Art. 2224.

Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages,
may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the
nature of the case, be proved with certainty.

Definition of temperate damages Temperate damages are damages allowed in certain classes of cases, without proof
of actual or special damages, where the wrong done must in fact have caused actual damage to the plaintiff, though
from the nature of the case, he cannot furnish independent, distinct proof thereof. Temperate damages are more than
nominal damages, and, rather, are such as would be a reasonable compensation for the injury sustained. (Araneta
vs. Bank of America, 40 SCRA 144)

JZE: In other words when we talk about temperate damages, the basis is the same compared to actual damages.
They are both based on pecuniary lost. The only difference is that when you talk about actual damages you will be
entitled to compensation for such pecuniary loss as you have proved. So if mag present ka ng resibo or proof that will
be awarded to you. But in many cases, you may suffer pecuniary loss but the problem is you are unable to prove it,
but the court, however, is convinced that there was really an injury that was suffered, so what are you going to do
with that situation? Should we leave the parties as they are? Should we not award damages? The concept of
temperate damges was precisely developed because of this some sort of vacuum under the law.

Requirements for the award of temperate damages:

1. Definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced by the aggrieved party;

2. The court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss (Premiere Development Bank vs.
CA, G.R. No. 159352);

3. Temperate damages must be reasonable under the circumstances (Art. 2225).

Take note of the first two requisites, we should not confuse “failure to preset damages” with situations that it is
impossible and very difficult to provide proof.

The uncertainty therefore lies to the amount of temperate damages.

Take note that damages just like any cause of action can be proved however the classes of damages under the civil
code only actual or compensatory damages require proof. For the other classes…

Art. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary
damages, may be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of
the court, according to the circumstances of each case.
The same is true with respect to temperate damages. While the law does not require proof of the exact amount
suffered as pecuniary loss, it still requires the plaintiff to establish the factual basis that would justify its award.

Temperate damages are often awarded where the plaintiff has clearly suffered pecuniary loss or incurred expenses
but the plaintiff was not able to prove actual damages

 For example, A was killed by B. The heirs incurred expenses for his wake and interment but they have no
receipts to show. The Court may award temperate damages because, clearly, the heirs of A incurred these
expenses.
 Temperate damages are therefore awarded in lieu of actual damages which could not be proven with
certainty. This is, however, subject to the limitation that temperate damages, while more than nominal
damages, ought to be less than actual or compensatory damages.
 Had the heirs been able to present receipts, they would therefore be awarded more.

PEOPLE vs. DE LA TONGGA (2000)

Other than the testimony of the victim’s wife that she spent for hospital and funeral expenses, no documentary
evidence was presented by the prosecution to support this claim. To recover actual damages, it is necessary to prove
the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, on the basis of competent proof and the best
evidence obtainable by the injured party. In this case, there was no such proof to sustain the trial court’s award of
actual damages. In lieu of actual damages, accused-appellant should pay the heirs of the deceased the amount of
P15,000.00 as temperate damages.

Take note the previous case is from year 2000, in 2003 the Supreme Court came up with 25,000 or Actula Rule. This
is the rule to the effect that clearly the court is convinced that you have suffered pecuniary loss the problem is wala ka
naka present ug adequate na proof, kung nakapresent man ka the proof that you were able to present is less that
25,000 and so Jurisprudence allows the award of 25,000 if there is no evidence of Burial and funeral expenses.

PEOPLE vs. VILLANUEVA (2003)

“25,000 OR ACTUAL RULE”

The recent case of People vs. Abrazaldo allows the grant of temperate damages in the amount of P25,000 if there is
no evidence of burial and funeral expenses. This is in lieu of actual damages as it would be unfair for the victim’s
heirs to get nothing, despite thedeath of their kin, for the reason alone that they cannot produce any receipts. We also
ruled there that temperate and actual damages are mutually exclusive in that both may not be awarded at the same
time, hence, no temperate damages may be granted if actual damages have already been granted.

In the present case, only the amount of P13,100 was supported by receipts. Ordinarily, this is all Otoleo Brabante’s
heirs should be entitled to by way of actual damages. However, we find this anomalous and unfair because the
victim’s heirs who tried but succeeded in proving actual damages to the extent of P13,100 only, would be in a worse
situation than, say, those who might have presented no receipts at all but would now be entitled to P25,000
temperate damages. We therefore rule that when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less
than P25,000, as in this case, the award of damages for P25,000 is justified in lieu of actual damages of a lesser
amount. Conversely, if the amount of actual damages proven exceeds P25,000, then temperate damages may no
longer be awarded; actual damages based on the receipts presented during trial should instead be granted.

