses complaint against BPI proved to be unfounded, but it does not
automatically entitle BPI to moral damages. Although the institution of a clearly
unfounded civil suit can at times be a legal justification for an award of attorney's fees,
such filing, however, has almost invariably been held not to be a ground for an award of
moral damages. The rationale for the rule is that the law could not have meant to
impose a penalty on the right to litigate. Otherwise, moral damages must every time be
awarded in favor of the prevailing defendant against an unsuccessful plaintiff. BPI may
have been inconvenienced by the suit, but we do not see how it could have possibly
suffered besmirched reputation on account of the single suit alone. Hence, the award of
moral damages should be deleted.

CIVIL CODE. Article 2217.

Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:

(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;

(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;

(4) Adultery or concubinage;

(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;

(6) Illegal search;

(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;

(8) Malicious prosecution;

(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309; (10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27,
28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35 (Article 2219, Ibid.).