COJUANCO v. CA
FACTS
Petitioner owns several racehorses which he entered in the sweepstakes races. Several of his horses won the races on various dates landing first, second or third places. He sent demand letters to Carascoso Jr(private respondent), who was then the PCSO chairman, for the collection of prizes due to him (petitioner). Carascoso Jr, consistently replied that the demanded prizes are being withheld on the advice of the Commissioner of the PCGG. Petitioner then filed a case in RTC for the collection of prizes but before summons could be served, PCGG advised Carascoso Jr to remit the prize winnings. This was immediately communicated to petitioner but the latter refused arguing that there was already a cased filed.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner acted in bad faith in withholding the winnings that entitles petitioner for damages.
HELD
Private respondent did not act in bad faith. Bad faith imports a dishonest purpose and conscious doing of a wrong that partakes the nature of fraud. In the case at bar, Carascoso Jr withheld the winnings to avoid any possible violation of the sequestration order against the property of the petitioner for alleged ill gotten wealth. He had particularly sought from PCGG a clarification of the extent and coverage of the sequestration order issued agains the property of Cojuanco Jr.(petitioner). He only acted upon the advise of PCGG Commissioner. Furthermore, EO 2 has just been issued by Pres. Aquino freezing all assets and properties in the Phils of former President Marcos including his close friends cronies, etc. The rule is that moral and exemplary damages for acts done in the performance of public duties shall not be awarded unless there is bad faith. Attorney’s fees cannot be awarded either for lack of any grounds as stated in the Civil Code. However, private respondent can still be held liable under Article 32 of the Civil Code for violation of the right against the deprivation of property without due process. Under this provision, bad faith is unnecessary. It is enough that there was a violation of the constitutional rights of petitioner even on the pretext of good faith. In this case, the petitioner’s right to use his property was impeded. A little exercise of prudence would have revealed that there was no specific writ of sequestration issued against the racehorse winnings of petitioner. Thus, there was a violation of a property right without due process of law. Award of nominal damages were deemed proper by the court.
