March 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 184315 : March 12, 2012]
ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO v. THE MANILA CHRONICLE PUBLISHING CORPORATION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 184315 (ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO v. THE MANILA CHRONICLE PUBLISHING CORPORATION, et al.) - For resolution is the Motion for Partial Reconsideration[1] dated February 8, 2012, filed by the petitioner and the Motion for Reconsideration[2] dated February 7, 2012, filed by the respondents, from the Resolution[3] of this Court dated November 28, 2011.
In his Motion for Partial Reconsideration, petitioner mainly argues that it was unwarranted for this Court to have reduced the amount of damages that were originally awarded to him. Petitioner maintains that this Court disregarded certain factors which are relevant in the fixing of the proper amount of moral and exemplary damages that should be awarded to him, particularly, the social and financial standings of both the petitioner and respondent Coyiuto, Jr.
This Court has consistently held that moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are designed to compensate and alleviate in some way the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury unjustly caused a person. Moral damages are awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he/she has undergone, by reason of the defendant's culpable action. Its award is aimed at restoration, as much as possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; thus, it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted.[4] Verily, there are no hard and fast rules in the determination of the appropriate amount to be awarded as moral damages, since each case is governed by the peculiar circumstances which make it unique from any other case.
Likewise, the assessment and award of exemplary damages has always been left to the sound discretion of the Court on the basis of the circumstances of each and every case.[5]
In the case at bar, the amount of damages was reduced precisely after the Court had considered the particular circumstances surrounding the case, the financial and social stature of the parties, and the degree of suffering caused to the petitioner. In fine, petitioner failed to sufficiently show reversible error in the wisdom of the challenged Resolution which would warrant a reversal of the same.
On their part, respondents assert the same issues and arguments adduced in their previous pleadings, which have been passed upon by this Court in the assailed Resolution.
In view of the foregoing, the Court resolves to DENY the parties� respective motions for reconsideration. (One (1) member of the Division maintained his dissenting opinion, while four (4) members voted to deny the parties' respective motions for reconsideration.)cralaw
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 694-738.[2] Id. at 742-757.
[3] Id. at 671-684.
[4] Mangaliag v. Catubig-Pastoral, G.R. No. 143951, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 153, 166. See also Quisumbing v. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 142943, April 3, 2002, 380 SCRA 195, 214.
[5] Civil Code, Art. 2216.