Short answer. Article 2197 recognizes six kinds: actual or compensatory, moral, nominal, temperate or moderate, liquidated, and exemplary or corrective. Each addresses a different situation — from covering a proven loss to punishing especially wrongful conduct — and a court is not limited to just one type in a given case.
What the law says
Damages may be: (1) Actual or compensatory; (2) Moral; (3) Nominal; (4) Temperate or moderate; (5) Liquidated; or (6) Exemplary or corrective.
Civil Code, Article 2197 — The Six Kinds of Damages. Read the full provision →
Six kinds, not one general category
Article 2197 does not treat "damages" as a single, undifferentiated award. It lists six distinct kinds: actual or compensatory, moral, nominal, temperate or moderate, liquidated, and exemplary or corrective. The article's own structure — a numbered list joined by or — signals that these are separate categories, each meant to address a different situation, rather than interchangeable labels for the same kind of award.
Damages meant to compensate a loss
Two of the six kinds are directly tied to compensating what was actually lost: actual or compensatory damages, and liquidated damages. Where the exact amount of loss is harder to establish but some loss clearly occurred, temperate or moderate damages sit alongside these as a distinct category — Article 2197 recognizes it as its own kind, separate from actual damages, precisely because it addresses a different evidentiary situation.
Damages that are not about proven financial loss
Other kinds are not about restoring a calculable loss at all. Moral damages exist as their own category, distinct from the compensatory kind. Nominal damages are likewise listed separately — again signaling a purpose different from compensating an actual, quantifiable loss. By naming each of these as its own numbered kind, Article 2197 keeps them conceptually apart from the damages meant simply to make someone financially whole.
The final category: exemplary or corrective
The sixth and last kind is exemplary or corrective damages. Its place at the end of the list, described with words like corrective rather than compensatory language, marks it out from the other five — it is oriented toward the character of the conduct involved rather than toward measuring what was lost. Article 2197 itself does not elaborate on when each of these six kinds applies; it establishes only that all six exist as recognized, distinct categories a court may draw on.
What this article leaves for other provisions to answer
Article 2197 is purely a list. It does not itself state what a plaintiff must prove to recover any particular kind, what amount is appropriate, or which kinds may be awarded together in the same case. It also does not say every case supports all six — whether a specific kind applies still depends on the facts and the separate rules governing that kind of damage. This article's role is to name the categories that exist, not to award anything on its own.
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 Phil. vs. victoriano M. Abesamis, G.R. No. 140985, August 28, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →