No show

A “no show” at the wedding ceremony by the bride or groom may be a cause of action for damages. But if it is the wedding cake which is a “no show” at the wedding reception, can it also be a cause of action for damages? This is answered in this case of Mandy and Christy.

Mandy and Christy were already engaged to be married. Their wedding date has already been set. One month before the wedding, Christy and her mother already ordered a three layered wedding cake at a well known bake shop in their locality which is owned by Mila. It was agreed that the wedding cake will be delivered at 5 o’clock in the afternoon at the Country Club where the reception will be held. Mother and daughter made a down payment of P1,000 and fully paid the balance of P3,000 two weeks later.

On wedding day, the newly married couple with their wedding party and guest arrived at about 6 p.m. But the wedding cake was nowhere to be found. By 7 p.m., Christy’s mother made a follow up call at the bakeshop. She was informed that delivery was delayed because of traffic. One hour later they received another call from the bakeshop informing them that the wedding cake could not be delivered because the order slip got lost. So the embarrassed couple and their parents were compelled to buy the only available cake at the club, a sans rival.

At about ten o’clock however, a wedding cake was still delivered. But it was not accepted anymore because it was already too late and the cake was only two-layered instead of the three-layered cake they ordered.

Subsequently, Mila the bakeshop owner, sent a personal letter of apology accompanied by a P5,000 check for the damage done. But Christy and her mother declined it feeling it was inadequate. Two weeks after the wedding, Mila called Christy’s mother to apologize and then sent her son-in-law to their residence offering once more the P5,000. But this was rejected anew.

Three months later, when no further offer was made, Mandy, Christy and their parents sued Mila and the bakeshop for breach of contract. They asked the court to order Mila to pay them actual damages of P4,000, moral damages of P250,000, exemplary damages of P100,000, nominal damages of P10,000 and attorney’s fees of P10,000, allegedly because of their mental anguish, personal embarrassment, serious anxiety and sleepless nights.

The lower court awarded them the actual damage plus P30,000 moral damages and attorney’s fees of P10,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) even increased the moral damages to P250,000 and likewise awarded the exemplary damages of P100,000.

Mila questioned the award of moral and exemplary damages. She contended that both the lower court and the CA erred in awarding these damages because they are recoverable only if the breach of contract was palpably wanton, reckless, malicious, in bad faith, oppressive and abusive. Here it was not. Was Mila correct?

Yes. Persons claiming moral and exemplary damages for breach of contract must prove that the guilty party acted in bad faith or in a wanton, fraudulent and reckless manner which are the proximate causes of their embarrassment, shame, sleepless nights, mental anguish or serious anxiety.

Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence. It contemplates a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious wrongdoing, a breach of a known duty through some motive, interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud. There are no such things in this case. In fact Mila was quick to apologize and offered to repair the damage done.

But Mila must pay nominal damages of P10,000  by citing heavy traffic as the excuse for the delay in the delivery of the cake, when in truth no cake can really be delivered because the order slip got lost. She should also pay the cost of the cake and the attorney’s fees of P10,000  (Francisco et. Al. vs. Ferrer Jr. et. al G.R. 142029, February 23, 2001).

*    *    *

E-mail: [email protected]