G.R. No. 128690 January 21, 1999 ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HONORABL CO!RT O" APPALS, RP!BLIC BROADCASTING CORP, CORP, #I#A PROD!CTION, INC., an$ #ICNT DL ROSARIO, respondents. "a%&'( Petitioner ABS-CBN and respondent Viva executed a Film Exhibition Areement !hereb" respondent Viva ave petitioner ABS-CBN an exclusive riht to exhibit some Viva #lms. Sometime in $ecember %&&%, in accordance !ith pararaph '.( o) said areement statin that * %.( ABS-CBN shall have the riht o) #rst re)usal to the next t!ent"-)our +'( Viva #lms )or V telecast under such terms as ma" be areed upon b" the parties hereto, provided, ho!ever, that such riht shall be exercised b" ABS-CBN )rom the actual oer in !ritin. /espondent Viva, throuh respondent Vicente $el /osario, oered petitioner ABS-CBN, throuh its vice-president Charo Santos-Concio, a list o) three+0 #lm pac1aes +02 title )rom !hich petitioner ABS-CBN ma" exercise its riht o) #rst re)usal under the a)oresaid areement. Petitioner ABS-CBN, ho!ever throuh 3rs. Concio, 4can tic1 o onl" ten +%5 titles4 +)rom the list 4!e can purchase4 and there)ore did not accept said list. he titles tic1ed o b" 3rs. Concio are not the sub6ect o) the case at bar except the #lm 773ain Sino 8a 3an.4 9n Februar" ':, %&&', respondent $el /osario approached petitioner ABS-CBN7s 3s. Concio, !ith a list consistin o) ;' oriinal movie titles + i.e. not "et aired on television includin the %( titles sub6ect o) the present case, as !ell as %5( re-runs +previousl" aired on television )rom !hich petitioner ABS-CBN ma" choose another ;' titles, as a total o) %;2 titles, proposin to sell to petitioner ABS-CBN airin rihts over this pac1ae o) ;' oriinals and ;' re-runs )or P25,555,555.55 o) !hich P05,555,555.55 !ill be in cash and P05,555,555.55 !orth o) television spots. 9n April ', %&&', respondent $el /osario and ABS-CBN eneral manaer, Euenio >>, met at the amarind ?rill /estaurant in @ue=on Cit" to discuss the pac1ae proposal o) respondent Viva. hat transpired in that lunch meetin is the sub6ect o) conictin versions. 3r.
respondent /BS the exclusive riht to air %5( Viva-produced andDor acuired #lms includin the )ourteen +%( #lms sub6ect o) the present case. Petitioner ABS-CBN then #led be)ore the /C a complaint )or speci#c per)ormance aainst respondents /epublic Broadcastin Corporation +/BS, Viva Production, and Vicente $el /osario. he /C rendered a decision in )avor o) respondents /BS and V>VA and aainst petitioner ABS-CBN. Arieved b" the /C7s decision, petitioner ABS-CBN appealed to the respondent Court o) Appeals claimin that there !as a per)ected contract bet!een petitioner ABS-CBN and respondent V>VA rantin petitioner ABS-CBN the exclusive riht to exhibit the sub6ect #lms. /espondents V>VA and $el /osario also appealed see1in moral damaes. As to the a!ard o) moral damaes, respondent Court o) Appeals )ound reasonable basis there)or, holdin that respondent /BS7s reputation !as debased b" the #lin o) the complaint and b" the non-sho!in o) the #lm 43ain Sino 8a 3an.4 Petitioner ABS-CBN contends that there !as no clear basis )or the a!ard o) moral damaes. he controvers" involvin petitioner ABS-CBN and respondent /BS did not in an" !a" oriinate )rom business transaction bet!een them. he claims )or such damaes did not arise )rom an" contractual dealins or )rom speci#c acts committed b" petitioner ABS-CBN aainst respondent /BS that ma" be characteri=ed as !anton, )raudulent, or rec1less the" arose b" virtue onl" o) the #lin o) the complaint, An a!ard o) moral damaes is not !arranted !here the record is bere)t o) an" proo) that a part" acted maliciousl" or in bad )aith in #lin an action. >n an" case, )ree resort to courts )or redress o) !rons is a matter o) public polic". he la! reconi=es the riht o) ever" one to sue )or that !hich he honestl" believes to be his riht !ithout )ear o) standin trial )or damaes !here b" lac1 o) sucient evidence, leal technicalities, or a dierent interpretation o) the la!s on the matter, the case !ould lose round. 9ne !ho ma1es use o) his o!n leal riht does no in6ur". 9n the other hand, in support o) its stand that a 6uridical entit" can recover moral damaes, respondent /BS cited People v . Manero, !here it !as stated that such entit" ma" recover moral damaes i) it has a ood reputation that is debased resultin in social humiliation. I''u)'( 1* hether or not there !as a per)ected contract bet!een respondent V>VA and petitioner ABS-CBN. 2* hether or not respondent /BS is entitled to moral damaes. H)+$( 1* No. Gnder Corporation Code, unless other!ise provided b" said Code, corporate po!ers, such as the po!er to enter into contracts, are exercised b" the Board o) $irectors. Ho!ever, the Board ma" deleate such po!ers to either an executive committee or ocials or contracted manaers. he deleation, except )or the executive committee, must be )or speci#c purposes. $eleation to ocers ma1es the latter aents o) the corporation accordinl", the eneral rules o) aenc" as to the bindins eects o) their acts !ould appl". For such ocers to be deemed )ull" clothed b" the corporation to exercise a po!er o) the Board, the latter must speciall" authori=e them to do so. In &) %a') a& ar, even i) it be conceded arguendo that respondent $el /osario had accepted the counter-oer, the acceptance did not bind respondent V>VA, as there !as no proo) !hatsoever that respondent $el /osario had the speci#c authorit" to do so. hat respondent $el /osario did not have the authorit" to accept petitioner ABS-CBN7s counter-
oer !as best evidenced b" his submission o) the dra)t contract to V>VA7s Board o) $irectors )or the latter7s approval. >n an" event, there !as bet!een respondent $el /osario and >> no meetin o) minds. 2* No. he a!ard o) moral damaes cannot be ranted in )avor o) a corporation because, bein an arti#cial person and havin existence onl" in leal contemplation, it has no )eelins, no emotions, no senses. >t cannot, there)ore, experience ph"sical suerin and mental anuish, !hich call be experienced onl" b" one havin a nervous s"stem. he statement in People v . Manero and Mambulao Lumber Co. v . PNB that a corporation ma" recover moral damaes i) it 4has a ood reputation that is debased, resultin in social humiliation4 is an obiter dictum. In &) %a') a& ar, on this score alone the a!ard )or moral damaes must be set aside, since respondent /BS is a corporation.
