Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Baguio City

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 179337 April 30, 2008

JOSEPH SALUDAGA, petitioner,

vs.
FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY and EDILBERTO C. DE JESUS in his capacity as President of
FEU, respondents.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the June 29, 2007
Decision2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 87050, nullifying and setting aside the
November 10, 2004 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 2, in Civil Case No. 98-
89483 and dismissing the complaint filed by petitioner; as well as its August 23, 2007
Resolution4 denying the Motion for Reconsideration.5

The antecedent facts are as follows:

Petitioner Joseph Saludaga was a sophomore law student of respondent Far Eastern University
(FEU) when he was shot by Alejandro Rosete (Rosete), one of the security guards on duty at the
school premises on August 18, 1996. Petitioner was rushed to FEU-Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical
Foundation (FEU-NRMF) due to the wound he sustained.6 Meanwhile, Rosete was brought to the
police station where he explained that the shooting was accidental. He was eventually released
considering that no formal complaint was filed against him.

Petitioner thereafter filed a complaint for damages against respondents on the ground that they
breached their obligation to provide students with a safe and secure environment and an
atmosphere conducive to learning. Respondents, in turn, filed a Third-Party Complaint7 against
Galaxy Development and Management Corporation (Galaxy), the agency contracted by respondent
FEU to provide security services within its premises and Mariano D. Imperial (Imperial), Galaxy's
President, to indemnify them for whatever would be adjudged in favor of petitioner, if any; and to pay
attorney's fees and cost of the suit. On the other hand, Galaxy and Imperial filed a Fourth-Party
Complaint against AFP General Insurance.8

On November 10, 2004, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of petitioner, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, from the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered ordering:

1. FEU and Edilberto de Jesus, in his capacity as president of FEU to pay jointly and
severally Joseph Saludaga the amount of P35,298.25 for actual damages with 12%
interest per annum from the filing of the complaint until fully paid; moral damages of
P300,000.00, exemplary damages of P500,000.00, attorney's fees of P100,000.00
and cost of the suit;
 2. Galaxy Management and Development Corp. and its president, Col. Mariano
Imperial to indemnify jointly and severally 3rd party plaintiffs (FEU and Edilberto de
Jesus in his capacity as President of FEU) for the above-mentioned amounts;

3. And the 4th party complaint is dismissed for lack of cause of action. No
pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.9

Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals which rendered the assailed Decision, the decretal
portion of which provides, viz:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated November 10, 2004 is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint filed by Joseph Saludaga against
appellant Far Eastern University and its President in Civil Case No. 98-89483 is
DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.10

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied; hence, the instant petition based on
the following grounds:

THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN MANNER CONTRARY TO LAW AND

JURISPRUDENCE IN RULING THAT:

5.1. THE SHOOTING INCIDENT IS A FORTUITOUS EVENT;

5.2. RESPONDENTS ARE NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR THE INJURY RESULTING
FROM A GUNSHOT WOUND SUFFERED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE HANDS OF
NO LESS THAN THEIR OWN SECURITY GUARD IN VIOLATION OF THEIR BUILT-IN
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO PETITIONER, BEING THEIR LAW STUDENT AT THAT
TIME, TO PROVIDE HIM WITH A SAFE AND SECURE EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT;

5.3. SECURITY GAURD, ALEJANDRO ROSETE, WHO SHOT PETITIONER WHILE HE

WAS WALKING ON HIS WAY TO THE LAW LIBRARY OF RESPONDENT FEU IS NOT
THEIR EMPLOYEE BY VIRTUE OF THE CONTRACT FOR SECURITY SERVICES
BETWEEN GALAXY AND FEU NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT PETITIONER, NOT
BEING A PARTY TO IT, IS NOT BOUND BY THE SAME UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OF
RELATIVITY OF CONTRACTS; and

