Case Digest: Amonoy v. Gutierrez

SERGIO AMONOY, petitioner, v. SPOUSES JOSE GUTIERREZ AND ANGELA FORNILDA, respondents.
G.R. No. 140420. February 15, 2001

Facts:

Amonoy was the counsel of the successors of the deceased Julio Cantolos for the settlement of the latter’s estate. On January 1965, the lots were adjudicated to Asuncion Pasamba and Alfonso Formilda. On January 20, 1965, Pasamba and Formilda executed a deed of real estate mortgage on the said two lots adjudicated to them, in favor of Amonoy to secure the payment of his attorney’s fees. But on August 6, 1969, after the taxes had been paid, the claims settled and the properties adjudicated, the estate was declared closed and terminated. When Pasamba and Formilda passed away, Formilda was succeeded by the spouses Gutierrez. On January 21, 1970, Amonoy filed for the closure of the two lots alleging the non-payment of attorney’s fees. The herein respondents denied the allegation, but judgment was rendered in favor of Amonoy.

Still for failure to pay attorney’s fees, the lots were foreclosed. Amonoy was able to buy the lots by auction where the house of the spouses Gutierrez was situated. On Amonoy’s motion of April 24, 1986, orders were implemented for the demolition of structures in the said lot, including herein respondents’ house. On September 27, 1985, David Formilda petitioned to the Supreme Court for a TRO for the suspension of the demolition, which was granted, but the houses have already been demolished. A complaint for damages was filed by respondents, which was denied by RTC but granted by CA, thus this case.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that Amonoy was liable for damages to respondents.

Ruling:

Petitioner invokes that it is well-settled that the maxim of damage resulting from the legitimate exercise of a person’s rights is a loss without injury — damnum absque injuria — for which the law gives no remedy, saying he is not liable for damages. The precept of Damnum Absque Injuria has no application is this case. Petitioner did not heed the TRO suspending the demolition of structures. Although the acts of petitioner may have been legally justified at the outset, their continuation after the issuance of the TRO amounted to an insidious abuse of his right. Indubitably, his actions were tainted with bad faith.

Article 19, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, sets certain standards which may be observed not only in the exercise of one’s rights but also in the performance of one’s duties. These standards are the following: to act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith. This must be observed. Clearly then, the demolition of respondents’ house by petitioner, despite his receipt of the TRO, was not only an abuse but also an unlawful exercise of such right. The petition is denied. The decision of CA is affirmed.