REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

National Capital Judicial Region

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 47, Pasay City

ASIAN AIR SAFARI, INC.,

Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. M-PSY-08-06271 CV
-versus- For: Sum of Money and Damages

RAYMUNDO TROFEO,
Defendants.
x------------------------------------x

DECISION

Our Supreme Court ruled, Mere allegation is not an evidence, it must be

proven by sufficient evidence.1

THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Asian Air Safari Inc. is a Philippine corporation engaged in a

business production of television specials relating to travel and culture. On July
9, 2007, plaintiff hired defendant Raymundo Trofeo as a production manager
whose work is to supervise the production of television shows as evidenced by a
contract of employment. Defendant borrowed money from plaintiff in the
amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20, 000.00) on August 3, 2007 and Thirty
Five Thousand Pesos (P35, 000.00) on October 27, 2007. Also, defendant
incurred a monetary liability in the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Pesos
(P75, 000.00) involving the rental of camera equipment owned by plaintiff.
However, an incentive pay amounting to Ten Thousand Eight Hundred Pesos
(P10, 800.00) was deducted from the Thirty Five Thousand Pesos
(P35,000.00) loan leaving a balance of Twenty Four Thousand Two Hundred
Pesos (P24,200.00). Defendant reported to work for the last time on November
5, 2007 for no apparent reason and without intention of returning. Demand to
pay was made but it was ignored. Finally, a written demand letter was sent to the
defendant who refused to pay his outstanding obligation. Plaintiff prayed that
defendant pays: (1) One Hundred Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred Pesos
(P119,200.00) actual damages representing the total obligation with legal interest
from time of demand from payment until an actual payment is made; (2) Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) exemplary damages; (3) Twenty Thousand Pesos

1 Coronel vs. CA 263 SCRA 15.

1
(P20,000.00) attorneys fees and Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos
(P3,500.00) appearance fee; (4) Cost of suit.

ANSWER

Defendant Raymundo Trofeo admitted paragraphs 1,2,3,4,6,7,9 of the

complaint. He admitted the existence of employment contract with the plaintiff.
Also, he admitted that he borrowed money from plaintiff in the amount of
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) on August 3, 2007 and Thirty Five
Thousand Pesos (P35,000.00) on October 27, 2007 but his incentive pay of Ten
Thousand Eight Hundred Pesos (P10,800.00) was deducted from the Thirty
Five Thousand Pesos (P35,000.00) loan. He denied all other allegations
specifically paragraphs 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 of the complaint.

In his special and affirmative defences, he alleged that he has no liability

in the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) representing lease
of plaintiffs camera because of absence of any agreement about it.

In his compulsory counter-claim, he alleged that his outstanding

obligations were paid by his additional services to the plaintiff such as Betacam
dubbing service (tape transfer for broadcast , from edit to work station) in the
amount of Eighty Five Thousand Pesos (P85,000.00); Macintosh editing
station rentals in the amount of Forty Five Thousand Pesos (P45,000.00);
Betacam recorded repair service fees in the amount of Three Thousand Pesos
(P3,000.00); professional fee as director, camera man, lighting director and
sound recordist in the amount of One Hundred Eighty Thousand Pesos
(P180,000.00); fair market value of professional machinery and equipment
owned by defendant unlawfully withheld by plaintiff in the amount of Thirty
Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00). Defendant prayed that the complaint filed by
plaintiff be dismissed and the plaintiff be ordered to pay Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P500,000.00) as actual damages, moral damages, exemplary damages,
attorneys fees and expenses of litigation.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On May 14, 2008, this instant case was filed. Consequently, the
corresponding summons was issued and served to the defendant Raymundo
Trofeo who filed his Answer on May 30, 2008. Notice of preliminary conference
was given to the parties on June 2, 2008. Plaintiff and defendant filed their
respective pre-trial brief. The case was referred to the Philippine Mediation
Center. The Mediators Report showed an unsuccessful mediation. The pre-trial
was set on October 10, 2008 which was reset to November 21, 2008. This case
was reset several times upon the instance of either party or absence of the
presiding judge. On January 8, 2010, pre-trial was terminated. On February 12,
2010, defendant thru his counsel Atty. Miguel Armovit filed his position paper.
On February 18, 2010, plaintiff thru his counsel Atty. Ronald Marcus Recina
2
filed a urgent motion for extension of time to file a position paper. Defendant
thru his counsel Atty. Miguel Armovit filed a motion to strike out to plaintiffs
urgent motion for extension of time to file position paper because it is a
prohibited pleading under Section 19 of the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure. The Court denied the plaintiffs motion for extension of time to file a
position paper.2 On March 5, 2010, plaintiff thru his counsel Atty. Ronald
Marcus Recina filed a motion to admit attached position paper. The Court
resolved to deny it for being violative of Section 9 of the Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure. Thus the case was submitted for decision.

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENDANT

In his position paper, defendant reiterated the averments in his Answer.

The defendants pieces of evidence in support of his position paper are: (1)
Letter of Employment marked as Exhibit 1; (2) Demand letter to plaintiff dated
February 1, 2008 marked as Exhibit 2; (3) DVD of 3 episodes Asian Air Safari
marked as Exhibit 5; (4) DVD of 3 episodes of Asian Air Safari marked as
Exhibit 6; (5) Pictures of End Credits marked as Exhibits 7 to 9; (6)
Pictures of Asian Air Safari TV program editing work marked as Exhibits 10 to
12; (7) Pictures of Asian Air Safari TV program shooting work marked as
Exhibits 13 to 16 ; and (8) Pictures of Asian Air Safari TV program airing
schedule marked as Exhibit 17.

ISSUES

(1) Whether or not defendant is liable to the sum of money, damages, attorneys
fees and cost of suit prayed for by the plaintiff; and

(2) Whether or not plaintiff is liable for damages, attorneys fees and expenses of
litigation prayed for by defendant.

APPLICABLE LAW

The applicable laws in this instant case are as follows:

Article 1157 of the New Civil Code: Obligations arise from: (1) Law; (2)
Contracts; (3) Quasi-contracts; (4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and (5)
Quasi-delicts

Article 1159 of the New Civil Code: Obligations arising from contracts
have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied
with in good faith.

Article 2197 of the New Civil Code: Damages may be: (1) Actual or
compensatory; (2) Moral; (3) Nominal; (4) Temperate or moderate; (5)
Liquidated; or (6) Exemplary or corrective.

2 Order dated February 24, 2010.

3
 Article 2199 of the New Civil Code: Except as provided by law or by
stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary
loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as
actual or compensatory damages.

Article 2208 of the New Civil Code: In the absence of stipulation,

attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be
recovered, except: (1) When exemplary damages are awarded; (2) When the
defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third
persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest; (3) In criminal cases of
malicious prosecution against the plaintiff; (4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil
action or proceeding against the plaintiff; (5) Where the defendant acted in gross
and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and
demandable claim; (6) In actions for legal support; (7) In actions for the recovery
of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers; (8) In actions for
indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws; (9) In a
separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime; (10) When at
least double judicial costs are awarded; (11) In any other case where the court
deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should
be recovered. In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be
reasonable.

Article 2209 of the New Civil Code: If the obligation consists in the
payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for
damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of the
interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is
six per cent per annum.

Article 2216 of the New Civil Code: No proof of pecuniary loss is

necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary
damages, may be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except
liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of the court, according to the
circumstances of each case.

Article 2217 of the New Civil Code: Moral damages include physical
suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though
incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are
the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act for omission.

Article 2229 of the New Civil Code: Exemplary or corrective damages are
imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the
moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.

4
 RULING

As to the first issue, for failure of the plaintiff Asian Air Safari Inc. to
submit its position paper including the affidavit of witnesses and supporting
evidence, the Court has no factual basis to grant the reliefs prayed for thus the
complaint is dismissed for lack of merit.

Anent to the compulsory counter claim of the defendant Raymundo

Trofeo, there is no justification for the award of actual, moral, exemplary
damages, attorneys fees and cost of suit thus it is dismissed for lack of merit.

Actual damages refer to those recoverable because of pecuniary loss, which

include the value of the loss suffered and unrealized profits.3 Actual damages
must be proved and the amount of damages must possess at least some degree of
certainty.4 Evaluating the defendants documentary exhibits, there was no
evidence whatsoever adduced by him to prove the actual loss suffered by him.
There is no basis to award actual damages.

Our Supreme Court held that it is improper to award moral damages and
attorneys fees on the sole basis of an action later declared to be unfounded in the
absence of deliberate intent to cause prejudice to the other.5 There was no
evidence introduced that the action filed by plaintiff was deliberately intended to
prejudice defendant. At the most, what the plaintiff did is a legitimate and
genuine desire to seek redress and to obtain complete relief through our justice
system. In order that moral damages may be awarded, there must be pleading
and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the like.6 While
defendant alleged in his answer with counter-claim the damages due to him, it
was held that mere allegations do not suffice; they must be substantiated by
clear and convincing proof.7

"While no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral

damages may be awarded, the amount of indemnity being left to the discretion of
the court, it is nevertheless essential that the claimant should satisfactorily show
the existence of the factual basis of damages and its causal connection to
defendants acts. This is so because moral damages, though incapable of
pecuniary estimation, are in the category of an award designed to compensate the
claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the
wrongdoer.8

Neither is defendant entitled to exemplary damages. "If the court has no

proof or evidence upon which the claim for moral damages could be based, such

3 8 Manresa 100.
4 Tomassi vs. Villa-Abrillee, L-7047, August 21, 1958.
5 Dela Pena vs. Court of Appeals, 231 SCRA 456.
6 San Miguel Brewery, Inc. vs. Magno, 21 SCRA 292.
7 Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 136.
8 Keirulf vs. Court of Appeals 269 SCRA 433

5
indemnity could not be awarded outright. The same holds true with respect to the
award of exemplary damages where it must be shown that the party acted in a
wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner."9 Furthermore, this specie of damages
is allowed only in addition to moral damages such that no exemplary damages
can be awarded unless the claimant first establishes his clear right to moral
damages. The same principle holds true with attorneys fees and ligation
expenses.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in

favor of the defendant by dismissing the complaint of the plaintiff. Likewise, the
counter-claim for damages of the defendant is hereby dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

Pasay City, May 31, 2010.

ELIZA B. YU
Judge

Copy furnished:
Atty. Ronald Marcus Recina
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Maronilla & Recina Law Offices
706-A Ortigas Bldg., Ortigas Ave.,
Pasig City

Atty. Miguel Armovit

Counsel for the Defendant
The Law Firm of Raymundo Armovit
Suite 803 Centerpoint Bldg.,
Julia Vargas cor. Garnet Sts.,
Ortigas Center, Pasig City

9 Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 259 SCRA 459.
6