Titus Villanueva vs. Emma Rosqueta
G.R. No. 180764, January 19, 2010
FACTS:
Respondent Emma M. Rosqueta (Rosqueta), formerly Deputy Commissioner of the Revenue Collection and Monitoring Group of the Bureau of Customs (the Bureau), tendered her courtesy resignation from that post on January 23, 2001, shortly after President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo assumed office. But five months later on June 5, 2001, she withdrew her resignation, claiming that she enjoyed security of tenure and that she had resigned against her will on orders of her superior.
Meantime, on July 13, 2001 President Arroyo appointed Gil Valera (Valera) to respondent Rosqueta’s position. Challenging such appointment, Rosqueta filed a petition for prohibition, quo warranto, and injunction against petitioner Titus B. Villanueva (Villanueva), then Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, and Valera with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila in Civil Case 01-101539. On August 27, 2001 the RTC issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), enjoining Villanueva and the Finance Secretary from implementing Valera’s appointment. On August 28, 2001 the trial court superseded the TRO with a writ of preliminary injunction.
On November 22, 2001 while the preliminary injunction in the quo warranto case was again in force, petitioner Villanueva issued Customs Memorandum Order 40-2001, authorizing Valera to exercise the powers and functions of the Deputy Commissioner.
During the Bureau’s celebration of its centennial anniversary in February 2002, its special Panorama magazine edition featured all the customs deputy commissioners, except respondent Rosqueta. The souvenir program, authorized by the Bureau’s Steering Committee headed by petitioner Villanueva to be issued on the occasion, had a space where Rosqueta’s picture was supposed to be but it instead stated that her position was “under litigation.” Meanwhile, the commemorative billboard displayed at the Bureau’s main gate included Valera’s picture but not Rosqueta’s.
On February 28, 2002 respondent Rosqueta filed a complaint for damages before the RTC of Quezon City against petitioner Villanueva in Civil Case Q-02-46256, alleging that the latter maliciously excluded her from the centennial anniversary memorabilia. Further, she claimed that he prevented her from performing her duties as Deputy Commissioner, withheld her salaries, and refused to act on her leave applications. Thus, she asked the RTC to award her P1,000,000.00 in moral damages, P500,000.00 in exemplary damages, and P300,000.00 in attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
RTC dismissed the case. CA reversed granting Villanueva to pay P500,000.00 in moral damages, P200,000.00 in exemplary damages and P100,000.00 in attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in holding petitioner Villanueva liable in damages to respondent Rosqueta for ignoring the preliminary injunction order that the RTC issued in the quo warranto case, thus denying her of the right to do her job as Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau and to be officially recognized as such public officer.
RULING:
Petitioner Villanueva cannot seek shelter in the alleged advice that the OSG gave him. Surely, a government official of his rank must know that a preliminary injunction order issued by a court of law had to be obeyed, especially since the question of Valera’s right to replace respondent Rosqueta had not yet been properly resolved.
That petitioner Villanueva ignored the injunction shows bad faith and intent to spite Rosqueta who remained in the eyes of the law the Deputy Commissioner. His exclusion of her from the centennial anniversary memorabilia was not an honest mistake by any reckoning. Indeed, he withheld her salary and prevented her from assuming the duties of the position.
The CA correctly awarded moral damages to respondent Rosqueta.
Here, respondent Rosqueta’s colleagues and friends testified that she suffered severe anxiety on account of the speculation over her employment status. She had to endure being referred to as a “squatter” in her workplace. She had to face inquiries from family and friends about her exclusion from the Bureau’s centennial anniversary memorabilia. She did not have to endure all these affronts and the angst and depression they produced had Villanueva abided in good faith by the court’s order in her favor. Clearly, she is entitled to moral damages.
The Court, however, finds the award of P500,000.00 excessive. As it held in Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Alejandro,[18] moral damages are not a bonanza. They are given to ease the defendant’s grief and suffering. Moral damages should reasonably approximate the extent of hurt caused and the gravity of the wrong done. Here, that would be P200,000.00.
The Court affirms the grant of exemplary damages by way of example or correction for the public good but, in line with the same reasoning, reduces it to P50,000.00. Finally, the Court affirms the award of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses but reduces it to P50,000.00.