SUMMARY / “P25,000 OR ACTUAL RULE”

 If the claims proven (for hospitalization, wake or burial) are greater than P25,000, such amount will be
awarded.
 If the claims proven are less than P25,000, the amount to be awarded will be P25,000.
 If the claims are not proven by receipts at all but the court can still infer pecuniary loss, the amount to be
awarded will be P25,000.

Take note that in this case it only contemplates hospitalization, wake or burial. It does not apply to other class of
damages.

COMSAVINGS BANK vs. SPS. CAPISTRANO (2013)

The award of actual damages amounting to P25,000.00 is not warranted. To justify an award for actual damages,
there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss. Respondents did not submit any documentary proof, like
receipts, to support their claim for actual damages. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that they had suffered
substantial losses. In lieu of actual damages, therefore, temperate damages of P25,000.00 are awarded.

[It’s wrong to award P25,000 actual damages but it is right to award P25,000 temperate damages.]

Here comes the case of People vs Juguetta April 5, 2016, where the Supreme Court had the occasion to summarize
practically everything that you need to know relating to the award of damages in crimes. The Supreme Court
Tabulated everything.

In the end the Supreme Court in this case said that in all crimes resulting to death when no documentary evidence or
burial or funeral expenses were presented, the amount of 50k as temperate damages will be awarded. What happens
now to the case of People vs Abrazaldo and People vs Villanueva? That is deemed abrogated. Wala nay 25k or
Actual Rule, ang naa nlng karon is Juguetta case. The summary of the award of damages in crime *hand out.
Let’s go to the application of People vs Jugueta.

People vs Rambo

“It would be anomalous and unfair for the victim's heirs, who tried and succeeded in presenting receipts and other
evidence to prove actual damages, to receive an amount which is less than that given as temperate damages to
those who are not able to present any evidence at all.”

Here, there is a group of heirs ang napresent nila for example 20k lang, if the rule is otherwise 30k lang ilang
madawat. Now there are heirs na walay gipresent bisag isa ka evidence for the expenses incurred, but what is award
them by law is 50k. that is unfair.

In the present case, Francisco's heirs were able to prove, and were awarded, actual damages in the amount of
₱30,000.00. Since, prevailing jurisprudence now fixes the amount of ₱50,000.00 as temperate damages in murder
cases, the Court finds it proper to award temperate damages to Francisco's heirs, in lieu of actual damages.

PREMIERE DEV’T BANK vs. CA (2004)

To justify an award for actual damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss. Credence can
be given only to claims, which are duly supported by receipts. In other words, damages cannot be presumed and
courts, in making an award, must point out specific facts that can afford a basis for measuring whatever
compensatory or actual damages are borne.

Premiere’s failure to prove actual expenditure consequently conduces to a failure of its claim. In determining actual
damages, the court cannot rely on mere assertions, speculations, conjectures or guesswork but must depend on
competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable regarding the actual amount of loss. Even if not recoverable as
compensatory damages, Panacor may still be awarded damages in the concept of temperate or moderate damages.
When the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature of the case,
be proved with certainty, temperate damages may be recovered.

It is obvious that the wrongful acts of Premiere Bank adversely affected, in one way or another, the commercial credit
of Panacor, greatly contributed to, if not, decisively caused the premature stoppage of its business operations and the
consequent loss of business opportunity. Since these losses are not susceptible to pecuniary estimation, temperate
damages may be awarded. Under the circumstances, the sum of P200,000.00 as temperate damages is reasonable.

ADRIANO vs. LASALA (2013)

The owners of the building terminated its security service contract with the respondent unilaterally.

Respondent suffered pecuniary loss because of the untimely termination of their services of no cause at all. As there
is no proof capable of ascertaining the actual loss, the CA rightfully awarded temperate damages, in lieu of actual
damages. The Court finds the amount of P200,000.00 by way of temperate damages as just and reasonable.

GONZALES vs. CASURECO (2013)

Casureco unreasonably refused its electric utility from petitioners. Petitioners contend that they are entitled to
compensatory damages because of their actual expenditures in going to and from Casureco’s office in order to
forestall the disconnection of power supply. There is a listing of expenses that includes transportation and gasoline,
postage of letters, photocopying and printing of documents. No receipts were presented.

Despite the enumeration of expenditures, the claim of petitioners for actual damages cannot be granted. As admitted
by petitioners themselves, none of these expenses, which were incurred over a span of seven years, was backed up
by documentary proof such as a receipt or an invoice.

Even if the pecuniary loss suffered by the claimant is capable of proof, an award of temperate damages is not
precluded. The grant of temperate damages is drawn from equity to provide relief to those definitely injured.
Therefore, it may be allowed so long as the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss.
We deem it reasonable under the circumstances to award P3,000.
 BACOLOD vs. PEOPLE (2013)

This is an arson case. Accused was found guilty and was ordered to pay the value of the house. However, the
prosecution adduced no proof to this effect.

