RAFAEL PATRICIO, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE OSCAR LEVISTE, JUDGE, CFI CAPIZ, BRANCH II, AND BIENVENIDO BACALOCOS, RESPONDENTS.

Petition for review on certiorari of the Order^[1]
of the Court of First Instance of Capiz, Branch II,
on the motion for reconsideration filed by private respondent Bienvenido Bacalocos, dismissing
the complaint for damages against the latter, docketed as Civil Case No.
V-3937.

Petitioner Rafael Patricio an ordained Catholic priest, and
actively engaged in social and civic affairs in Pilar,
Capiz, where he is residing, was appointed Director
General of the 1976 Religious and Municipal Town Fiesta of Pilar,
Capiz.

On 16 May 1976 at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening, while a benefit
dance was on-going in connection with the celebration of the town fiesta,
petitioner together with two (2) policemen were posted near the gate of the
public audito­rium to check on the assigned watchers of the gate.  Private respondent Bienvenido
Bacalocos, President of the Association of Barangay Captains of Pilar, Capiz and a member of the Sangguniang
Bayan, who was in a state of drunkenness and standing
near the same gate together with his companions, struck a bottle of beer on the
table causing an injury on his hand which started to bleed.  Then, he approached petitioner in a hostile
manner and asked the latter if he had seen his wounded hand, and before
petitioner could respond, private respondent, without provocation, hit petitioner’s
face with his bloodied hand.  As a
consequence, a commotion ensued and private respondent was brought by the
policemen to the municipal building.^[2]

As a result of the incident, a criminal complaint for
“Slander by Deed” was filed by petitioner with the Municipal Trial
Court of Pilar, Capiz,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 2228, but the same was dismissed.^[3]
Subsequently, a complaint for damages was filed by petitioner with the court a
quo.  In a decision,^[4]
dated 18 April 1978, the court ruled in favor of herein petitioner (as
complainant), holding private respondent liable to the former for moral damages
as a result of the physical
suffering, moral shock and social humiliation caused by private respondent’s
act of hitting petitioner on the face in public.  The dispositive
part of the decision reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the Court orders defendant to pay plaintiff the
damages as follows:

a)     
Moral damages of P10,000.00

b)     
Exemplary damages, P1,000.00 and

c)     
Attorney’s fees, P2,000.00.

SO ORDERED.”^[5]

On 9 June 1978,
petitioner filed a motion for execution of judgment, alleging that the 18 April 1978 decision had become
final and executory after the lapse of thirty (30)
days from receipt thereof by private respondent, without any motion for
reconsideration or appeal having been filed.^[6]
However, said motion was denied by the court a quo on the ground
that there was a pending motion for reconsideration filed by private
respondent.^[7]
Subsequently, private respondent filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration^[8]
and the court ordered petitioner to
file a reply (opposition)
thereto.^[9]
In compliance, petitioner filed a reply (opposition) to the motion for
reconsideration, alleging that the filing
of said motion and supplement thereto was without notice to the adverse
party and proof of service, hence,
the decision sought to be reconsidered had already become final and unappealable.^[10]

Private respondent filed a rejoinder (reply) and a manifestation
stating that petitioner was duly served with a copy of said motion for reconsideration
by ordinary mail, attaching thereto the
affidavit of Godofredo Almazol
who stated that he mailed the envelope to counsel for herein petitioner.^[11]
The court a quo then scheduled the motion for oral
argument and the parties were allowed to extensively argue their respective
causes.

On 3 August 1979,
an order^[12]
of dismissal of the petitioner’s complaint was issued by the trial court, thus
–

“O R D E R

This is a motion for reconsideration of the decision of this Court
dated April 18, 1978, filed
by counsel for defendant on May 18,
1978.

In view of the recent trend in the Supreme Court to liberally
construe the Rules, and in view of Section 2, Rule 1, the Court resolves to
give due course to the motion.

Upon review of the facts of the case, it appears and the Court
finds merit in the motion for reconsideration, particularly noting that there
is indeed no showing of compensatory damages being proved.

WHEREFORE, this Court reconsiders its decision to conform to the
facts and the law, namely, that moral
and exemplary damages, in order to merit, the plaintiff ought to have proven
actual or compensatory damages.

WHEREFORE, this case is ordered dismissed.

SO ORDERED.”

Not satisfied with said order, petitioner filed the petition at
bar contending that no copy of the Motion for Reconsideration was served upon
petitioner and no proof of service as well as notice of hearing were attached
to said motion when filed with the court a quo; thus, the motion
for reconsideration did not interrupt the running of the period to appeal.  The alleged mailing of a copy of said motion
by ordinary mail did not, according to petitioner, cure the defect.  Petitioner further argues that respondent’s
admission that he slapped herein petitioner in public causing him physical suffering and social humiliation,
entitles the latter to moral damages. 
Actual and compensatory damages need not be proven before an award of
moral damages can be granted, so
petitioner contends.

On the other hand, private respondent claims that the order of the
court a quo apprising petitioner of the motion for
reconsideration filed by private respondent and requiring the former to file a reply (opposition) thereto, had
cured the defect of lack of proof of service and notice of hearing of said
motion for reconsideration: and that the award of moral damages to petitioner
is without basis for lack of proof of bad faith on the part of private
respondent.

