OSCAR VENTANILLA vs.
GREGORIO CENTENO
G.R. No. L-14333, January 28, 1961 PADILLA, J.:
FACTS:
In Civil Case No. 18833 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, entitled Oscar Ventanilla vs. Edilberto
Alejandrino and Aida G. Alejandrino, plaintiff retained the service of Atty. Gregorio Centeno to represent
him and prosecute the case. Civil Case No. 19833 was an action for the recovery of P4,000.00 together
with damages. Decision unfavorable to the plaintiff was received by Atty. Gregorio Centeno on July 21,
1955, and a notice of appeal was filed by Atty. Centeno on July 25, 1955. On July 30, 1955, Atty. Centeno
wrote to the plaintiff the letter, enclosing copies of the decision and that notice of appeal, and stating
that he was not conformable to the decision and had not hesitated to file the notice of appeal. Atty.
Centeno informed him that he intended to appeal and plaintiff agreed. Plaintiff, however, did not leave
with Atty. Centeno at that time the amount for the appeal bond. About the middle of Aug. 1955, Atty.
Centeno wrote a letter to the plaintiff enclosing therein forms for an appeal bond. The plaintiff
Ventanilla, however, instead of executing an appeal bond, and because use of his reluctance to pay the
premium on the appeal bond, decided to file a cash appeal bond of P60.00.
He went to the office of Atty. Centeno at about 4 o'clock on August 18,1955, but was informed by the
clerk, Leonardo Sanchez, that Atty. Centeno was in Laguna campaigning for his candidacy as member of
the Provincial Board. Plaintiff then issued the check, for P60.00 as appeal bond and delivered the same
to Leonardo Sanchez with instruction to give the same to Atty. Centeno upon his arrival. The Court does
not believe plaintiff's testimony that Sanchez had contacted Atty. Centeno by telephone and that he
issued the check upon instruction of Atty. Centeno. Leonardo Sanchez had informed the plaintiff that
Atty. Centeno was in Laguna, and if he were in Manila, Sanchez could not have known the whereabouts
of Atty, Centeno. On August 17, Atty. Centeno prepared the motion for extension of time to file the
record on appeal, which was filed only on August 20, 1955. Atty. Centeno returned to Manila and went
to his office at about 10 o'clock in the morning of August 22. He cash the check, with the Marvel Building
Corporation and then went to the office of the Clerk of Court to file the appeal bond. According to Atty.
Centeno it was not accepted because the period of appeal had already expired, and that it was only at
that time he came to know that the period of appeal had expired. The court does not likewise believe
the testimony of Atty. Centeno. Neither the Clerk of Court, or any of the employees had the right to
refuse an appeal bond that is being filed, for it is not in his power to determine whether or not the
appeal bond has been filed within the time prescribed by law. In fact the record on appeal was accepted
and filed on September 5, 1955, but no appeal bond has been filed by Atty. Centeno.
The appellant claims that the trial court erred in not ordering the appellee to pay him actual or
compensatory, moral, temperate or moderate, and exemplary or corrective damages; in ordering the
appellee to pay the appellant only the sum of P200, and not P2,000 as nominal damages; and in not
ordering the appellee to pay the appellant the sum of P500 as attorney's fee. ISSUE:
Is the award of nominal damages excessive?; What is the basis thereof?
RULING:
Relative to the sufficiency of the sum of P200 as nominal damages awarded by the trial court to the
appellant, article 2221 of the new Civil Code provides:
"Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or
invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the
plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.”
The assessment of nominal damages is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances
of the case. Considering the circumstances, as found by the trial court, and the degree of negligence
committed by the appellee, a lawyer, in not depositing on time the appeal bond and filing the record on
appeal within the extension period granted by the court, which brought about the refusal by the trial
court to allow the record on appeal, the amount of P200 awarded by the trial court to the appellant as
nominal damages may seem exiguous. Nevertheless, considering that nominal damages are not for
indemnification of loss suffered but for the vindication or recognition of a right violated or invaded; and
that even if the appeal in civil case No. 18833 had been duly perfected, it was not an assurance that the
appellant would succeed in recovering the amount he had claimed in his complaint, the amount of
P2,000 the appellant seeks to recover as nominal damages is excessive. After weighing carefully all the
considerations, the amount awarded to the appellant for nominal damages should not be disturbed.