GR 152753; (January, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152753 ; January 13, 2004
Iglecerio Mahinay, petitioner, vs. Atty. Gabino A. Velasquez, Jr., respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Atty. Gabino Velasquez, Jr. filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Iglecerio Mahinay based on allegedly defamatory remarks. According to the sole witness, Olipio Machete, Mahinay stated, “Your master, a candidate for Congressman, Ben Velasquez, is a land grabber.” Velasquez claimed these utterances caused him mental anguish, anxiety, and sleepless nights, besmirching his and his family’s reputation. The trial court ruled in favor of Velasquez, awarding moral and exemplary damages based solely on Machete’s testimony.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision but modified the awards, reducing moral damages to P50,000 and exemplary damages to P25,000. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the decisions lacked sufficient factual basis, particularly because respondent Velasquez himself never took the witness stand to testify on the alleged damages he suffered.
ISSUE
Whether the awards of moral and exemplary damages were proper despite the respondent’s failure to personally testify and substantiate his claim for such damages.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and dismissed the complaint. The legal logic is anchored on the requisite proof for moral and exemplary damages. For moral damages to be awarded, there must be clear pleading and proof of moral suffering, such as mental anguish, fright, or wounded feelings. While the complaint alleged these injuries, respondent Velasquez failed to present evidence during trial. He did not testify personally, and no other evidence was presented to prove his alleged emotional and mental suffering.
The testimony of witness Machete, while establishing the alleged defamatory words, could not serve as proof of the respondent’s personal emotional experience. Moral damages are personal and require clear testimony from the claimant regarding the anguish suffered. Since respondent did not take the stand, there was no factual basis for the award. Consequently, exemplary damages cannot be awarded either, as they are ancillary to moral damages and require a showing of wanton or malevolent conduct, which was also unproven. The awards were therefore devoid of evidentiary support.