The Court holds that the amount of P500,000.00 in the form of temperate damages is reasonable considering that the
dwelling of the Sps. Cogtas has been completely burned down.

Loss of earning capacity

SPOUSES DIONISIO ESTRADA and JOVITA R. ESTRADA

vs.
PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. and EDUARDO R. SA YLAN

As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning
capacity. By way of exception, damages for loss [or impairment] of earning capacity may be awarded despite the
absence of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased [or the injured] was self-employed and earning less than
the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case, judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the
deceased's line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased was employed as a daily worker
earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.

It must be emphasized, though, that documentary proof of Dionisio's actual income cannot be dispensed with since
based on the above testimony, Dionisio does not fall under any of the two exceptions aforementioned. Thus, as it
stands, there is no competent proof substantiating his actual income and because of this, an award for actual
damages for loss/ impairment of earning capacity cannot be made.

Nonetheless, since it was established that Dionisio lost his right arm, temperate damages in lieu of actual damages
for loss/impairment of earning capacity may be awarded in his favor. Under Article 2224, "[t]emperate or moderate
damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court
finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with
certainty."

How to determine how much is the temperate damages (it depends upon the occupation):

Sps. Estrada vs People Occupation: Public Teacher

(2017) Awars: 500k
Tan vs OMC Occupation: Tailor
Award: 300k
Pleno vs CA (1988) Occupation: Entrepreneur, Founder of Mayon Ceramics
Award: 200k
People vs Sing (2001) Occupation: Business man
Award: 200k
People vs Almedilla Occupation: Construction Manager
(2003) Award: 20k
Victory liner vs *** Occupation: Section Chief of BIR
Award: 500k
*** 2012 Occupation: Businessman, Buy and Sell Palay and Agri Supply
Award: 500k
People vs Salahudin Occupation: Lawyer
(2016) Award: 1million

CONFUSION WITH NOMINAL

[The SC sometimes confused temperate damages with nominal damages. Remember that nominal damages are
awarded to vindicate a right while temperate damages are for compensating pecuniary loss.]
 PEOPLE vs. HAMMER (2002)

Homicide case where no proof of funeral expenses was given. The Court ruled that: the prosecution failed to present
any receipt to prove the amount of actual damages, other than the self-serving testimony of the widow. For lack of
evidentiary basis, the Court is correct in not awarding the same. It being clear, however, that the heirs of Romeo
Castillo really incurred funeral expenses, they are hereby awarded the amount of P10,000.00 by way of nominal
damages. This award is adjudicated so that a right which has been violated may be recognized or vindicated, and not
for the purpose of indemnification.

SUMALPONG vs. CA (1997)

There is no room for doubt that some species of injury was caused to the complainant because of the medical
expenses he incurred in having his wounds treated, and the loss of income due to his failure to work during his
hospitalization. However, in the absence of competent proof of the amount of actual damages, the complainant is
entitled only to nominal damages. V.V.

SOLIVEN REALTY CORP. vs. ONG (2007)

Nominal damages are recoverable where the plaintiff has suffered some injury the amount of which the evidence fails
to show. The court has the discretion to assess the nominal damages according to the circumstances of the case.

MANILA BANKING CORP. vs IAC (1984)

In the case at bar, temperate or moderate damages are proper not for indemnification of loss suffered but for the
vindication or recognition of a right violated or invaded. Considering the facts of the case under appeal, the sum of
P5,000.00 as temperate or moderate damages would suffice, plus attorney’s fees of P5,000.00

New cases:

SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. DMC-CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES, INC.

Petitioner Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation is the owner of the cargo ship M/V "Diamond Rabbit," (vessel), while
respondent DMC-Construction Resource, Inc. is the owner of coal-conveyor facility, which was destroyed when the
vessel became uncontrollable and unmanueverable during a storm.

RTC awarded respondent actual damages in the amount of P3,523,175.92

We rule that temperate, and not nominal, damages should be awarded to respondent in the amount of
P3,523,175.92.

To resolve the issue at hand, we must first determine whether there was indeed a violation of petitioner's right. In this
light, we are inclined to adopt the factual findings of the RTC and the CA as "[t]his Court has repeatedly held that
petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court may be brought only on questions of law, not on questions of
fact. Moreover, the factual findings of trial courts are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal, especially when
established by unrebutted testimonial and documentary evidence. And the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals
are conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court except when they conflict with the findings of the trial court."

In this case, two facts have been established by the appellate and trial courts: that respondent suffered a loss caused
by petitioner; and that respondent failed to sufficiently establish the amount due to him, as no actual receipt was
presented.

