Wassmer v. Velez (1964)

WASSMER v. VELEZ

GR No. 2008-9

December 26, 1964

FACTS

·       Petitioner: Beatriz P. Wassmer

·       Defendant: Francisco X. Velez

BACKGROUND FACTS

·       Sept. 4, 1954 - Wassmer and Velez's set date to marry (following their mutual promise of love)

·       Sept. 2, 1954 - Velez left a note to Velez telling her that the wedding will be postponed saying his mother opposes it; tells Wassmer not to ask people about the reason since it might "create a scandal"

·       Sept. 3, 1954 - Velez sent another message saying nothing has changed and that he will return.

·       Velez did not appear and was never heard from again.

·       Velez sued for damages; Velez filed no answer; declared in default

·       April 29, 1955 - decision was rendered ordering Velez to pay Wassmer:

o   P2,000 (actual damages)

o   P25,000 (moral and exemplary damages)

o   P2,500 (attorney's fees and the costs)

·       June 21, 1955 - Velez filed a "petition for relief from orders, judgment and proceedings and motion for new trial and reconsideration"

o   Velez alleged "excusable negligence" as ground to set aside judgement by default

o   Wassmer moved to dismiss

·       Aug. 2, 1955 - Ordered parties and their attorneys to appear before it on Aug. 23, 1955 "to explore at the stage of the proceedings the possibility of arriving at an amicable settlement."

o   If they failed to appear: petition for relief and the opposition thereto will be deemed submitted for resolution

o   Velez failed to appear

o   Velez's counsel filed motion to defer for 2 weeks the resolution on defendant's petition for relief; counsel said it would confer with defendant in CDO (Velez's residence) on the possibility of an amicable settlement; court granted 2 weeks counted from Aug. 25, 1955

·       June 15, 1956 - Plaintiff manifested 2 weeks given had expired on Sept. 8, 1955 but Velez failed to appear

·       July 6, 1956 - another chance for an amicable settlement; calling parties to appear on July 13, 1956; Velez's counsel informs the court there was no possibility of an amicable settlement

·       July 20, 1956 - Court issued an order denying defendant's aforesaid petition; defendant appealed to SC

·       Velez argues there is there is "no provision of the Civil Code authorizing" an action for breach of promise to marry.

• It must not be overlooked, however, that the extent to which acts not contrary to law may be perpetrated with impunity, is not limitless for Article 21 of said Code provides that “any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.”

ISSUE:

·       W/N breach of promise to marry is an actionable wrong in this case.

HOLDING/RATIONALE:

·       This is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry.

·       As stated, mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different.

·       This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21 which provides in part “any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.”

·       And under the law, any violation of Article 21 entitles the injured party to receive an award for moral damages as properly awarded by the lower court in this case. Further, the award of exemplary damages is also proper. Here, the circumstances of this case show that Velez, in breaching his promise to Wassmer, acted in wanton, reckless, and oppressive manner – this warrants the imposition of exemplary damages against him.

JUDGMENT/RATIONALE:

·       Lower court's judgment is AFFIRMED; modifications, with costs.

·       P15,000 (moral and exemplary damages) is deemed to be a reasonable award

o   Article 2219(10) - Moral damages are recoverable in the cases mentioned in Article 21 of this Code.

o   Velez acted in wanton, fraudulent, wreck less, oppressive, or malevolent manner.