Facts:

Hermogenes and Jane Ong contracted with Nancy for the latter to film their wedding at a contract price of P1,650.00. After the wedding, Sps. Ong tried to claim the video tape of their wedding which they planned to show to their relatives in the US where they were to spend their honeymoon. Nancy, however, said that the tape was not yet processed. She advised them to return after their honeymoon. Sps. Ong did return but they found out that the tape had been erased and therefore, could no longer be delivered. Furious at the loss of the tape which was supposed to be the only record of their wedding, Sps. Ong sued Nancy for damages and impleaded her husband, Alex. The trial court ruled in favor of Sps. Ong and awarded in their favor, among others, P75k in moral damages.

Nancy appealed alleging that they erased the video tape because as per the terms of their agreement, the spouses are supposed to claim their wedding tape within 30 days after the wedding, however, the spouses neglected to get said wedding tape because they only made their claim after two months. Nancy also contend that her husband should not be impleaded in this suit.


Issues: 

1. Should Nancy be held liable for damages?

2. Is the award of moral damages proper?

3. Should Alex be impleaded in the suit?


Held:

 1. Yes. It is shown that the spouses Ong made their claim after the wedding but were advised to return after their honeymoon. The spouses advised Go that their honeymoon is to be done abroad and won’t be able to return for two months. It is contrary to human nature for any newlywed couple to neglect to claim the video coverage of their wedding; the fact that the Ongs filed a case against Nancy Go belies such assertion. Clearly, petitioners are guilty of actionable delay for having failed to process the video tape. Considering that private respondents were about to leave for the United States, they took care to inform petitioners that they would just claim the tape upon their return two months later. Thus, the erasure of the tape after the lapse of thirty days was unjustified.

In this regard, Article 1170 of the Civil Code provides that those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay, and those who is any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.

In the instant case, petitioners and private respondents entered into a contract whereby, for a fee, the former undertook to cover the latters wedding and deliver to them a video copy of said event. For whatever reason, petitioners failed to provide private respondents with their tape. Clearly, petitioners are guilty of contravening their obligation to said private respondents and are thus liable for damages.


2. Generally, moral damages cannot be recovered in an action for breach of contract because this case is not among those enumerated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code. However, it is also accepted in this jurisdiction that liability for a quasi-delict may still exist despite the presence of contractual relations, that is, the act which violates the contract may also constitute a quasi-delict. Consequently, moral damages are recoverable for the breach of contract which was palpably wanton, reckless, malicious or in bad faith, oppresive or abusive. Petitioners act or omission in recklessly erasing the video coverage of private respondents wedding was precisely the cause of the suffering private respondents had to undergo.

 Considering the sentimental value of the tapes and the fact that the event therein recorded a wedding which in our culture is a significant milestone to be cherished and remembered could no longer be reenacted and was lost forever, the trial court was correct in awarding the appellees moral damages albeit in the amount of P75,000.00, which was a great reduction from plaintiffs demand in the complaint, in compensation for the mental anguish, tortured feelings, sleepless nights and humiliation that the appellees suffered and which under the circumstances could be awarded as allowed under Articles 2217 and 2218 of the Civil Code.
3. No. Under Article 117 of the Civil Code (now Article 73 of the Family Code), the wife may exercise any profession, occupation or engage in business without the consent of the husband. In the instant case, it was only petitioner Nancy Go who entered into the contract with private respondent. Consequently, she is solely liable to private respondents for the damages awarded below, pursuant to the principle that contracts produce effect only as between the parties who execute them. (Nancy Go and Alex Go vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114791. May 29, 1997)