G.R. No. 207324. September 30, 2020. * MARY ELIZABETH MERCADO, petitioner, vs. RENE V. ONGPIN, respondent.

 Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Petition for Review on Certiorari; Question of Fact; Generally, the Supreme Court (SC) does not review questions of fact in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; However, when the factual findings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and Court of Appeals (CA) are conflicting, then the SC may resolve these issues.—Generally, this Court does not review questions of fact in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Whether or not a party acted in bad faith is a question of fact. Entitlement to damages likewise requires examination of the factual circumstances of a case. However, when the factual findings of the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals are conflicting, then this Court may resolve these issues. In its November 18, 2016 Decision, the Regional Trial Court held that respondent’s act of marrying petitioner even though he had an existing first marriage constituted bad faith. The Court of Appeals ruled otherwise because it found that, at the time respondent married petitioner, he believed in good faith that he was validly divorced from his first wife. Further, it found that respondent did not seek to have his second marriage declared null and void only so that he could evade liability in the civil case filed by petitioner. Bigamy; Moral Damages; The Supreme Court (SC) has sanctioned the award of moral damages in cases of bigamy based on Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code.—Moral damages are a form of compensation for the “physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury” unjustly sustained by a person. They are awarded when: (1) there is a physical, mental or psychological injury clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) a wrongful act or omission is factually established; (3) the act or omission is the proximate cause of the injury; and (4) the award of damages is based on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code. This

Court has sanctioned the award of moral damages in cases of bigamy based on Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code. Civil Law; Human Relations; Abuse of Rights; For there to be a finding of an abuse of rights under Article 19, the following elements must concur: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) the right is exercised or the duty is performed in bad faith; and (3) the sole intent of the exercise or performance is to prejudice or injure another.—For there to be a finding of an abuse of rights under Article 19, the following elements must concur: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) the right is exercised or the duty is performed in bad faith; and (3) the sole intent of the exercise or performance is to prejudice or injure another. It must be shown that the exercise of the right or performance of the duty was done with bad faith. In Dart Philippines, Inc. v. Spouses Calogcog, 596 SCRA 614 (2009): Malice or bad faith is at the core of Article 19 of the Civil Code. Good faith refers to the state of mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. It consists of the intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another. It is presumed. Thus, he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or simple negligence; it involves a dishonest purpose or some moral obloquy and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty due to some motives or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud. Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty. It implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad motive. Same; Criminal Law; Bigamy; As correctly stressed by the Court of Appeals (CA), the bad faith, or deliberate intent to do a wrongful act, of the bigamous spouse must be established.—The Regional Trial Court was in error when it held that the mere contracting of a second marriage despite the existence of a first marriage is, by itself, a ground for damages under Article 19 in relation to Article 20 or Article 21. As correctly stressed by the Court of Appeals, the bad faith, or deliberate intent to do a wrongful act, of the bigamous spouse must be established: Here, it was not convincingly shown that appellant deliberately contracted a second marriage despite knowledge of the subsistence of his first marriage. He believed in good faith that the divorce decree given to his first wife was valid and binding in the Philippines because he thought all along that [his] first wife at that time was already an [American] citizen

Thus, he and Mercado, both consenting adults, freely married each other, both believing that the final divorce decree was valid and binding in the Philippines. Indeed, both appellant and Mercado would not have married each other under pain of indictment for bigamy had they known that appellant’s first marriage was still in existence, because it later turned out that Mercado was still a Filipino when the divorce decree was issued. So how could appellant be held liable for damages when he was not shown to have acted in bad faith when he married appellee? It has been consistently held that bad faith does not simply mean negligence or bad judgment. It involves a state of mind dominated by ill will or motive. It implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity. The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good faith. Here, appellee failed to overcome the legal presumption of good faith. Thus, the award of moral damages must be deleted. Petitioner has not been able to prove that, at the time she and respondent married, respondent knew that his divorce from his first spouse was invalid. There is no proof that, upon the first spouse’s confirmation of her Philippine citizenship at the time she obtained the divorce decree, respondent concealed this knowledge from petitioner or allowed her to continue believing that their marriage was valid. The malice or bad faith necessary to sustain an action based on Article 19 of the Civil Code has not been shown in this case. Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Judgments; Withdrawal of Appeal; Once a case has been submitted for a court’s decision, the petitioning party cannot, at their election, withdraw their appeal. —Once a case has been submitted for a court’s decision, the petitioning party cannot, at their election, withdraw their appeal. The grant or denial of the withdrawal is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. The practice of the courts has always been to the effect that once a case or appeal is submitted for decision, its withdrawal should not be at the discretion of the party, but dependent on the assent thereto of the adjudicating authority. . . . . . . . What is important is that once the finality of the questioned judgment has been arrested by a motion for reconsideration, the reviewing officer should be given full opportunity to restudy the records and satisfy himself whether justice has been done; and if convinced that it was not done, to revise and correct the judgment as the interest of justice requires, irrespec

tive of whether the defendant will be favored or prejudiced. The public interest demands no less. As the Spanish proverb goes, justice is “no mas pero no menos.” PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. LEONEN, J.: Malice or bad faith must be proved to sustain an action for damages based on Article 19 of the Civil Code. This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision 2 and Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 98320. The Court of Appeals deleted the Regional Trial Court’s award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees to Mary Elizabeth Mercado (Mercado) in a case for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to Rene V. Ongpin (Ongpin). On February 5, 1972, Ongpin married Alma D. Mantaring (Mantaring) in Quezon City. Later, Mantaring obtained a divorce decree from the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, United States of America. 4 Believing he was divorced from Mantaring, Ongpin married Mercado in Princeton, New