G.R. No. 89747 July 20, 1990
MAERSK-TABACALERA SHIPPING AGENCY (FILIPINAS), INC., petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, MONET’S EXPORT AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION AND/OR VICENTE TAGLE, respondents.

FACTS

Monet’s Export and Manufacturing Corporation (Monet’s) filed a complaint for damages against Maersk-Tabacalera Shipping Agency (Maersk) and New Asia Enterprises. Monet’s alleged that on March 11, 1984, after complying with all export requirements, it loaded its goods into a Maersk container for shipment to Manila. However, through alleged fraud and malice, Maersk unloaded the goods at New Asia’s factory without prior notice to give way to New Asia’s own shipment. Monet’s shipment was later returned to its warehouse. This breach of the contract of carriage allegedly caused Monet’s to incur additional expenses and suffer mental anguish, damaging its reputation as an exporter.
Maersk defended itself by contending that Monet’s shipment was loaded subject to the condition that a bill of lading would only be issued upon Monet’s submission of all necessary export papers prior to the truck’s departure for Manila. Maersk argued that without these papers, it could not lawfully transport the goods, as they would incur customs charges and be denied export clearance. The trial court found Maersk liable for breach of contract and awarded Monet’s actual, moral, and exemplary damages, plus attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction despite Monet’s failure to specify the exact amounts of damages in its complaint and pay corresponding filing fees; (2) the propriety of awarding damages for “breach of contract”; (3) the validity of awarding moral and exemplary damages to a corporation; and (4) the basis for awarding attorney’s fees.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. On jurisdiction, the Court ruled that Maersk was barred by laches from raising the issue for the first time on appeal. Maersk voluntarily participated in the trial by filing a counterclaim and actively engaging in proceedings without earlier questioning the court’s jurisdiction. Citing Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, the Court held that a party who seeks affirmative relief and acquiesces to the court’s authority cannot later repudiate it after an adverse judgment. The proper remedy for unquantified damages was governed by Sun Insurance Office Ltd. v. Asuncion: the additional filing fees for the unspecified amounts awarded in the judgment would constitute a lien on the judgment, to be assessed and collected by the Clerk of Court.
Regarding the damages, the Court found the award for “breach of contract” to be essentially an award of nominal or temperate damages for the contractual breach, which was permissible. On moral damages for a corporation, the Court implicitly sustained the lower courts’ finding that the breach, characterized by wanton bad faith, caused besmirched reputation and business standing, for which a corporation may recover. The award of exemplary damages was justified as a deterrent due to Maersk’s wanton conduct. Attorney’s fees were properly awarded as Monet’s was compelled to litigate. The Court also reprimanded Monet’s counsel for the unethical practice of not specifying damage amounts to avoid fees, warning against repetition.