ABS-CBN vs CA

In 1992, ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, through its vice president Charo

Santos-Concio, requested Viva Production, Inc. to allow ABS-CBN to air at least
14 films produced by Viva. Pursuant to this request, a meeting was held between
Vivas representative (Vicente Del Rosario) and ABS-CBNs Eugenio Lopez
(General Manager) and Santos-Concio was held on April 2, 1992. During the
meeting Del Rosario proposed a film package which will allow ABS-CBN to air
104 Viva films for P60 million. Later, Santos-Concio, in a letter to Del Rosario,
proposed a counterproposal of 53 films (including the 14 films initially requested)
for P35 million. Del Rosario presented the counter offer to Vivas Board of
Directors but the Board rejected the counter offer. Several negotiations were
subsequently made but on April 29, 1992, Viva made an agreement with
Republic Broadcasting Corporation (referred to as RBS or GMA 7) which gave
exclusive rights to RBS to air 104 Viva films including the 14 films initially
requested by ABS-CBN.
ABS-CBN now filed a complaint for specific performance against Viva as it
alleged that there is already a perfected contract between Viva and ABS-CBN in
the April 2, 1992 meeting. Lopez testified that Del Rosario agreed to the
counterproposal and he (Lopez) even put the agreement in a napkin which was
signed and given to Del Rosario. ABS-CBN also filed an injunction against RBS
to enjoin the latter from airing the films. The injunction was granted. RBS now
filed a countersuit with a prayer for moral damages as it claimed that its
reputation was debased when they failed to air the shows that they promised to
their viewers. RBS relied on the ruling in People vs Manero and Mambulao
Lumber vs PNB which states that a corporation may recover moral damages if it
has a good reputation that is debased, resulting in social humiliation. The trial
court ruled in favor of Viva and RBS. The Court of Appealsaffirmed the trial court.
ISSUE:
1.
Whether or not a contract was perfected in the April 2, 1992 meeting
between
the
representatives
of
the
two
corporations.

2.
Whether or not a corporation, like RBS, is entitled to an award of moral
damages upon grounds of debased reputation.
HELD:
1. No. There is no proof that a contract was perfected in the said meeting. Lopez
testimony about the contract being written in a napkin is not corroborated
because the napkin was never produced in court. Further, there is no meeting of
the minds because Del Rosarios offer was of 104 films for P60 million was not
accepted. And that the alleged counter-offer made by Lopez on the same day
was not also accepted because theres no proof of such. The counter offer can
only be deemed to have been made days after the April 2 meeting when SantosConcio sent a letter to Del Rosario containing the counter-offer. Regardless,
there was no showing that Del Rosario accepted. But even if he did accept, such
acceptance will not bloom into a perfected contract because Del Rosario has no
authority to do so.
As a rule, corporate powers, such as the power; to enter into contracts; are
exercised by the Board of Directors. But this power may be delegated to a
corporate committee, a corporate officer or corporate manager. Such a
delegation must be clear and specific. In the case at bar, there was no such
delegation to Del Rosario. The fact that he has to present the counteroffer to the
Board of Directors of Viva is proof that the contract must be accepted first by the
Vivas Board. Hence, even if Del Rosario accepted the counter-offer, it did not
result to a contract because it will not bind Viva sans authorization.
2. No. The award of moral damages cannot be granted in favor of a corporation
because, being an artificial person and having existence only in legal
contemplation, it has no feelings, no emotions, no senses, It cannot, therefore,
experience physical suffering and mental anguish, which call be experienced
only by one having a nervous system. No moral damages can be awarded to a
juridical person. The statement in the case of People vs Manero and Mambulao
Lumber vs PNB is a mere obiter dictum hence it is not binding as a
jurisprudence.