5.4. RESPONDENT EXERCISED DUE DILIGENCE IN SELECTING GALAXY AS THE

AGENCY WHICH WOULD PROVIDE SECURITY SERVICES WITHIN THE PREMISES OF
RESPONDENT FEU.11

Petitioner is suing respondents for damages based on the alleged breach of student-school contract
for a safe learning environment. The pertinent portions of petitioner's Complaint read:

6.0. At the time of plaintiff's confinement, the defendants or any of their representative did
not bother to visit and inquire about his condition. This abject indifference on the part of the
defendants continued even after plaintiff was discharged from the hospital when not even a
word of consolation was heard from them. Plaintiff waited for more than one (1) year for the
 defendants to perform their moral obligation but the wait was fruitless. This indifference and
total lack of concern of defendants served to exacerbate plaintiff's miserable condition.

xxxx

11.0. Defendants are responsible for ensuring the safety of its students while the latter are
within the University premises. And that should anything untoward happens to any of its
students while they are within the University's premises shall be the responsibility of the
defendants. In this case, defendants, despite being legally and morally bound, miserably
failed to protect plaintiff from injury and thereafter, to mitigate and compensate plaintiff for
said injury;

12.0. When plaintiff enrolled with defendant FEU, a contract was entered into between them.
Under this contract, defendants are supposed to ensure that adequate steps are taken to
provide an atmosphere conducive to study and ensure the safety of the plaintiff while inside
defendant FEU's premises. In the instant case, the latter breached this contract when
defendant allowed harm to befall upon the plaintiff when he was shot at by, of all people,
their security guard who was tasked to maintain peace inside the campus.12

In Philippine School of Business Administration v. Court of Appeals,13 we held that:

When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment, there is established a contract
between them, resulting in bilateral obligations which both parties are bound to comply with.
For its part, the school undertakes to provide the student with an education that would
presumably suffice to equip him with the necessary tools and skills to pursue higher
education or a profession. On the other hand, the student covenants to abide by the school's
academic requirements and observe its rules and regulations.

Institutions of learning must also meet the implicit or "built-in" obligation of providing their
students with an atmosphere that promotes or assists in attaining its primary undertaking of
imparting knowledge. Certainly, no student can absorb the intricacies of physics or higher
mathematics or explore the realm of the arts and other sciences when bullets are flying or
grenades exploding in the air or where there looms around the school premises a constant
threat to life and limb. Necessarily, the school must ensure that adequate steps are taken to
maintain peace and order within the campus premises and to prevent the breakdown
thereof.14

It is undisputed that petitioner was enrolled as a sophomore law student in respondent FEU. As
such, there was created a contractual obligation between the two parties. On petitioner's part, he
was obliged to comply with the rules and regulations of the school. On the other hand, respondent
FEU, as a learning institution is mandated to impart knowledge and equip its students with the
necessary skills to pursue higher education or a profession. At the same time, it is obliged to ensure
and take adequate steps to maintain peace and order within the campus.

It is settled that in culpa contractual, the mere proof of the existence of the contract and the failure of
its compliance justify, prima facie, a corresponding right of relief.15 In the instant case, we find that,
when petitioner was shot inside the campus by no less the security guard who was hired to maintain
peace and secure the premises, there is a prima facie showing that respondents failed to comply
with its obligation to provide a safe and secure environment to its students.

In order to avoid liability, however, respondents aver that the shooting incident was a fortuitous event
because they could not have reasonably foreseen nor avoided the accident caused by Rosete as he
was not their employee;16and that they complied with their obligation to ensure a safe learning
environment for their students by having exercised due diligence in selecting the security services of
Galaxy.

After a thorough review of the records, we find that respondents failed to discharge the burden of
proving that they exercised due diligence in providing a safe learning environment for their students.
They failed to prove that they ensured that the guards assigned in the campus met the requirements
stipulated in the Security Service Agreement. Indeed, certain documents about Galaxy were
presented during trial; however, no evidence as to the qualifications of Rosete as a security guard
for the university was offered.

Respondents also failed to show that they undertook steps to ascertain and confirm that the security
guards assigned to them actually possess the qualifications required in the Security Service
Agreement. It was not proven that they examined the clearances, psychiatric test results, 201 files,
and other vital documents enumerated in its contract with Galaxy. Total reliance on the security
agency about these matters or failure to check the papers stating the qualifications of the guards is
negligence on the part of respondents. A learning institution should not be allowed to completely
relinquish or abdicate security matters in its premises to the security agency it hired. To do so would
result to contracting away its inherent obligation to ensure a safe learning environment for its
students.

Consequently, respondents' defense of force majeure must fail. In order for force majeure to be
considered, respondents must show that no negligence or misconduct was committed that may have
occasioned the loss. An act of God cannot be invoked to protect a person who has failed to take
steps to forestall the possible adverse consequences of such a loss. One's negligence may have
concurred with an act of God in producing damage and injury to another; nonetheless, showing that
the immediate or proximate cause of the damage or injury was a fortuitous event would not exempt
one from liability. When the effect is found to be partly the result of a person's participation - whether
by active intervention, neglect or failure to act - the whole occurrence is humanized and removed
from the rules applicable to acts of God.17

Article 1170 of the Civil Code provides that those who are negligent in the performance of their
obligations are liable for damages. Accordingly, for breach of contract due to negligence in providing
a safe learning environment, respondent FEU is liable to petitioner for damages. It is essential in the
award of damages that the claimant must have satisfactorily proven during the trial the existence of
the factual basis of the damages and its causal connection to defendant's acts.18

In the instant case, it was established that petitioner spent P35,298.25 for his hospitalization and
other medical expenses.19 While the trial court correctly imposed interest on said amount, however,
the case at bar involves an obligation arising from a contract and not a loan or forbearance of
money. As such, the proper rate of legal interest is six percent (6%) per annum of the amount
demanded. Such interest shall continue to run from the filing of the complaint until the finality of this
Decision.20 After this Decision becomes final and executory, the applicable rate shall be twelve
percent (12%) per annum until its satisfaction.

The other expenses being claimed by petitioner, such as transportation expenses and those incurred
in hiring a personal assistant while recuperating were however not duly supported by receipts.21 In
the absence thereof, no actual damages may be awarded. Nonetheless, temperate damages under
Art. 2224 of the Civil Code may be recovered where it has been shown that the claimant suffered
some pecuniary loss but the amount thereof cannot be proved with certainty. Hence, the amount of
P20,000.00 as temperate damages is awarded to petitioner.
As regards the award of moral damages, there is no hard and fast rule in the determination of what
would be a fair amount of moral damages since each case must be governed by its own peculiar
circumstances.22 The testimony of petitioner about his physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety, and moral shock resulting from the shooting incident23 justify the award of moral
damages. However, moral damages 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 award is not
meant to enrich the complainant at the expense of the defendant, but to enable the injured party to
obtain means, diversion, or amusements that will serve to obviate the moral suffering he has
undergone. It is aimed at the restoration, within the limits of the possible, of the spiritual status quo
ante, and should be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. Trial courts must then guard against the
award of exorbitant damages; they should exercise balanced restrained and measured objectivity to
avoid suspicion that it was due to passion, prejudice, or corruption on the part of the trial court.24 We
deem it just and reasonable under the circumstances to award petitioner moral damages in the
amount of P100,000.00.

Likewise, attorney's fees and litigation expenses in the amount of P50,000.00 as part of damages is
reasonable in view of Article 2208 of the Civil Code.25 However, the award of exemplary damages is
deleted considering the absence of proof that respondents acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oppressive, or malevolent manner.

We note that the trial court held respondent De Jesus solidarily liable with respondent FEU.
In Powton Conglomerate, Inc. v. Agcolicol,26 we held that:

[A] corporation is invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from those of the
persons composing it, such that, save for certain exceptions, corporate officers who entered
into contracts in behalf of the corporation cannot be held personally liable for the liabilities of
the latter. Personal liability of a corporate director, trustee or officer along (although not
necessarily) with the corporation may so validly attach, as a rule, only when - (1) he assents
to a patently unlawful act of the corporation, or when he is guilty of bad faith or gross
negligence in directing its affairs, or when there is a conflict of interest resulting in damages
to the corporation, its stockholders or other persons; (2) he consents to the issuance of
watered down stocks or who, having knowledge thereof, does not forthwith file with the
corporate secretary his written objection thereto; (3) he agrees to hold himself personally and
solidarily liable with the corporation; or (4) he is made by a specific provision of law
personally answerable for his corporate action.27

None of the foregoing exceptions was established in the instant case; hence, respondent De Jesus
should not be held solidarily liable with respondent FEU.

Incidentally, although the main cause of action in the instant case is the breach of the school-student
contract, petitioner, in the alternative, also holds respondents vicariously liable under Article 2180 of
the Civil Code, which provides:

Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts
or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

xxxx

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in
any business or industry.
 xxxx

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned
prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

We agree with the findings of the Court of Appeals that respondents cannot be held liable for
damages under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code because respondents are not the employers of Rosete.
The latter was employed by Galaxy. The instructions issued by respondents' Security Consultant to
Galaxy and its security guards are ordinarily no more than requests commonly envisaged in the
contract for services entered into by a principal and a security agency. They cannot be construed as
the element of control as to treat respondents as the employers of Rosete.28

As held in Mercury Drug Corporation v. Libunao:29

In Soliman, Jr. v. Tuazon,30 we held that where the security agency recruits, hires and
assigns the works of its watchmen or security guards to a client, the employer of such guards
or watchmen is such agency, and not the client, since the latter has no hand in selecting the
security guards. Thus, the duty to observe the diligence of a good father of a family cannot
be demanded from the said client:

… [I]t is settled in our jurisdiction that where the security agency, as here, recruits,
hires and assigns the work of its watchmen or security guards, the agency is the
employer of such guards or watchmen. Liability for illegal or harmful acts committed
by the security guards attaches to the employer agency, and not to the clients or
customers of such agency. As a general rule, a client or customer of a security
agency has no hand in selecting who among the pool of security guards or
watchmen employed by the agency shall be assigned to it; the duty to observe the
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of the guards cannot, in the
ordinary course of events, be demanded from the client whose premises or property
are protected by the security guards.

xxxx

The fact that a client company may give instructions or directions to the security guards
assigned to it, does not, by itself, render the client responsible as an employer of the security
guards concerned and liable for their wrongful acts or omissions.31

We now come to respondents' Third Party Claim against Galaxy. In Firestone Tire and Rubber
Company of the Philippines v. Tempengko,32 we held that:

The third-party complaint is, therefore, a procedural device whereby a 'third party' who is
neither a party nor privy to the act or deed complained of by the plaintiff, may be brought into
the case with leave of court, by the defendant, who acts as third-party plaintiff to enforce
against such third-party defendant a right for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any
other relief, in respect of the plaintiff's claim. The third-party complaint is actually
independent of and separate and distinct from the plaintiff's complaint. Were it not for this
provision of the Rules of Court, it would have to be filed independently and separately from
the original complaint by the defendant against the third-party. But the Rules permit
defendant to bring in a third-party defendant or so to speak, to litigate his separate cause of
action in respect of plaintiff's claim against a third-party in the original and principal case with
the object of avoiding circuitry of action and unnecessary proliferation of law suits and of
 disposing expeditiously in one litigation the entire subject matter arising from one particular
set of facts.33

Respondents and Galaxy were able to litigate their respective claims and defenses in the course of
the trial of petitioner's complaint. Evidence duly supports the findings of the trial court that Galaxy is
negligent not only in the selection of its employees but also in their supervision. Indeed, no
administrative sanction was imposed against Rosete despite the shooting incident; moreover, he
was even allowed to go on leave of absence which led eventually to his disappearance.34 Galaxy
also failed to monitor petitioner's condition or extend the necessary assistance, other than the
P5,000.00 initially given to petitioner. Galaxy and Imperial failed to make good their pledge to
reimburse petitioner's medical expenses.

