DIGEST: Ching v. Quezon City Sports Club, G.R. No. 200150, November 07, 2016

Complaint for damages

CATHERINE CHING, LORENZO CHING, LAURENCE CHING, AND CHRISTINE CHING,

v.

QUEZON CITY SPORTS CLUB, INC.; MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NAMELY: ANTONIO T. CHUA, MARGARET MARY A. RODAS, ALEJANDRO G. YABUT, JR., ROBERT C. GAW, EDGARDO A. HO, ROMULO D. SALES, BIENVENIDO ALANO, AUGUSTO E. OROSA, AND THE FINANCE MANAGER, LOURDES RUTH M. LOPEZ,

G.R. No. 200150

First Division

November 07, 2016

Leonardo-De Castro, J.

Facts:

Petitioner Catherine Ching was a member of the Quezon City Sports Club, the respondent.

On September 2001, the respondent club implemented a special assessment to their club members seeking an amount of P 2,500. Petitioner Catherine was duly notified of the implementation of the special assessment through a Letter. However, believing that the imposition of the special assessment was unjust and/or illegal, she did not pay the same.

The Respondent board later on suspended the privileges of members who had not paid the special assessment, including petitioner. Petitioner Catherine paid the P2,500.00 special assessment only after her membership privileges were already suspended. However, according to the petitioner, even though she had already paid the special assessment, respondents continued harassing her when she was at the respondent Club.

Petitioners instituted before the RTC a Complaint for damages against respondents, based on Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code. During trial, it was manifested by the petitioner she was notified by the Respondent of her expulsion as a regular member of respondent Club due to her filing of the civil suit against respondents.

Issue:

Whether petitioner Ching is entitled for damages.

Ruling:

The SC held that petitioner Ching is entitled to nominal damages only. The respondent Quezon City Sports Club, Inc. was ordered to pay petitioners Lorenzo Ching, Catherine Ching, Laurence Ching, and Christine Ching nominal damages in the amount of P25,000.00.

According to the SC, there was no evidence that respondents acted in bad faith by particularly singling out petitioners, from among all other members of respondent Club who did not pay the assessment, to be harassed or humiliated.

Considering that there was justifiable ground for the suspension of petitioner Catherine's privileges in respondent Club, but her right to due process was violated as she was not afforded notice and hearing prior to the suspension, the Court proceeds to determine the reliefs to which petitioners are entitled.

The elements for the award of moral damages in a case are: (1) an injury clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) a wrongful act or omission by the defendant as the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award of damages predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.

Also, the person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence, for the law always presumes good faith. It is not enough that one suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish, and serious anxiety as the result of the actuations of the other party. Invariably, such action must be shown to have been willfully done in bad faith or with ill motive.

There being no clear and convincing evidence of respondents' bad faith in suspending petitioner Catherine's privileges in respondent Club nor in implementing such suspension, petitioners are not entitled to moral damages. Since the basis for moral damages has not been established, there is no basis to recover exemplary damages and attorney's fees, as well.

Even so, the Court deems it proper to award nominal damages to petitioners. Article 2221 of the Civil Code authorizes the award of nominal damages to a plaintiff whose right has been violated or invaded by the defendant, for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right, not for indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered. The Court may also award nominal damages in every case where a property right has been invaded. The amount of such damages is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, taking into account the relevant circumstances. For its failure to observe due process, as provided under Section 35(a) of the By-Laws, in the suspension of petitioner Catherine's privileges, respondent Club is liable to pay petitioners nominal damages in the amount of P25,000.00.

According to the SC, the By-laws of the Respondent club requires notice and hearing prior to a member's suspension. Definitely, in this case, petitioner Catherine did not receive notice specifically advising her that she could be suspended for nonpayment of the special assessment. The Respondent fell short of the stricter requirement under Section 35(a) of the same By-Laws. Petitioner Catherine's right to due process was clearly violated.

The Court clarifies that only respondent Club shall be liable for the nominal damages because in the absence of malice and bad faith, officers of a corporation cannot be made personally liable for the liabilities of the corporation which, by legal fiction, has a personality separate and distinct from its officers, stockholders, and members.