In good faith

What is moral damage? When is it awarded? This is answered in this case of Mario.

Mario first married Lita in Quezon City, Philippines. Later, however, Lita obtained a divorce decree in the US. Believing that he was divorced from Lita, Mario married Nita, also in the US. However, Mario and Nita separated after 11 years of marriage. Then three years later, Mario also obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage to Lita.

Thereafter, Mario found out that Lita was still a Filipino citizen when she obtained the divorce decree in the US and as such, his marriage to her was still valid and subsisting when he married Nita. So he also filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a petition for Declaration of Nullity of his second marriage to Nita on the ground that it is a bigamous marriage based on Article 35 (4) of the Family Code (FC).

Nita opposed Mario’s petition and claimed that their marriage was valid under Article 26 of the Family Code (FC) and not prohibited by Article 35(4) because she was a US citizen at that time. Further, she claimed that the petition was Mario’s scheme to evade liability in a separate civil case she previously filed for separation of their properties.

After hearing the case, the RTC issued a decision granting Mario’s petition and declaring his marriage to Nita null and void. But the RTC ordered Mario to pay Nita P250,000 as moral damages P100,000 for exemplary damages and P150,000 as attorney’s fees incurred by Nita.

The RTC found that Mario was incapacitated to marry at the time he married Nita because he was then still validly married to Lita, thus rendering their marriage bigamous and null and void, under Article 35 (4) FC. The RTC also ruled that Mario was liable for moral, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees incurred by Nita because his act of contracting a second marriage despite his first marriage not being annulled yet undermined marriage and the family as inviolable social institutions, and therefore against good morals and the interest and general welfare of society.

He is also liable for exemplary damages because his actions were tainted with bad faith. He is also ordered to pay attorney’s fees because Nita has been constrained to incur said expenses to protect her interest.

On partial appeal of Mario to the Court of Appeals (CA) as to the award of damages and attorney’s fees to Nita, the CA modified the RTC decision by deleting the award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees because Mario did not deliberately contract a second marriage despite knowing that his first marriage subsisted, since he believed in good faith that the divorce decree secured by his first wife Lita was valid and binding as he thought she was already a US citizen.

The CA also ruled that Mario did not act in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner in seeking the nullity of his marriage to Nita, so the award of exemplary damages should also be deleted. Regarding the award of attorney’s fees, it should also be deleted as both parties had incurred costs to protect their interests. Was the CA correct?

The Supreme Court (SC) said yes. According to the SC, Mario’s bad faith, or deliberate intent to do a wrongful act, was not established. It was not convincingly shown that Mario deliberately contracted a second marriage despite knowledge of the subsistence of a first marriage. He believed in good faith that the divorce decree given to his first wife was valid and binding in the Philippines because he thought all along that his first wife Lita was already an American citizen.

Thus, he and Nita, as consenting adults, freely married each other, both believing that the final divorce decree was valid and binding in the Philippines. Indeed, had they known that Mario’s first marriage to Lita was still in existence because it later turned out that Lita was still a Filipino when the divorce decree was issued, they would not have married each other under pain of being indicted for bigamy. So Mario should not be held liable for damages as he did not act in bad faith when he married Nita.

Bad faith does not simply mean negligence or bad judgment. It involves a state of mind dominated by ill will or motive. It implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity.

In fact, Nita knew that there existed some issue regarding Mario’s first marriage which might adversely affect the validity of her marriage to him, yet she did not institute any action to protect her civil status and appeared complacent with the uncertainty that hovered over the validity of her marriage with Mario. So, there being no entitlement to moral damages, no exemplary damages can likewise be awarded to Nita. This ruling is similar to the ruling in the case of Mercado vs. Ongpin, G.R. 207324 Sept. 30, 2020.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]