For these acts of negligence and for having supplied respondent FEU with an unqualified security
guard, which resulted to the latter's breach of obligation to petitioner, it is proper to hold Galaxy liable
to respondent FEU for such damages equivalent to the above-mentioned amounts awarded to
petitioner.

Unlike respondent De Jesus, we deem Imperial to be solidarily liable with Galaxy for being grossly
negligent in directing the affairs of the security agency. It was Imperial who assured petitioner that
his medical expenses will be shouldered by Galaxy but said representations were not fulfilled
because they presumed that petitioner and his family were no longer interested in filing a formal
complaint against them.35

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The June 29, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 87050 nullifying the Decision of the trial court and dismissing the complaint as well
as the August 23, 2007 Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 2, in Civil Case No. 98-
89483 finding respondent FEU liable for damages for breach of its obligation to provide students with
a safe and secure learning atmosphere, is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:

a. respondent Far Eastern University (FEU) is ORDERED to pay petitioner actual damages in the
amount of P35,298.25, plus 6% interest per annum from the filing of the complaint until the finality of
this Decision. After this decision becomes final and executory, the applicable rate shall be twelve
percent (12%) per annum until its satisfaction;

b. respondent FEU is also ORDERED to pay petitioner temperate damages in the amount of
P20,000.00; moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00; and attorney's fees and litigation
expenses in the amount of P50,000.00;

c. the award of exemplary damages is DELETED.

The Complaint against respondent Edilberto C. De Jesus is DISMISSED. The counterclaims of

respondents are likewise DISMISSED.

Galaxy Development and Management Corporation (Galaxy) and its president, Mariano D. Imperial
are ORDERED to jointly and severally pay respondent FEU damages equivalent to the above-
mentioned amounts awarded to petitioner.

SO ORDERED.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 158911 March 4, 2008

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner,

vs.
MATILDE MACABAGDAL RAMOY, BIENVENIDO RAMOY, ROMANA RAMOY-RAMOS,
ROSEMARIE RAMOY, OFELIA DURIAN and CYRENE PANADO, Respondents.

DECISION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, praying that
the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated December 16, 2002, ordering petitioner Manila
Electric Company (MERALCO) to pay Leoncio Ramoy2 moral and exemplary damages and
attorney's fees, and the CA Resolution3 dated July 1, 2003, denying petitioner's motion for
reconsideration, be reversed and set aside.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 81, accurately summarized the facts as
culled from the records, thus:

The evidence on record has established that in the year 1987 the National Power Corporation (NPC)
filed with the MTC Quezon City a case for ejectment against several persons allegedly illegally
occupying its properties in Baesa, Quezon City. Among the defendants in the ejectment case was
Leoncio Ramoy, one of the plaintiffs in the case at bar. On April 28, 1989 after the defendants failed
to file an answer in spite of summons duly served, the MTC Branch 36, Quezon City rendered
judgment for the plaintiff [MERALCO] and "ordering the defendants to demolish or remove the
building and structures they built on the land of the plaintiff and to vacate the premises." In the case
of Leoncio Ramoy, the Court found that he was occupying a portion of Lot No. 72-B-2-B with the
exact location of his apartments indicated and encircled in the location map as No. 7. A copy of the
decision was furnished Leoncio Ramoy (Exhibits 2, 2-A, 2-B, 2-C, pp. 128-131, Record; TSN, July 2,
1993, p. 5).

On June 20, 1990 NPC wrote Meralco requesting for the "immediate disconnection of electric power
supply to all residential and commercial establishments beneath the NPC transmission lines along
Baesa, Quezon City (Exh. 7, p. 143, Record). Attached to the letter was a list of establishments
affected which included plaintiffs Leoncio and Matilde Ramoy (Exh. 9), as well as a copy of the court
decision (Exh. 2). After deliberating on NPC's letter, Meralco decided to comply with NPC's request
(Exhibits 6, 6-A, 6-A-1, 6-B) and thereupon issued notices of disconnection to all establishments
affected including plaintiffs Leoncio Ramoy (Exhs. 3, 3-A to 3-C), Matilde Ramoy/Matilde
Macabagdal (Exhibits 3-D to 3-E), Rosemarie Ramoy (Exh. 3-F), Ofelia Durian (Exh. 3-G), Jose
Valiza (Exh. 3-H) and Cyrene S. Panado (Exh. 3-I).

