Mercado v. Ongpin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rene V. Ongpin married Alma D. Mantaring in 1972. Mantaring later obtained a divorce decree from Nevada, USA. Believing he was divorced, Ongpin married Mary Elizabeth Mercado in 1989 in New Jersey, USA. The couple separated in 2000. Ongpin later obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage to Mantaring in 2003. Ongpin then filed a petition to declare his marriage to Mercado void, asserting that Mantaring was still a Filipino citizen when she obtained the divorce, rendering his marriage to Mercado bigamous and void under Article 35(4) of the Family Code. Mercado countered that her marriage to Ongpin was valid as she was a US citizen at the time and argued the petition was a scheme to evade her claims in a separate property division case she had filed. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court declared Ongpin and Mercado's marriage void and awarded Mercado P250,000.00 in moral damages, P100,000.00 in exemplary damages, and P150,000.00 in attorney's fees, finding Ongpin liable for bad faith. Ongpin appealed the award of damages and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals modified the RTC decision, deleting the awards for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees, holding that Ongpin acted in good faith, believing his divorce was valid, and thus did not act with the requisite bad faith for damages. The Court of Appeals denied Mercado's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Mary Elizabeth Mercado filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution. Mercado argued that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion by reversing the RTC's findings, highlighting Ongpin's filing of two petitions to nullify his first marriage and the timing of the second petition after she filed for separation of property. She contended that she was entitled to moral damages due to Ongpin's actions and exemplary damages for his disrespect for marriage, as well as attorney's fees. The Supreme Court considered whether the petition raised factual issues not reviewable under Rule 45 and whether Mercado was entitled to damages, noting conflicting factual findings between the lower courts.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion when it reversed the findings of the Regional Trial Court. Whether Mary Elizabeth Mercado is entitled to moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
Ruling
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The February 21, 2013 Decision and May 22, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court held that while generally it does not review questions of fact in a Rule 45 petition, it may do so when the factual findings of the RTC and CA are conflicting. In this case, the RTC found Ongpin acted in bad faith, while the CA found he acted in good faith. The Court found it necessary to examine the factual findings to resolve whether Ongpin acted in bad faith. The Court affirmed the CA's finding that Ongpin did not deliberately contract a second marriage despite knowing his first marriage subsisted. He believed in good faith that the divorce decree obtained by Mantaring was valid and binding because he thought she was already a US citizen. It was only after his marriage to Mercado that he consulted a lawyer and learned the divorce was ineffectual. The Court found no proof that Ongpin concealed knowledge of the invalidity of the divorce or allowed Mercado to continue believing their marriage was valid upon confirmation of Mantaring's Philippine citizenship. The malice or bad faith necessary to sustain an action based on Article 19 of the Civil Code was not shown. On the entitlement to moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees: The Court reiterated that moral damages are awarded for physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injuries. For moral damages to be awarded, there must be a physical, mental or psychological injury, a wrongful act or omission, the act or omission must be the proximate cause of the injury, and the award must be based on Article 2219 of the Civil Code. While bigamy cases can warrant moral damages based on Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code, Article 19 requires that the right be exercised or duty performed in bad faith with the sole intent to prejudice another. The Court emphasized that bad faith involves a dishonest purpose or some moral obloquy and conscious doing of a wrong, not merely bad judgment or simple negligence. In this case, Mercado failed to prove Ongpin's bad faith by clear and convincing evidence. The Court noted that Mercado herself knew about the anomaly in Ongpin's first marriage as early as 1992 and consulted a lawyer with Ongpin, yet she did not initiate actions to protect her civil status and appeared complacent. Therefore, she failed to establish that she sustained an injury in law due to Ongpin's acts. Since there is no entitlement to moral damages, exemplary damages, which require the same elements and are awarded only if the claimant is entitled to moral damages, cannot be awarded. Article 2234 of the Civil Code states that exemplary damages can be awarded only if the claimant is entitled to moral damages. The Court affirmed the CA's deletion of attorney's fees. It reasoned that both parties incurred costs to protect their interests. The Court found that Mercado's emotional suffering and anxiety were only those usually caused to a party in litigation and were insufficient justification for the award of moral or exemplary damages. The award of attorney's fees is typically granted when a party is compelled to litigate to protect their interest, but in this instance, both parties incurred legal expenses, and the primary claims for damages were not substantiated.
Main Doctrine
Malice or bad faith must be proved to sustain an action for damages based on Article 19 of the Civil Code. The mere contracting of a second marriage despite the existence of a first marriage is not, by itself, a ground for damages under Article 19 in relation to Article 20 or Article 21 of the Civil Code; the bad faith or deliberate intent to do a wrongful act of the bigamous spouse must be established.