EXCELLENT ESSENTIALS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. EXTRA EXCEL INTERNATIONAL

PHILIPPINES, INC. (2018)

To warrant an award for temperate damages, the plaintiff must prove that he actually suffered a pecuniary loss but
cannot ascertain the exact amount of damage suffered.

In the present case, Excel Philippines bolsters claim for damages based on the decrease in its sales volume, the
decline in the number of its distributors, and the expenses it incurred during the recovery period. The total amount of
its claim is P512,693,845.63, at least half a billion of which is the loss in its sales volume.

We cannot use these figures as basis that Excel Philippines suffered losses because of Excellent Essentials'
interference. Although attributable, we cannot be sure that Excellent Essentials solely caused the decrease in Excel
Philippines sales volume. These figures were based on undocumented sales figures, summarized into a table, and
also, on the company's projections which cannot be relied upon if we were to account for loss of profits. Thus, having
no factual basis to prove a pecuniary loss on the part of Excel Philippines, we find it appropriate to delete the award
for temperate damages and award nominal damages instead.

Under Article 2221 of the Civil Code, nominal damages may be awarded in order that the plaintiff’s right, which has
been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying
the plaintiff for any loss suffered. Nominal damages are recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and
must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind or where there has been
a breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages whatsoever have been or can be shown. 48 In a
number of cases, this Court has awarded nominal damages because there was no substantial injury on the plaintiff
but there was definitely a legal right violated.49

Given the circumstances, we believe the amount of P50,000,000.00, or 30% of the award for temperate damages, is
just and reasonable as nominal damages.

Summary:

Claim What plaintiff should do Damages award

Plaintiff claims the her suffered
pecuniary loss
Presents proof
Plaintiff presented no viable proof or
presented proof but it is not enough
Established the fact of the basis of
damages (Someone actually died)
Failed to prove pecuniary loss but
there is a legal right violated
The court should award ACTUAL
damages (Kay na prove man niya)
but the court is convinced that he
suffered pecuniary loss
TEMPERATE DAMAGES
NOMINAL DAMGES

SUMMARY

Are temperate damages and actual damages mutually exclusive? By nature, these classes of damages cannot be
awarded together in one case. If there is pecuniary loss and it can be proven, the court awards actual damages as
can be proven by the plaintiff. If there is pecuniary loss but it is of such nature that it cannot be proven with certainty
by material evidence, the court awards temperate damages

Since the basis for the award of is the same – pecuniary loss, the general rule is that they cannot be awarded
together in the same case. An exception to the general rule is when the damages awarded refer to two distinct
phases (i.e., actual expenses and prospective expenses, when proper), both actual and temperate damages may be
awarded.

GR: Nominal and temperate damages cannot be awarded together.

Exception: When the damages awarded refer to two distinct phases

RAMOS vs. CA (1999)

In other words, temperate damages can and should be awarded on top of actual or compensatory damages in
instances where the injury is chronic and continuing. And because of the unique nature of such cases, no
incompatibility arises when both actual and temperate damages are provided for. The reason is that these damages
cover two distinct phases.

As it would not be equitable – and certainly not in the best interests of the administration of justice – for the victim in
such cases to constantly come before the courts and invoke their aid in seeking adjustments to the compensatory
damages previously awarded – temperate damages are appropriate. The amount given as temperate damages,
though to a certain extent speculative, should take into account the cost of proper care.

Liquidates damges

Art. 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach
thereof.
Liquidated damages (also referred to as liquidated and ascertained damages) are damages whose
amount the parties designate during the formation of a contract for the injured party to collect as
compensation upon a specific breach (e.g., late performance).

Word play “Liquidate” comes from the Latin “liquidat”, made clear. As used in the Civil Code, liquidated
means ascertained or predetermined.

Nature

Also referred to as PENALTY CLAUSE, it is an accessory undertaking to assume greater liability on the
part of an obligor in case of breach of an obligation. (Ruiz vs. CA, 2003)

Example: A hires B to build house for P10,000,000. The parties stipulate that the house should be
completed within 1 year from ground-breaking. In case B does not finish construction within the
stipulated period, B shall be liable to pay A the amount of P5,000 per day of delay.

Functions

A stipulation for liquidated damages is attached to an obligation in order to ensure performance and has
a double function:

1. To provide for liquidated damages, and

2. To strengthen the coercive force of the obligation by the threat of greater responsibility in the event
of breach. (Atlantic Erectors vs. CA, 2012)

Effects Of Stipulation

The amount agreed upon already answers for damages suffered by the creditor due to the breach of
obligations by the debtor.

Proof of pecuniary loss is dispensed with. The obligor would be bound to pay the stipulated amount of
indemnity without the necessity of proof on the existence and measure of damages caused by the
breach. (Sps. Mallari vs. Prudential Bank, 2013)