In a letter dated August 17, 1990 Meralco requested NPC for a joint survey to determine all the
establishments which are considered under NPC property in view of the fact that "the houses in the
area are very close to each other" (Exh. 12). Shortly thereafter, a joint survey was conducted and the
NPC personnel pointed out the electric meters to be disconnected (Exh. 13; TSN, October 8, 1993,
p. 7; TSN, July 1994, p. 8).

In due time, the electric service connection of the plaintiffs [herein respondents] was disconnected
(Exhibits D to G, with submarkings, pp. 86-87, Record).

Plaintiff Leoncio Ramoy testified that he and his wife are the registered owners of a parcel of land
covered by TCT No. 326346, a portion of which was occupied by plaintiffs Rosemarie Ramoy, Ofelia
Durian, Jose Valiza and Cyrene S. Panado as lessees. When the Meralco employees were
disconnecting plaintiffs' power connection, plaintiff Leoncio Ramoy objected by informing the
Meralco foreman that his property was outside the NPC property and pointing out the monuments
showing the boundaries of his property. However, he was threatened and told not to interfere by the
armed men who accompanied the Meralco employees. After the electric power in Ramoy's
apartment was cut off, the plaintiffs-lessees left the premises.

During the ocular inspection ordered by the Court and attended by the parties, it was found out that
the residence of plaintiffs-spouses Leoncio and Matilde Ramoy was indeed outside the NPC
property. This was confirmed by defendant's witness R.P. Monsale III on cross-examination (TSN,
October 13, 1993, pp. 10 and 11). Monsale also admitted that he did not inform his supervisor about
this fact nor did he recommend re-connection of plaintiffs' power supply (Ibid., p. 14).

The record also shows that at the request of NPC, defendant Meralco re-connected the electric
service of four customers previously disconnected none of whom was any of the plaintiffs (Exh. 14).4

The RTC decided in favor of MERALCO by dismissing herein respondents' claim for moral damages,
exemplary damages and attorney's fees. However, the RTC ordered MERALCO to restore the
electric power supply of respondents.

Respondents then appealed to the CA. In its Decision dated December 16, 2002, the CA faulted
MERALCO for not requiring from National Power Corporation (NPC) a writ of execution or demolition
and in not coordinating with the court sheriff or other proper officer before complying with the NPC's
request. Thus, the CA held MERALCO liable for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
MERALCO's motion for reconsideration of the Decision was denied per Resolution dated July 1,
2003.

Hence, herein petition for review on certiorari on the following grounds:

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT FOUND MERALCO NEGLIGENT WHEN
IT DISCONNECTED THE SUBJECT ELECTRIC SERVICE OF RESPONDENTS.

II

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT AWARDED MORAL AND EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES AGAINST MERALCO UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
THAT THE LATTER ACTED IN GOOD FAITH IN THE DISCONNECTION OF THE ELECTRIC
SERVICES OF THE RESPONDENTS. 5

The petition is partly meritorious.

MERALCO admits6 that respondents are its customers under a Service Contract whereby it is
obliged to supply respondents with electricity. Nevertheless, upon request of the NPC, MERALCO
disconnected its power supply to respondents on the ground that they were illegally occupying the
NPC's right of way. Under the Service Contract, "[a] customer of electric service must show his right
or proper interest over the property in order that he will be provided with and assured a continuous
electric service."7 MERALCO argues that since there is a Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MTC) of Quezon City ruling that herein respondents were among the illegal occupants of the NPC's
right of way, MERALCO was justified in cutting off service to respondents.

Clearly, respondents' cause of action against MERALCO is anchored on culpa contractual or breach
of contract for the latter's discontinuance of its service to respondents under Article 1170 of the Civil
Code which provides:

Article 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or
delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.

In Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. v. Verchez,8 the Court expounded on the nature
of culpa contractual, thus:

"In culpa contractual x x x the mere proof of the existence of the contract and the failure of its
compliance justify, prima facie, a corresponding right of relief. The law, recognizing the
obligatory force of contracts, will not permit a party to be set free from liability for any kind of
misperformance of the contractual undertaking or a contravention of the tenor thereof. A breach
upon the contract confers upon the injured party a valid cause for recovering that which may have
been lost or suffered. The remedy serves to preserve the interests of the promissee that may include
his "expectation interest," which is his interest in having the benefit of his bargain by being put in as
good a position as he would have been in had the contract been performed, or his "reliance interest,"
which is his interest in being reimbursed for loss caused by reliance on the contract by being put in
as good a position as he would have been in had the contract not been made; or his "restitution
interest," which is his interest in having restored to him any benefit that he has conferred on the
other party. Indeed, agreements can accomplish little, either for their makers or for society, unless
they are made the basis for action. The effect of every infraction is to create a new duty, that is, to
make recompense to the one who has been injured by the failure of another to observe his
contractual obligation unless he can show extenuating circumstances, like proof of his exercise of
due diligence x x x or of the attendance of fortuitous event, to excuse him from his ensuing
liability.9(Emphasis supplied)

Article 1173 also provides that the fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that
diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of
the persons, of the time and of the place. The Court emphasized in Ridjo Tape & Chemical
Corporation v. Court of Appeals10 that "as a public utility, MERALCO has the obligation to discharge
its functions with utmost care and diligence."11

The Court agrees with the CA that under the factual milieu of the present case, MERALCO failed to
exercise the utmost degree of care and diligence required of it. To repeat, it was not enough for
MERALCO to merely rely on the Decision of the MTC without ascertaining whether it had become
final and executory. Verily, only upon finality of said Decision can it be said with conclusiveness that
respondents have no right or proper interest over the subject property, thus, are not entitled to the
services of MERALCO.

Although MERALCO insists that the MTC Decision is final and executory, it never showed any
documentary evidence to support this allegation. Moreover, if it were true that the decision was final
and executory, the most prudent thing for MERALCO to have done was to coordinate with the proper
court officials in determining which structures are covered by said court order. Likewise, there is no
evidence on record to show that this was done by MERALCO.

The utmost care and diligence required of MERALCO necessitates such great degree of prudence
on its part, and failure to exercise the diligence required means that MERALCO was at fault and
negligent in the performance of its obligation. In Ridjo Tape,12 the Court explained:

[B]eing a public utility vested with vital public interest, MERALCO is impressed with certain
obligations towards its customers and any omission on its part to perform such duties would be
prejudicial to its interest. For in the final analysis, the bottom line is that those who do not exercise
such prudence in the discharge of their duties shall be made to bear the consequences of such
oversight.13

This being so, MERALCO is liable for damages under Article 1170 of the Civil Code.

The next question is: Are respondents entitled to moral and exemplary damages and attorney's
fees?

Article 2220 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court
should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to
breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.

In the present case, MERALCO wilfully caused injury to Leoncio Ramoy by withholding from him and
his tenants the supply of electricity to which they were entitled under the Service Contract. This is
contrary to public policy because, as discussed above, MERALCO, being a vital public utility, is
expected to exercise utmost care and diligence in the performance of its obligation. It was incumbent
upon MERALCO to do everything within its power to ensure that the improvements built by
respondents are within the NPC’s right of way before disconnecting their power supply. The Court
emphasized in Samar II Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Quijano14 that:

Electricity is a basic necessity the generation and distribution of which is imbued with public interest,
and its provider is a public utility subject to strict regulation by the State in the exercise of police
power. Failure to comply with these regulations will give rise to the presumption of bad faith
or abuse of right.15 (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, by analogy, MERALCO's failure to exercise utmost care and diligence in the performance of
its obligation to Leoncio Ramoy, its customer, is tantamount to bad faith. Leoncio Ramoy testified
that he suffered wounded feelings because of MERALCO's actions.16 Furthermore, due to the lack of
power supply, the lessees of his four apartments on subject lot left the premises.17 Clearly, therefore,
Leoncio Ramoy is entitled to moral damages in the amount awarded by the CA.

