- Statute
- Civil Code
- Article
- Art. 2220
- Topic
- Moral damages for breach of contract in bad faith
- Status
- In force
- Book
- BOOK IV Obligations and Contracts
- Title
- TITLE XVIII DAMAGES
- Chapter
- CHAPTER 3 Other Kinds of Damages
- Year
- 1949
- Cited by
- Multiple Supreme Court decisions
The provision
ARTICLE 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
Intellegal Wiki · In plain terms
Moral damages may be awarded for a breach of contract only where the defendant acted in bad faith or fraudulently — a mere breach is not enough. Wilful injury to property may also justify them where the court finds it proper. In contract cases, bad faith is the gateway to moral damages.
An editorially maintained plain-language explanation of this provision — not legal advice.
Intellegal Wiki · How the courts apply it
In Far East Bank v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held: Modified the award by deleting moral and exemplary damages, holding that moral damages for breach of contract require fraud or bad faith under Article 2220, which mere negligence did not meet, and that Article 21 cannot override that requirement; awarded P5,000 nominal damages under Article 2221 and affirmed attorney's fees under Article 2208.
One leading Supreme Court case applying this provision.
Key points
Article 2220 allows moral damages for wilful injury to property where the court finds, under the circumstances, that such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
For contract cases the provision sets a key threshold: moral damages are not awarded for ordinary breach, but only where the breach is attended by fraud or bad faith. It is read with Article 2217 (definition of moral damages) and Article 2219, and with Article 1170 on liability for fraud, negligence, or delay in performing obligations.
For contractual claims the article sets a clear gate: moral damages are not recoverable for an ordinary breach, but only where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith, so the plaintiff must plead and prove that aggravating state of mind. The same provision separately allows moral damages for wilful injury to property when the court finds them justly due. It works with Article 2217's definition of moral damages and with Article 1170 on liability for fraud, negligence, or delay in the performance of obligations.
Cases applying this article
- Francisco v. Ferrer, Jr. G.R. No. 142029 (2001)
- Far East Bank v. The Honorable Court of Appeals G.R. No. 108164
- Gemma A. Vda. de Liwag v. Rudy P. Cruz [Deceased] G.R. No. 259415
- Dr. Enrique T. Ona v. Northstar International Travel G.R. No. 209581
- Philippine Airlines v. Vicente Lopez, Jr. G.R. No. 156654
- Teodoro I. Chavez v. Hon. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 159411
- Mariano L. del Mundo v. Hon. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 104576
- Spouses Danilo Febrero v. Spouses Rodolfo Febrero G.R. No. 262227
Other Supreme Court decisions also apply this article.