- Statute
- Civil Code
- Article
- Art. 2221
- Topic
- Nominal damages
- 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 2221. 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.
Key points
Article 2221 defines nominal damages. They are awarded so that a right of the plaintiff which has been violated or invaded by the defendant may be vindicated or recognized — not to indemnify the plaintiff for any loss suffered.
The purpose is recognition of the right rather than compensation, so nominal damages presuppose a violated right but no proven measurable loss; they are not awarded together with actual damages for the same injury. The provision is read with Article 2222 and with Article 2216 on the absence of any need to prove pecuniary loss.
Because their purpose is vindication rather than indemnification, nominal damages are appropriate where a legal right was clearly violated but no actual loss was proved or the loss is not susceptible of proof. They are not awarded in addition to actual or compensatory damages for the same act, since the latter already address the loss, and the amount rests in the sound discretion of the court. The article is read with Article 2222, which extends the same principle to the breach of a contractual obligation.
Cases applying this article
- Francisco v. Ferrer, Jr. G.R. No. 142029 (2001)
- Ernesto Basquiñez Saniano v. Joselina Basquiñez Sañano G.R. No. 261733
- Far East Bank v. The Honorable Court of Appeals G.R. No. 108164
- Pen Development Corporation v. Martinez Leyba G.R. No. 211845
- Agustin Y. Go v. Honorable Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 68138
- National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 122195
- Cogeo-Cubao Operators v. The Court of Appeals G.R. No. 100727