Art. 2229.
Exemplary or corrective damages are
imposed, by way of example or correction for the
public good, in addition to the moral, temperate,
liquidated or compensatory damages.
 Required by public policy for wanton acts
must be suppressed.
 Designed to reshape or curb behavior that is
socially deleterious in its consequence.
 Not only in the presence of an aggravating
circumstance but also where the
circumstances of the case show the highly
reprehensible or outrageous conduct
associated with willfulness, wantonness,
malice, gross negligence or recklessness,
oppression, insult, or fraud or gross fraud that
intensifies the injury.
 Liquidated + Exemplary
Plaintiff must show that he would be entitled
to compensatory, moral or temperate were it
not for the stipulation for liquidated damages.
People v. Cristobal (1996)
FACTS: A 28-year old woman, with one child and another
on the way was sexually assaulted.
ISSUE: Whether award of exemplary damages is
warranted.
RULING: Yes. For sexually assaulting a pregnant married
woman, the accused has shown moral corruption,
perversity, and wickedness. He has grievously wronged
the institution of marriage. The imposition of exemplary
damages of P25,000.00 by way of example to deter others
from committing same similar acts or for correction for
the public good is warranted.
Way of awarding moral and exemplary damages.
 Commensurate to the loss or injury suffered.
 Where compensatory and moral are increased,
exemplary should likewise be increased.
 May be awarded even if not pleaded.
Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages
as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when
the crime was committed with one or more
aggravating circumstances. Such damages are
separate and distinct from fines and shall be
applied to the offended party.
 The term aggravating circumstance in this
article shall include ordinary and qualifying.
 Not awarded in lieu of criminal or penal
punishment.
 Punishment for the private tort rather than of
the public crime.
 After the effectivity of the Revised Rules of
Court on 1 December 2001, Aggravating
circumstance must be alleged in the
information.
People v. Dalisay (2009)
FACTS: The accused, Dalisay is the live-in partner of the
victim’s mother. Victim, a 16-year old girl was raped by
the accused and molested even prior to the commission of
the crime. Information was filed against him in 2003.
RTC- Qualified rape, civil indemnity, moral damages and
exemplary damages (P25,000.00)
CA- Convicted him of simple rape only as the special
qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship
were not alleged in the information and affirmed the
damages.
ISSUE: Whether the award of exemplary damages is
proper.
RULING: Yes. Though the information was filed after the
effectivity of the Revised Rules of Court, the Court cannot
lose sight to the very reason why exemplary damages are
awarded. They are intended to serve as a deterrent to
serious wrongdoings. Being corrective in nature, they can
be awarded not only in the presence of aggravating
circumstance, but also where that acts are highly
reprehensible or outrageous conduct. Without aggravating
circumstance, the court may use Art. 2229 as legal basis
for the award of exemplary damages.
Award of exemplary damages was increased to
P30,000.00
NOTE: Courts may still award exemplary damages based
on Art. 2230, even if the aggravating circumstance has not
been alleged, so long as it has been proven in criminal
cases instituted before the effectivity of the Revised Rules.
of Court. (People v. Catubig, 2001)
Art. 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may
be granted if the defendant acted with gross
negligence.
Gross negligence means such utter want or absence of
care or failure to exercise even slight care as to raise a
presumption that he must have been conscious of the
probable consequences of his acts.
Art. 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the
court may award exemplary damages if the
defendant acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oppressive, or malevolent manner.
GR: Damages for breach of contract are limited to the
pecuniary loss sustained.
XPN: Where the breach amounts to an independent
willful tort, in which case, exemplary damages may be
recovered under proper allegation of bad faith, malice,
wantonness, or oppression.
Cathay Pacific Airways v. Vasquez (2003)
FACTS: Private respondents were passengers of
petitioners. By reason of being Gold Card members of
Cathay’s Marco Polo Club, they were upgraded from
Business Class to First Class as the Business Class
section was fully booked. However, spouses Vasquez
refused to avail such as they were travelling with
friends and will discuss business matters during the
trip. They were thereafter informed that they would
 not be allowed to take the flight if they will not avail of the  Need not be pleaded in the complaint because
said upgrade. Hence, they took the upgrade. Upon return, it cannot be predetermined.
they filed a complaint for damages.
RTC- Nominal (100K each), moral (2M each), exemplary Art. 2235. A stipulation whereby exemplary
(5M each), attorney’s fees (1M each) damages are renounced in advance shall be null and
CA- Deleted the award for exemplary and reduced other void.
damages.
ISSUE: Whether the insistence of upgrade amounts to bad Waiver of exemplary damages is null and void for being
faith and fraud as to entitle the spouses to exemplary contrary to public policy.
damages.
RULING: No. They were not induced into taking the First  Contrary rule would encourage the
Class through insidious words or deceitful machination. In perpetration of fraud.
fact, Ms. Chiu, Cathay’s crew, told them honestly that their
seats were given to other passengers. She might have
failed to offer the upgrade to other passengers as a
remedy, but the court finds no bad faith in her failure to
do so, even if that amounted to an exercise of bad
judgement.
Neither was their transfer was effected for some evil or
devious purpose as an upgrade is definitely for the benefit
of the passenger.

Art.2233. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered

as a matter of right; the court will decide whether or
not they should be adjudicated.

PNR v. CA (1985)
FACTS: Winifredo Tupang was a PNR passenger
seated on the open platform between the coaches of
the train. Due to mechanical defect, the train stopped
and took 2 hours to be repaired. Unfortunately, upon
passing Iyam bridge, Tupang fell off the train
resulting in his death.
ISSUE: Whether the spouse of Tupang is entitled to
the award of exemplary damages.
RULING: No. While PNR failed to exercise the
diligence required by law, Winifiredo was chargeable
with contributory negligence as he opted to sit on the
open platform between the coaches. He should have
held tightly and tenaciously on the upright metal bar.
Hence, justifies the deletion of the amounts
adjudicated as moral damages.

Art. 2234. While the amount for 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
damages in addition to the liquidated damages,
plaintiff must show that he would be entitled to
moral, temperate or compensatory damages were it
not for the stipulation for liquidated damages.

 Amount of exemplary damages need not be

proved and need not also be alleged.