Short answer. No. Article 2216 provides that no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages may be adjudicated. Their assessment, except for liquidated damages, is left to the discretion of the court according to the circumstances of each case.
What the law says
No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages, may be adjudicated.
Civil Code, Article 2216 — No Proof of Pecuniary Loss Required. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The assessment of such damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of each case.
Civil Code, Article 2216 — No Proof of Pecuniary Loss Required. Read the full provision →
What the article excuses, and what it does not
The relief is narrower than it first reads. What the article removes is the need to attach a peso figure to a loss that has none: you are not required to price your humiliation or to produce a receipt for anxiety. What it does not remove is the need to establish that you are entitled to those damages at all. Entitlement and quantification are two separate exercises, and Article 2216 speaks only to the second. A claim that fails the first never reaches the discretion the article confers.
Moral damages still need the injury shown
Article 2217 describes moral damages as including physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock and social humiliation, and says they may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission. So the suffering itself has to be established, and established as having come from what the defendant did. Testimony, medical or psychological records, and the accounts of people who saw the change in you are how that is done. What you are excused from is putting a price on it.
Exemplary damages carry an extra gate
Article 2233 provides that they cannot be recovered as a matter of right and that the court decides whether they should be adjudicated at all. Article 2234 goes further and requires the plaintiff to show entitlement to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the question of exemplary damages is even considered. So they are built on top of another award rather than claimed on their own. A prayer for exemplary damages in a case where nothing else has been established has no foundation, however the defendant's conduct looked.
Liquidated damages are the exception
The closing clause carves out one class: the assessment is discretionary except liquidated ones. Liquidated damages are the figure the parties themselves agreed would be paid on breach, so there is nothing for a court to estimate, because the amount comes from the contract. The practical lesson for a claimant is to plead each head separately and support each in its own way, rather than asking for one large sum and hoping this article covers the distance between the claim and the evidence.
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.
- Philippines Bank Of Communications vs. Ria De Guzman Rivera, G.R. No. 217411, December 13, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs. Dr. Jose M. Tiongco, G.R. No. 212136, October 4, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Herminio T. Disini vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 205172, June 15, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Voltaire Hans N. Bongcaya, doing business under the name and style of VHB Biopro, G.R. No. 225438, January 20, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 2217 — Moral Damages Defined
- Civil Code, Article 2234 — Entitlement to Compensatory Damages First