RODRIGO CONCEPCION, petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and SPS. NESTOR NICOLAS and ALLEM NICOLAS, respondents.
G.R. No. 120706. January 31, 2000
Facts:
Sometime in 1985 the spouses Nestor Nicolas and Allem Nicolas resided at Pasig City, in an apartment leased to them by the owner Florence “Bing” Concepcion, who also resided in the same compound where the apartment was located. Nestor Nicolas was then engaged in the business of supplying government agencies and private entities with office equipment, appliances and other fixtures. Florence Concepcion joined this venture. Sometime in the second week of July 1985 Rodrigo Concepcion, brother of the deceased husband of Florence, angrily accosted Nestor at the latter’s apartment and accused him of conducting an adulterous relationship with Florence.
Rodrigo threatened Florence over the telephone that should something happen to his sick mother; in case the latter learned about the affair, he would kill Florence. As a result of this incident, Nestor Nicolas felt extreme embarrassment and shame to the extent that he could no longer face his neighbors. Consequently, he was forced to write Rodrigo demanding public apology and payment of damages. Rodrigo pointedly ignored the demand, for which reason the Nicolas spouses filed a civil suit against him for damages. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Nestor Nicolas, hence this case.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in granting damages to Nestor Nicolas and his spouse.
Ruling:
According to petitioner, private respondents’ evidence is inconsistent as to time, place and persons who heard the alleged defamatory statement. The Court finds this to be a gratuitous observation, for the testimonies of all the witnesses for the respondents are unanimous that the defamatory incident happened in the afternoon at the front door of the apartment of the Nicolas spouses in the presence of some friends and neighbors, and later on, with the accusation being repeated in the presence of Florence, at the terrace of her house. All told, these factual findings provide enough basis in law for the award of damages by the Court of Appeals in favor of respondents.
The Court reject petitioner’s posture that no legal provision supports such award, the incident complained of neither falling under Art. 22, 19, nor Art. 26 of the Civil Code. Damages therefore are allowable for actions against a person’s dignity, such as profane, insulting, humiliating, scandalous or abusive language. As stated in the Civil Code, moral damages which include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury, although incapable of pecuniary computation, may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission. There is no question that private respondent Nestor Nicolas suffered mental anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and social humiliation as a proximate result of petitioner’s abusive, scandalous and insulting language. The decision of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed.