With respect to the alleged lack of service on petitioner of a
copy of the motion and notice of hearing and failure to attach to the motion
proof of service thereof, the general rule is that notice of motion is required
where a party has a right to resist the relief sought by the motion and
principles of natural justice demand that his rights be not affected without an
opportunity to be heard.^[13]

In the case at bar, a copy
of the motion for reconsideration was served upon petitioner, although service
was effected through ordinary mail and not by registered mail as required by
the rules.  But, petitioner was duly given
the full opportunity to be heard and to argue his case when the court a quo required him to file a reply (opposition) to the motion for reconsideration and
subsequently set the motion for oral argument.

What the law really eschews is not the lack of previous notice of
hearing but the lack of opportunity to be heard.  It has been held that parties should not rely
on mere technicalities which, in the interest of justice, may be relaxed.^[14]
The rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate
the attainment of justice.  Their strict and rigid application, which
would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote
substantial justice, must be avoided.^[15]
Moreover, the case should, as much as possible, be decided on the merits and
not merely on technicalities.

As to the petitioner’s claim for moral damages, we find the same
to be meritorious.  There is no question
that moral damages may be recovered in cases where a defendant’s wrongful act
or omission has caused the complainant physical suffering, mental anguish,
fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
social humiliation and similar injury.^[16]
An award of moral damages is allowed in cases specified or analogous to those
provided in Article 2219 of the Civil Code to wit:

“ART. 2219. 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.

x x x                             x x x                             x x x”

Private respondent’s contention that there was no bad faith on
his part in slapping petitioner on the face and that the incident was merely
accidental is not tenable.  It was
established before the court a quo that there was an existing feud between the families of
both petitioner and private respondent and that private respondent slapped the
petitioner without provocation in the presence of several persons.

The act of private respondent in hitting petitioner on the face
is contrary to morals and good customs and caused the petitioner mental
anguish, moral shock wounded feelings and social humiliation.  Private respondent has to take full
responsibility for his act and
his claim that he was unaware of what he had done to petitioner because of
drunkenness is definitely no excuse and does not relieve him of his liability
to the latter.

Pursuant to Art. 21 of the Civil Code in relation to par. (10) of Art. 2219 of the same
Code, “any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy
shall compensate the latter for the damage.”

The fact that no actual or compensatory damage was proven before
the trial court, does not adversely affect petitioner’s right to recover moral
damages.  Moral damages may be awarded in
appropriate cases referred to in the chapter on human relations of the Civil
Code (Articles 19 to 36), without need of proof that the wrongful act
complained of had caused any physical injury upon the complainant.^[17]
It is clear from the report of the Code Commission that the reason underlying
an award of damages under Art. 21 of the Civil Code is to compensate the
injured party for the moral injury caused upon his person, thus –

“x x x.  Fully sensible that there are countless gaps
in the statutes, which leave so many victims of moral wrongs helpless, even
though they have actually suffered material and moral injury, the Commission
has deemed it necessary, in the interest of justice, to incorporate in the
proposed Civil Code the following rule:

‘ART. 23.  Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that
is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the
latter for the damage.’

x x x                             x x x                             x x x.”^[18]

In addition to the award of moral damages, exemplary or
corrective damages may be imposed upon herein private respondent by way of example
or correction for the public good.^[19]
Exemplary damages are required by public policy to suppress the wanton acts of
the offender.  They are an antidote so
that the poison of wickedness may not run through the body politic.^[20]
The amount of exemplary damages need not be proved where it is shown that
plaintiff is entitled to either moral, temperate or compensatory damages, as
the case may be,^[21]
although such award cannot be recovered as a matter of right.^[22]

In cases where exemplary damages are awarded to the injured
party, attorney’s fees are also recoverable.^[23]

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.  The order appealed from, dated 3 August 1979, is REVERSED and
the decision of the court a quo dated 18 April 1978 is hereby
REINSTATED.  With costs against private
respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Penned by Judge Oscar Leviste, dated 3 August 1979, Rollo,
p. 46

^[2]
Rollo, p. 22

^[3]
Memorandum for private respondent, Rollo, p.
80

^[4]
Penned by Judge Oscar Leviste, CFI of Capiz, Branch II, Rollo,
pp. 13-26

^[5]
Rollo, p. 26

^[6]
Ibid., p. 31

^[7]
Order dated 16 June 1978, Rollo p. 33

^[8]
Rollo, p. 34

^[9]
Ibid., p. 36

^[10]
Rollo, pp.
37-39

^[11]
Ibid., pp. 40-43

^[12]
Ibid., p. 46

^[13]
Amante v. Sunga,
G.R. No. L-40491, 28 May 1975,
64 SCRA 192

^[14]
Un Giok vs. Matusa,
101 Phil., 272, G.R. No. L-10304, 31 May 1957

^[15]
Aznar III vs. Bernad,
G.R. No. 81190, 9 May 1988

^[16]
Art. 2217, Civil Code

^[17]
Malonzo v. Galang,
G.R. No. L-13851, 27 July 1960,
109 Phil. 16.

^[18]
Report of the Code Commission, pp. 39-40

^[19]
Art. 2229, Civil Code

^[20]
Report of the Code Commission, pp. 75-76

^[21]
Art. 2234, Civil Code

^[22]
Art. 2233, Ibid.

^[23]
Tan Kapoe v. Masa,
G.R. No. L-50473, 21 Jan. 1985,
134 SCRA 231