"Moral damages are a form of compensation for the "physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury"50 unjustly sustained by a person.51 They are awarded when: (1) there is a physical, mental or psychological injury clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) a wrongful act or omission is factually established; (3) the act or omission is the proximate cause of the injury; and (4) the award of damages is based on any of the cases stated in Article 221952 of the Civil Code.53
This Court has sanctioned the award of moral damages m cases of bigamy based on Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code.54
Article 19 of the Civil Code sets the standards for the exercise of one's rights and performance of duties:
ARTICLE 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
This provision recognizes that even the exercise of a right may be the source of some illegal act, when done in a manner contrary to the standards it sets, and results in damage to another.55 Meanwhile, Articles 20 and 21 provide for the legal remedy for a violation of Article 19:56
ARTICLE 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
ARTICLE 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
For there to be a finding of an abuse of rights under Article 19, the following elements must concur: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) the right is exercised or the duty is performed in bad faith; and (3) the sole intent of the exercise or performance is to prejudice or injure another.57 It must be shown that the exercise of the right or performance of the duty was done with bad faith. In Dart Philippines, Inc. v. Spouses Calogcog: 58
Malice or bad faith is at the core of Article 19 of the Civil Code. Good faith refers to the state of mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. It consists of the intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another. It is presumed. Thus, he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or simple negligence; it involves a dishonest purpose or some moral obloquy and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty due to some motives or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud. Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty. It implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad motive.59
In Manuel v. People,60 this Court awarded moral damages to the innocent spouse upon a finding that the bigamous spouse acted deceitfully and fraudulently when he contracted his second marriage:
In the present case, the petitioner courted the private complainant and proposed to marry her. He assured her that he was single. He even brought his parents to the house of the private complainant where he and his parents made the same assurance—that he was single. Thus, the private complainant agreed to marry the petitioner, who even stated in the certificate of marriage that he was single. She lived with the petitioner and dutifully performed her duties as his wife, believing all the while that he was her lawful husband. For two years or so until the petitioner heartlessly abandoned her, the private complainant had no inkling that he was already married to another before they were married.1âшphi1
Thus, the private complainant was an innocent victim of the petitioner's chicanery and heartless deception, the fraud consisting not of a single act alone, but a continuous series of acts. Day by day, he maintained the appearance of being a lawful husband to the private complainant, who changed her status from a single woman to a married woman, lost the consortium, attributes and support of a single man she could have married lawfully and endured mental pain and humiliation, being bound to a man who it turned out was not her lawful husband.61
There, this Court found that the bigamous spouse's continuous and collective acts of fraud before, during, and after his marriage were willful, deliberate, and malicious, causing injury to the innocent spouse. It was the bigamous spouse's continuing bad faith that disregarded public policy, undermined and subverted the family as a social institution, and went against good morals, and the interest and general welfare of society.62
Thus, the Regional Trial Court was in error when it held that the mere contracting of a second marriage despite the existence of a first marriage is, by itself, a ground for damages under Article 19 in relation to Article 20 or Article 21. As correctly stressed by the Court of Appeals, the bad faith, or deliberate intent to do a wrongful act, of the bigamous spouse must be established:
Here, it was not convincingly shown that appellant deliberately contracted a second marriage despite knowledge of the subsistence of his first marriage. He believed in good faith that the divorce decree given to his first wife was valid and binding in the Philippines because he thought all along that [his] first wife at that time was already an [American] citizen. Thus, he and Mercado, both consenting adults, freely married each other, both believing that the final divorce decree was valid and binding in the Philippines. Indeed, both appellant and Mercado would not have married each other under pain of indictment for bigamy had they known that appellant's first marriage was still in existence, because it later turned out that Mercado was still a Filipino when the divorce decree was issued. So how could appellant be held liable for damages when he was not shown to have acted in bad faith when he married appellee? It has been consistently held that bad faith does not simply mean negligence or bad judgment. It involves a state of mind dominated by ill-will or motive. It implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity. The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good faith. Here, appellee failed to overcome the legal presumption of good faith. Thus, the award of moral damages must be deleted.63
Petitioner has not been able to prove that, at the time she and respondent married, respondent knew that his divorce from his first spouse was invalid. There is no proof that, upon the first spouse's confirmation of her Philippine citizenship at the time she obtained the divorce decree, respondent concealed this knowledge from petitioner or allowed her to continue believing that their marriage was valid. The malice or bad faith necessary to sustain an action based on Article 19 of the Civil Code has not been shown in this case.
Moreover, petitioner has not established that she has sustained an injury in law due to respondent's acts.
A review of the records shows that petitioner had known that there was some sort of anomaly in the dissolution of respondent's first marriage as early as 1992. As the Regional Trial Court found, within four years of petitioner and respondent's marriage, they found out that the divorce decree between respondent and Mantaring may not be valid because of their citizenship.64 Both petitioner and respondent consulted with a lawyer, who advised them to have the first marriage annulled on the ground of psychological incapacity.65 When respondent withdrew his petition for annulment, petitioner pleaded with him to continue the case.66
Petitioner does not dispute any of these findings made by the trial court.67 She knew, or should have known, that there existed some issue regarding respondent's first marriage which might adversely affect the validity of her marriage to him. Yet, she did not initiate any actions of her own to protect her civil status, and appeared complacent with the uncertainty that hovered over the validity of her marriage with respondent.
There being no entitlement to moral damages, no exemplary damages can likewise be awarded to petitioner.68"
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 207324. September 30, 2020 ]
MARY ELIZABETH MERCADO, PETITIONER, VS. RENE V. ONGPIN, RESPONDENT.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/sep2020/gr_207324_2020.html