Filipinas Broadcasting vs. Ago Medical Center

GRN 141994 January 17, 2005
Carpio, J.:
FACTS:
Rima & Alegre were host of FBNI radio program Expose. Respondent Ago was the owner of the Medical &
Educational center, subject of the radio program Expose. AMEC claimed that the broadcasts were defamatory
and owner Ago and school AMEC claimed for damages. The complaint further alleged that AMEC is a
reputable learning institution. With the supposed expose, FBNI, Rima and Alegre transmitted malicious
imputations and as such, destroyed plaintiffs reputation. FBNI was included as defendant for allegedly failing to
exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. The trial court found Rimas
statements to be within the bounds of freedom of speech and ruled that the broadcast was libelous. It ordered
the defendants Alegre and FBNI to pay AMEC 300k for moral damages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not AMEC is entitled to moral damages.
RULING:
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. Nevertheless, AMECs claim, or moral damages fall under item 7 of Art 2219 of the NCC.
This provision expressly authorizes the recovery of moral damages in cases of libel, slander or any other form
of defamation. Art 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 implied 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. In this case, the broadcasts are libelous per se. thus, AMEC is entitled to moral damages.
However, we find the award P500,000 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 to P150k.
JOIN TORT FEASORS are all the persons who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advice
countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, as who approve of it after it is done,
for its benefit.

People vs Martinez

FACTS: Father raped his metally retarded daughter and threatened to kill her
afterwards.

RTC: Found Martinez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 3 counts of rape.

Further ordered that on each count of rape, the accused must pay the victim the
sum of 75K as civil indemnity, 50k as moral damages and 25k as exemplary
damages.
CA: Affirmed the trial courts decision. Modified the amount of moral
damages for each count of rape is P75K.
ISSUE:WON award of Moral and exemplary damages is proper.
HELD: As to the damages, we note that the appellate court correctly
modified the amount of moral damages that should be awarded to AAAfrom PhP
50,000 to PhP 75,000, in line with current jurisprudence on qualified rape. The
amount
of
exemplary
damages,
however,
should
also
be
[26]
modified. Following People v. Layco, the award of exemplary damages is
increased from PhP 25,000 to PhP 30,000, in order to serve as public example and
to protect the young from sexual abuse.

ILISON vs PEOPLE
FACTS: A riot occurred, in the course of which Petitioner shot Gaton at the
abdomen causing the latters instantaneous death.
RTC- convicted Ilisan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide and
to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amounts of P75K as actual damages,
P50K for the death of the victim and P50K as moral damages.

CA- affirmed the RTCs finding of guilt, but modified the amount of
actual damages awarded to P58,520.00.
ISSUE: WON the award of damages is proper in this case.
HELD:

Yes.

The civil indemnity and moral damages awarded by the RTC

and the CA were also in order and consistent with current
jurisprudence.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the
victim without need of proof other than the commission of the
crime.[24] Under prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P50,000.00
to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is proper. [25]
Moral damages must also be awarded because these are
mandatory in cases of homicide, without need of allegation and
proof other than the death of the victim. [26] The award
of P50,000.00 as moral damages[27] is correct.
We must, however, modify the actual damages awarded by
the CA. Actual damages pertain to the actual expenses incurred
by the victims heirs in relation to his death, i.e., burial and funeral
expenses. To justify an award therefor, it is necessary for a
party to produce competent proof or the best evidence
obtainable, such as receipts.[28] In this case, the actual expenses
incurred for the wake and burial of the victim were duly shown by
receipts marked as Exhibits K, L, M, and M-1[29] in the aggregate
amount of P88,520.00. But the CA awarded only P58,520.00,
which, after a perusal of the records, appears to have been
caused by the non-inclusion of Exhibit L, a receipt for P30,000.00
paid by the victims wife to La Funeraria Novaliches for the
deceaseds autopsy and embalming treatment, and use of
mortuary equipment for the interment. Having convincingly
proved the nature of the expense in the amount of P30,000.00 in
Exhibit L, it is only right to increase the actual damages awarded
to the victims heirs to P88,520.00.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
hereby DENIED. The August 23, 2007 Decision of the Court of
Appeals is AFFIRMED with modification that the award of actual
damages is increased to P88,520.00.