MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY VS.
MATILDE MACABAGDAL RAMOY, BIENVENIDO
RAMOY, ROMANA RAMOY-RAMOS, ROSEMARIE RAMOY, OFELIA DURIAN and CYRENE
PANADO
G.R No. 158911, March 4, 2008
THIRD DIVISION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
NATURE OF ACTION
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals decision ordering
petitioner Manila Electric Company to pay Leoncio Ramoy moral and exemplary
damages and attorney’s fees and the resolution of Court of Appeals.
FACTS
Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) and respondents Matilde Macabagdal Ramoy,
Bienvenido Ramoy, Romana Ramoy-Ramos, Rosemarie Ramoy, Ofelia Durian, and Cyrene
Panado are involved in a dispute. In 1987, the National Power Corporation (NPC) filed an
ejectment case against several individuals, including Leoncio Ramoy, one of the plaintiffs
in this case. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) ordered the defendants to demolish
their structures and vacate the premises. In 1990, NPC requested MERALCO to
disconnect the electric power supply to all establishments beneath its transmission lines,
including the plaintiffs. MERALCO complied and issued notices of disconnection to the
affected establishments. The electric service connection of the plaintiffs was eventually
disconnected. However, during an ocular inspection, it was found that the residence of
the plaintiffs was outside the NPC property.
ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner is liable for damages for disconnecting the electric power
supply of the respondents without proper verification.
RULING
YES. The Court ruled that the petitioner is liable for damages for disconnecting the
electric power supply of the respondents without proper verification.
In order that moral damages may be awarded, there must be pleading and proof of
moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the like. While respondent alleged in his
complaint that he suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and moral
shock, he failed to prove them during the trial. Indeed, respondent should have taken
the witness stand and should have testified on the mental anguish, serious anxiety,
wounded feelings and other emotional and mental suffering he purportedly suffered to
sustain his claim for moral damages. Mere allegations do not suffice; they must be
substantiated by clear and convincing proof. No other person could have proven such
damages except the respondent himself as they were extremely personal to him.
The award of moral damages must be anchored to a clear showing that respondent
actually experienced mental anguish, besmirched reputation, sleepless nights, wounded
feelings or similar injury. There was no better witness to this experience than
respondent himself. Since respondent failed to testify on the witness stand, the trial
court did not have any factual basis to award moral damages to him.
Digest by: Nilfpe Criss Salcedo
With regard to exemplary damages, Article 2232 of the Civil Code provides that in
contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary damages if the
defendant, in this case MERALCO, acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or
malevolent manner, while Article 2233 of the same Code provides that such damages
cannot be recovered as a matter of right and the adjudication of the same is within the
discretion of the court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The award for exemplary damages and attorney's fees is
DELETED.
Digest by: Nilfpe Criss Salcedo