Leoncio Ramoy, the lone witness for respondents, was the only one who testified regarding the
effects on him of MERALCO's electric service disconnection. His co-respondents Matilde Ramoy,
Rosemarie Ramoy, Ofelia Durian and Cyrene Panado did not present any evidence of damages
they suffered.

It is a hornbook principle that damages may be awarded only if proven. In Mahinay v. Velasquez,
Jr.,18 the Court held thus:
In order that moral damages may be awarded, there must be pleading and proof of moral
suffering, mental anguish, fright and the like. While respondent alleged in his complaint that he
suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and moral shock, he failed to prove
them during the trial. Indeed, respondent should have taken the witness stand and should have
testified on the mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and other emotional and mental
suffering he purportedly suffered to sustain his claim for moral damages. Mere allegations do not
suffice; they must be substantiated by clear and convincing proof. No other person could have
proven such damages except the respondent himself as they were extremely personal to him.

In Keirulf vs. Court of Appeals, we held:

"While no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded, the
amount of indemnity being left to the discretion of the court, it is nevertheless essential that the
claimant should satisfactorily show the existence of the factual basis of damages and its causal
connection to defendant’s 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. In Francisco vs. GSIS, the Court held
that there must be clear testimony on the anguish and other forms of mental suffering. Thus, if
the plaintiff fails to take the witness stand and testify as to his/her social humiliation, wounded
feelings and anxiety, moral damages cannot be awarded. In Cocoland Development Corporation vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, the Court held that "additional facts must be pleaded and
proven to warrant the grant of moral damages under the Civil Code, these being, x x x social
humiliation, wounded feelings, grave anxiety, etc. that resulted therefrom."

x x x The award of moral damages must be anchored to a clear showing that respondent actually
experienced mental anguish, besmirched reputation, sleepless nights, wounded feelings or similar
injury. There was no better witness to this experience than respondent himself. Since respondent
failed to testify on the witness stand, the trial court did not have any factual basis to award
moral damages to him.19 (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, only respondent Leoncio Ramoy, who testified as to his wounded feelings, may be awarded
moral damages.20

With regard to exemplary damages, Article 2232 of the Civil Code provides that in contracts and
quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant, in this case MERALCO,
acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner, while Article 2233 of the
same Code provides that such damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right and the
adjudication of the same is within the discretion of the court.
1avv phi 1

The Court finds that MERALCO fell short of exercising the due diligence required, but its actions
cannot be considered wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent. Records show that
MERALCO did take some measures, i.e., coordinating with NPC officials and conducting a joint
survey of the subject area, to verify which electric meters should be disconnected although these
measures are not sufficient, considering the degree of diligence required of it. Thus, in this case,
exemplary damages should not be awarded.

Since the Court does not deem it proper to award exemplary damages in this case, then the CA's
award for attorney's fees should likewise be deleted, as Article 2208 of the Civil Code states that in
the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees cannot be recovered except in cases provided for in
said Article, to wit:
Article 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, other than
judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:

(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;

(2) When the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third
persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;

(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;

(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff;

(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the
plaintiff’s plainly valid, just and demandable claim;

(6) In actions for legal support;

(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers;

(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen’s compensation and employer’s liability laws;

(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;

(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;

(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney’s fees and
expenses of litigation should be recovered.

In all cases, the attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable.

None of the grounds for recovery of attorney's fees are present.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The award for exemplary damages and attorney's fees
is DELETED.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR: