G.R. No. 201436 - SPOUSES MAMERTO AND ADELIA* TIMADO, VS. RURAL BANK OF SAN JOSE, INC., TEDDY MONASTERIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ITS PRESIDENT/MANAGER, AND ATTY. AVELINO SALES.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, a joint decision is hereby rendered, as follows: In Civil Case No. IR-2974 - against plaintiffs spouses Mamerto Timado and Delia Timado and in favor of defendants Rural Bank of San Jose, Inc., and Teddy Monasterio, in his capacity as its manager, to wit: Dismissing the amended complaint; On defendants' counterclaim, condemning plaintiff spouses: To pay defendant Teddy Monasterio the amount of P500,000.00 as moral damages , and P300,000.00 as exemplary damages ; To pay defendants Rural Bank of San Jose, Inc. and Teddy Monasterio the amount of P50,000.00 for legal counsel's acceptance fee and P1,500.00 per appearance of counsel ; and, To pay defendants Rural Bank of San Jose, Inc., and Teddy Monasterio other expenses of litigation and/or cost of suit. In Spec. Civil Action No. IR-3187 - against petitioners spouses Mamerto Timado and Delia Timado and in favor of respondents Rural Bank of San Jose, Inc., Teddy Monasterio, and Atty. Avelino V. Sales, Jr., to wit: Dismissing the petition; Condemning petitioners spouses Mamerto Timado and Delia Timado: To pay respondent Teddy Monasterio the amount of P200,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages ; and, To pay respondents Rural Bank of San Jose, Inc., and Teddy Monasterio the amount of P50,000.00 for the services of counsel . [19] x x x x On appeal, the CA affirmed with modification the October 31, 2006 RTC decision. In its decision dated March 30, 2012, the appellate court found the dismissal of the case proper, as well as the RTC's issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the respondents. However, it deleted the award of moral damages for lack of legal justification and reduced the amount of exemplary damages awarded in Civil Case No. IR-2974 to P100,000.00. [20] The petitioners raise the following issues for this Court's resolution: 1) whether the award of exemplary damages is proper, considering the CA's deletion of the award of moral damages; and 2) whether the award of attorney's fees is supported by the factual and legal premises in the text of the RTC decision. The Court's Ruling We find the petition partly meritorious. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages. [21] The award of exemplary damages is allowed by law as a warning to the public and as a deterrent against the repetition of socially deleterious actions. [22] The requirements for an award of exemplary damages to be proper are as follows: [23] First , they may be imposed by way of example or correction only in addition , among others, to compensatory damages, and cannot be recovered as a matter of right, their determination depending upon the amount of compensatory damages that may be awarded to the claimant. Second , the claimant must first establish his right to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages . And third , the wrongful act must be accom