OSCAR VENTANILLA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT VS. GREGORIO CENTENO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

Ventanilla versus Centeno

The Case

This is an action for damages brought by a client, Oscar Ventanilla, against his own lawyer, Gregorio Centeno, for the lawyer's neglect in perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period, so that a judgment adverse to the client became final. The client asks to be compensated for what he lost when his appeal died of technical default. The case matters because it is the classic illustration of the measure of damages against a negligent counsel: actual damages must be proved, moral damages are confined to the cases the Civil Code enumerates, and a violated right is vindicated by nominal damages rather than by speculation.

Procedural History

The client sued his former lawyer in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. After trial, that court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, ordering the lawyer to pay the client 200 pesos as nominal damages and the costs. The client appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court on the ground that only questions of law are raised. The defendant lawyer did not appeal. The case thus reached the Supreme Court by certification from the Court of Appeals.

Facts

In an earlier action in the Court of First Instance of Manila, the client retained the lawyer to represent him in a suit to recover 4,000 pesos together with damages. The decision in that case was unfavorable to the client. The lawyer received the decision on July 21, 1955, and filed a notice of appeal on July 25, 1955. On July 30, 1955, he wrote to the client enclosing copies of the decision and of the notice of appeal, and stating that he was not conformable to the decision and had not hesitated to file the notice of appeal. About August 5, 1955, the client went to the lawyer's office in Manila, the lawyer told him he intended to appeal, and the client agreed, though he did not then have the amount for the appeal bond.

About the middle of August 1955, the lawyer sent the client forms for an appeal bond. The client, reluctant to pay the premium, decided instead to file a cash appeal bond of 60 pesos. At about four o'clock in the afternoon of August 18, 1955, he went to the lawyer's office, but the clerk, Leonardo Sanchez, told him the lawyer was in Laguna campaigning for a seat on the Provincial Board. The client issued a check for 60 pesos as appeal bond and delivered it to the clerk with instructions to give it to the lawyer upon his arrival. The trial court did not believe the client's testimony that the clerk had contacted the lawyer by telephone and that the check was issued upon the lawyer's instruction. On August 17, the lawyer had prepared a motion for extension of time to file the record on appeal, but it was filed only on August 20, 1955.

The lawyer returned to Manila and reached his office at about ten o'clock in the morning of August 22. He cashed the check and then went to the office of the Clerk of Court to file the appeal bond. According to him, it was not accepted because the period of appeal had already expired, and only then did he learn that the period had expired. The trial court did not believe him either: neither the Clerk of Court nor any employee had the right to refuse an appeal bond being filed, for it is not in his power to determine whether the bond has been filed within the time prescribed by law. In fact the record on appeal was accepted and filed on September 5, 1955, but no appeal bond had been filed by the lawyer. The record on appeal was disapproved because it was filed out of time and no appeal bond had been filed.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in not ordering the lawyer to pay actual or compensatory damages.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not ordering the lawyer to pay moral damages.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not ordering the lawyer to pay temperate or moderate damages.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not ordering the lawyer to pay exemplary or corrective damages.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in awarding only 200 pesos, instead of 2,000 pesos, as nominal damages.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not ordering the lawyer to pay 500 pesos as attorney's fees.

Applicable Provisions

Article 2199 of the new Civil Code provides:

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.

This fixes the rule that actual damages demand proof of pecuniary loss, which the client's speculative claim cannot supply.

Article 2217 of the new Civil Code provides:

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 or omission.

This describes the injuries the client invokes, but it must be read with the article that limits when they are recoverable.

Article 2219 of the new Civil Code provides:

Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries; (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; (3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts; (4) Adultery or concubinage; (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest; (6) Illegal search; (7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation; (8) Malicious prosecution; (9) Acts mentioned in article 309; (10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.

This is the enumeration that decides the moral damages issue, because the client's cause of action falls under none of the listed cases.

Article 2220 of the new Civil Code provides:

Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.

This confirms that a breach of contract yields moral damages only upon fraud or bad faith, which is not the ground relied upon here.

Article 2221 of the new Civil Code provides:

Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.

This is the basis for sustaining the award of 200 pesos as nominal damages.

Ruling

On actual or compensatory damages, the Court held that he who claims them must establish and prove by competent evidence actual pecuniary loss. The client's bare allegation that by reason of the lawyer's negligence he lost his chance to recover 40,000 pesos and moral and actual damages in the earlier case made his claim highly speculative. Hence he is not entitled to such damages.

On moral damages, the Court held that they are recoverable only in the cases enumerated in Article 2219 and analogous cases. It quoted its own ruling in Malonzo versus Galang:

Art. 2219 specifically mentions "quasi-delicts causing physical injuries," as an instance when moral damages may be allowed thereby implying that all other quasi-delicts not resulting in physical injuries are excluded (Strebel vs. Figueras, 96 Phil., 321) excepting of course, the special torts referred to in Art. 309 (par. 9, Art, 2219) and in Arts. 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 35 on the chapter on human relations (par. 10, Art. 2219).

Since the client's cause of action is not predicated upon any of those specifically enumerated, the trial court did not err in declining to award moral damages.

On temperate or moderate damages, the Court held that because the client is not entitled to actual or compensatory damages but has been awarded nominal damages, such award precludes the recovery of temperate or moderate damages.

On exemplary or corrective damages, the Court held that they cannot be recovered as a matter of right and that the court decides whether they be adjudicated, if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. The trial court judiciously exercised its discretion in not awarding them.

On nominal damages, the Court held that their assessment is left to the discretion of the court according to the circumstances. The 200 pesos may seem exiguous, but nominal damages are not for indemnification of loss suffered; they vindicate a right violated or invaded. Even had the appeal been duly perfected, success was not assured. The 2,000 pesos sought is therefore excessive, and the amount awarded should not be disturbed.

On attorney's fees, the Court held that since the client's claim does not fall under any of those enumerated in Article 2208 of the new Civil Code, the lawyer may not be compelled to satisfy it.

Doctrine

• Actual or compensatory damages require proof of actual pecuniary loss; a claim resting on the mere chance of winning an appeal is speculative and cannot be recovered.
• Moral damages are recoverable only in the cases enumerated in Article 2219 and analogous cases; a client's mental anguish over a lost appeal does not fall within the enumeration.
• An award of nominal damages precludes the recovery of temperate or moderate damages.
• Exemplary damages are never demandable as a matter of right; their award rests on the court's discretion.
• Nominal damages are adjudicated to vindicate or recognize a violated right, not to indemnify for loss, and their assessment is left to the court's discretion.
• Attorney's fees are recoverable only in the cases enumerated in Article 2208 of the new Civil Code.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment appealed from, without special pronouncement as to costs, leaving the lawyer liable to the client for 200 pesos as nominal damages.

Remember This

Remember the line that a negligent lawyer's client is vindicated, not indemnified: nominal damages recognize the violated right, while actual and moral damages must fit the proof and the enumeration. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of actual damages, the closed list in Article 2219, and the rule that nominal damages exclude temperate damages.