Respondents additionally alleged the unreasonable cancellation of their confirmed reservation for the free use of an FLP villa on April 1, 1999. According to respondents, their reservation was confirmed by a Mr. Murphy Magtoto, only to be cancelled later on by a certain Shaye. Petitioners countered that April 1, 1999 was a Holy Thursday and FLP was already fully-booked. Petitioners, however, do not deny that Murphy Magtoto and Shaye are FLP employees who dealt with respondents. The absence of any confirmation number issued to respondents does not also discount the possibility that the latter’s reservation was mistakenly confirmed by Murphy Magtoto despite FLP being fully-booked. At most, we perceive a mix-up in the reservation process of petitioners. This demonstrates a mere negligence on the part of petitioners, but not willful intention to deprive respondents of their membership benefits. It does not constitute default that would call for rescission of the sale of FRCCI shares by petitioners to respondents. For the negligence of petitioners as regards respondents’ reservation for April 1, 1999, respondents are at least entitled to nominal damages in accordance with Articles 2221 and 2222 of the Civil Code.[35]
In Almeda v. Cariño,[36] we have expounded on the propriety of granting nominal damages as follows:
[N]ominal damages may be awarded to a plaintiff whose right has been violated or invaded by the defendant, for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right, and not for indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. Its award is thus not for the purpose of indemnification for a loss but for the recognition and vindication of a right. Indeed, nominal damages are damages in name only and not in fact. When granted by the courts, they are not treated as an equivalent of a wrong inflicted but simply a recognition of the existence of a technical injury. A violation of the plaintiff's right, even if only technical, is sufficient to support an award of nominal damages. Conversely, so long as there is a showing of a violation of the right of the plaintiff, an award of nominal damages is proper.[37]
It is also settled that “the amount of such damages is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, taking into account the relevant circumstances.”[38]
In this case, we deem that the respondents are entitled to an award of P5,000.00 as nominal damages in recognition of their confirmed reservation for the free use of an FLP villa on April 1, 1999 which was inexcusably cancelled by petitioner on March 3, 1999.
In sum, the respondents’ Complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action for the annulment or rescission of the contract of sale of FRCCI class “D” shares by petitioners to respondents; however, respondents were unable to establish by preponderance of evidence that they are entitled to said annulment or rescission.
x x x."
