Text of the provision
Art. 2234. While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved, the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded. In case liquidated damages have been agreed upon, although no proof of loss is necessary in order that such liquidated damages may be recovered, nevertheless, before the court may consider the question of granting exemplary in addition to the liquidated damages, the plaintiff must show that he would be entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages were it not for the stipulation for liquidated damages.
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
Though the amount need not be proved, the plaintiff must first show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider awarding exemplary damages.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 2233 — Not a Matter of Right.
- Article 2236 — The Debtor's Whole Patrimony Answers.
Cases citing this article
- United Coconut Planters Bank, Inc. vs. E. Ganzon, Inc, G.R. No. 244247, November 10, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Manila International Ports Terminal, Inc. vs. Philippine Ports Authority/Philippine Ports Authority vs. Manila International, G.R. No. 196199 / G.R. No. 196252, December 7, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Pastora Ganancial vs. Betty Cabugao, G.R. No. 203348, July 6, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Loyola Life Plans Incorporated (now Loyola Plans Consolidated, Inc. and Angelita D. Lumiqued), G.R. No. 228402 / G.R. No. 222912, August 26, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Chevron Philippines, Inc. vs. Leo Z. Mendoza/Leo Z. Mendoza vs. Chevron Philippines, Inc, G.R. No. 211533 / G.R. No. 212071, June 19, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.