G.R. No. L-44050 July 16, 1985
Carmen Siguenza and Helena Siguenza, petitioners, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Spouses Pedro Quimbo and Leonadiza Quimbo, respondents.

FACTS

The private respondents, spouses Quimbo, filed a complaint for breach of contract and damages against petitioners Carmen and Helena Siguenza and Bert Osmeña and Associates. The complaint alleged that the petitioners entered into a contract to sell two lots to the spouses for P15,200.00, receiving a downpayment of P3,040.00. The spouses later discovered the lots had already been sold to another party in 1969, rendering the contract impossible. They demanded a refund and claimed damages for being prevented from constructing a house. The trial court ruled in favor of the spouses, awarding them the refund, P100,000.00 as compensatory damages for the unbuilt house, P5,610.00 for rentals, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
The petitioners filed motions for reconsideration, which the trial court denied as pro forma, ruling they did not stop the running of the appeal period. The court consequently issued a writ of execution, declaring the judgment final. The Court of Appeals affirmed, focusing on the procedural issue of the timeliness of the appeal. The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, challenging both the procedural ruling and the substantive award of damages as excessive.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of the appeal on procedural grounds. The secondary issue is whether the awards for compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages were excessive and without legal basis.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on the procedural issue but modified the damages awarded. On procedure, the Court held the petitioners’ amended motion for reconsideration was not pro forma. It raised specific objections to the trial court’s findings and conclusions and presented a new document (the Deed of Partition) pertinent to Carmen Siguenza’s liability. A motion is not pro forma merely because it fails to contain an affidavit of merit when it substantively argues the insufficiency of the evidence. Therefore, the motion tolled the reglementary period to appeal, making the petitioners’ notice of appeal timely. The trial court erred in declaring the judgment final and executory.
On the merits, the Court found the award of P100,000.00 as compensatory damages for the unconstructed house baseless. Such alleged loss was purely speculative, as the spouses had not yet commenced construction and had not occupied the property. Damages must be proven, not presumed. Regarding moral and exemplary damages, while the petitioners’ fraudulent double sale justified an award, the amounts granted were excessive. The Court reduced the P50,000.00 moral damages to P10,000.00 and the P25,000.00 exemplary damages to P5,000.00, considering the actual injury sustained was not grossly disproportionate to the P3,040.00 downpayment involved. The award of P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees was sustained. The petitioners were ordered to pay the downpayment with legal interest, the reduced damages, and attorney’s fees.