Short answer. No, not for an ordinary breach. Civil Code Article 2220 allows moral damages for a breach of contract only where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. A breach caused by an honest mistake, an inability to perform, or ordinary carelessness does not by itself meet that standard.
What the law says
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.
Civil Code, Article 2220 — Moral Damages for Breach of Contract in Bad Faith. Read the full provision →
The rule Article 2220 sets for contract breaches
Article 2220 starts with willful injury to property and then extends the same standard to contracts: 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. By tying breach-of-contract moral damages to the same standard as willful injury, the article makes clear this is not the default remedy for a broken promise.
Why "fraudulently or in bad faith" is doing the work
This phrase is the actual gate. A breach where the other party genuinely tried and failed, misunderstood an obligation, or simply could not perform is a different thing from one where they acted with deceit or a dishonest purpose. Only the latter falls within what this article opens the door to; a plain, ordinary failure to perform, without more, does not put you inside this rule.
Even fraud or bad faith does not guarantee an award
Notice the additional condition carried over from the first sentence: damages are awarded if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. So showing fraud or bad faith opens the possibility, but the article still leaves the actual decision, and the amount, to the court's assessment of the circumstances. Nothing in this text makes an award automatic even once bad faith is established.
What a claim like this needs from you
The heart of the matter is evidence of the other party's state of mind, not just that they failed to perform. Keep communications showing what they knew, when they knew it, and whether their conduct suggests deliberate deception or bad faith rather than an honest failure. A missed deadline or a broken promise on its own rarely gets you there; what you can show about intent is what will. Take that evidence to a lawyer to assess.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Mariano Mendoza and Elvira Lim vs. Spouses Leonora J. Gomez and Gabriel V. Gomez, G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- People of the Philippines vs. Salvador Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Rodolfo N. Regala vs. Federico P. Carin, G.R. No. 188715, April 6, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- RCPI vs. Alfonso Verchez, et al, G.R. No. 164349, January 31, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →