Short answer. Temperate or moderate damages are awarded when the court is satisfied that a party suffered some pecuniary loss, but its exact amount cannot be proved with certainty. The Civil Code requires only that the amount be reasonable under the circumstances — a middle ground between full proof of loss and no recovery at all.
What the law says
Temperate damages must be reasonable under the circumstances.
Civil Code, Article 2225 — Temperate Damages Must Be Reasonable. Read the full provision →
Damages for a loss that resists exact proof
Temperate damages, also called moderate damages, fill a gap in the law of compensation. Sometimes it is clear that a party really did suffer a financial loss, yet the precise peso amount simply cannot be established with certainty — the records are gone, the value is hard to pin down, or the injury does not lend itself to exact computation. Rather than deny recovery altogether just because the figure cannot be proved to the last centavo, the law allows the court to award a moderate sum recognizing that a genuine loss occurred.
The governing standard is reasonableness
Article 2225 supplies the measuring stick in a single sentence: temperate damages must be reasonable under the circumstances. There is no fixed formula and no rigid schedule. The court looks at the whole situation — the nature of the loss, what evidence there is, and what is fair given the facts — and fixes an amount that is moderate and reasonable. This built-in flexibility is the point of temperate damages: the award is calibrated to the circumstances of each case rather than to a mechanical calculation the evidence cannot support.
Where temperate damages fit among the others
Temperate damages occupy the space between actual damages and nominal damages. Actual or compensatory damages require the claimant to prove the amount of loss; nominal damages merely vindicate a right where no real loss is shown. Temperate damages apply when loss is certain but its amount is not — more than nominal, yet not dependent on precise proof. They are compensatory in nature, aimed at a fair approximation of the harm. A court may turn to them when it would be unjust to award nothing simply for want of an exact figure.
The limits on this remedy
Temperate damages are not a shortcut around proof whenever it is inconvenient. The claimant must still satisfy the court that some pecuniary loss was actually suffered; only the exact amount may be left uncertain. If the evidence could establish the actual amount, that must be pursued instead. And because the guiding rule is reasonableness, the award must stay moderate and proportionate — it cannot be inflated into a substitute for compensation the party could and should have proven. Used properly, it prevents a real loss from going entirely unredressed.
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.
- People of the Philippines vs. Nelson Sia, Jr. y Aculña, G.R. No. 262603, April 15, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Lorenzo Shipping Corporation vs. National Power Corporation, G.R. No. 181683, October 7, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Engr. Apolinario Dueñas vs. Alice Guce-Africa, G.R. No. 165679, October 5, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- National Power Corporation vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 124378, March 8, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →