G.R. No. 232798, December 07, 2022
ADVAN MOTOR, INC., Petitioner, vs. LILA R. SAAVEDRA, Respondent.

FACTS

On March 26, 2002, respondent Lila R. Saavedra purchased a Chevrolet Zafira from petitioner Advan Motor, Inc. for ₱1,190,000.00. On February 2, 2007, Saavedra brought the vehicle to Advan for repair due to rough idling and warning symbols. The vehicle’s insured value at that time was ₱700,000.00. Advan issued a repair order. Despite subsequent communications and Saavedra providing a new computer box, the repairs were not completed. On June 16, 2007, Saavedra requested the vehicle’s return regardless of condition, but Advan refused, stating the engine had been dismantled. On July 9, 2007, through counsel, Saavedra demanded payment of the vehicle’s market value, indicating she was no longer interested in its return. After Advan ignored the demand, Saavedra filed a Complaint for sum of money and damages, claiming deprivation of use and seeking the “reasonable value of the use” of the vehicle. Advan countered that the repair was subject to parts availability and sought moral damages and attorney’s fees.
The Regional Trial Court ruled for Saavedra, ordering Advan to pay: (1) ₱700,000.00 as the vehicle’s value; (2) monthly installments for a replacement Toyota Vios from the complaint’s filing date; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney’s fees and appearance fees; and (6) costs. Advan appealed. The Court of Appeals partially granted the appeal, modifying the liability. It ordered Advan to: (1) return the Zafira in good condition; and (2) pay temperate damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, appearance fees, and costs. Advan’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Advan filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing the Court of Appeals erred by granting reliefs not prayed for (like the vehicle’s return and increased damages) and that the damages were excessive. Saavedra, in her Comment, argued the appeal opened the entire case for review and assailed the deletion of the ₱700,000.00 award.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals validly granted reliefs not prayed for by the parties, specifically the return of the Zafira.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly awarded damages in favor of Saavedra.
3. Whether it was proper to increase the damages awarded to Saavedra despite her failure to appeal the prior judgment.

RULING

The Supreme Court PARTIALLY GRANTED the petition.
1. On the grant of unpleaded relief (return of the vehicle): The Court of Appeals erred in ordering the return of the Zafira. Courts cannot grant relief not prayed for in the pleadings, as it violates due process by surprising the party and depriving them of an opportunity to be heard on that relief. Here, neither party prayed for the vehicle’s return; Saavedra had explicitly abandoned it in her demand letter, and both parties treated it as such. The relief must be supported by evidence and within the scope of the pleadings. Therefore, it was improper to order its return, a remedy neither sought nor litigated.
2. On the award of damages:
* Vehicle’s Value and Temperate Damages: The Supreme Court reinstated the RTC’s award of ₱700,000.00, representing the Zafira’s fair market value at the time it was surrendered for repair, as this was proven by the insurance policy. However, the award of monthly installments for the replacement Toyota Vios was correctly deleted by the CA, as Saavedra’s purchase of another vehicle was unrelated to the contract of repair with Advan and was not a proper measure of actual damages. Instead, for Saavedra’s deprivation of the use of the Zafira pending repair—a distinct pecuniary loss—the Court awarded temperate damages. The Court set this at ₱200,000.00, considering the vehicle’s value and the period of deprivation.
* Moral and Exemplary Damages: The Court of Appeals erred in increasing the awards for moral and exemplary damages from ₱20,000.00 each to ₱200,000.00 each. A party who does not appeal is entitled to no more than what is granted in the decision appealed from. Since Saavedra did not appeal the RTC decision, she was barred from obtaining a greater award. The Supreme Court reinstated the RTC’s award of ₱20,000.00 for each type of damage.
* Attorney’s Fees and Costs: The award of attorney’s fees (₱100,000.00 plus ₱5,000.00 appearance fee per hearing) and costs of suit was affirmed, as Advan’s act of forcing Saavedra to litigate warranted it.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Petitioner Advan Motor, Inc. was ordered to pay respondent Lila R. Saavedra:
a. ₱700,000.00 as the vehicle’s value;
b. ₱200,000.00 as temperate damages;
c. ₱20,000.00 as moral damages;
d. ₱20,000.00 as exemplary damages;
e. Attorney’s fees of ₱100,000.00, and ₱5,000.00 appearance fee per court hearing; and
f. Costs of the suit.
These monetary awards (except costs) shall earn legal interest at 6% per annum from the date of extra-judicial demand (July 9, 2007) until fully paid.