Villanueva vs.

Rosqueta

G.R. No. 180764, January 19, 2010

Facts Respondent Emma M. Rosqueta, formerly Deputy Commissioner of the Revenue Collection and
Monitoring Group of the Bureau of Customs, tendered her courtesy resignation from that post on January

!, ""#. But five months later on June $, ""#, she %ithdre% her resignation, claiming that she en&oyed
security of tenure and that she had resigned against her %ill on orders of her superior.

Meantime, on July #!, ""# 'resident (rroyo appointed Gil )alera to respondent Rosqueta*s position.
Challenging such appointment, Rosqueta filed a petition for prohi+ition, quo %arranto, and in&unction
against petitioner itus B. )illanueva then Commissioner of Customs, the -ecretary of inance, and
)alera %ith the RC of Manila. he RC issued a R/, en&oining )illanueva and the inance -ecretary
from implementing )alera*s appointment. /n (ugust 0, ""# the trial court superseded the R/ %ith a
%rit of preliminary in&unction.

'etitioner )illanueva, )alera, and the -ecretary of inance challenged the in&unction order +efore the
Court of (ppeals. he C( issued its o%n R/, en&oining the implementation of the RCs in&unction
order. But the R/ lapsed after 1" days and the C( eventually dismissed the petition +efore it.

2hile the preliminary in&unction in the quo %arranto case %as again in force, petitioner )illanueva issued
Customs Memorandum /rder 3"4""#, authori5ing )alera to e6ercise the po%ers and functions of the
Deputy Commissioner.

Respondent filed an action for damages against the petitioner )illanueva alleging that he prevented her
from performing her duties as Deputy Commissioner, %ithheld her salaries, and refused to act on her
leave applications. he RC dismissed respondent Rosqueta*s complaint, stating that petitioner

)illanueva committed no %rong and incurred no omission that entitled her to damages. he RC found
that )illanueva had validly and legally replaced her as Deputy Commissioner.

he C( reversed the RCs decision, citing the a+use of rights principle, it held that )illanueva acted
maliciously %hen he prevented Rosqueta from performing her duties, deprived her of salaries and leaves,
and denied her official recognition as Deputy Commissioner +y e6cluding her from the centennial
anniversary memora+ilia.

!ssue 2hether or not the C( erred in holding petitioner )illanueva lia+le in damages to respondent
Rosqueta for ignoring the preliminary in&unction order that the RC issued in the quo %arranto case7
"el# 8nder the a+use of right principle found in (rticle #9 of the Civil Code, a person must, in the
e6ercise of his legal right or duty, act in good faith. :e %ould +e lia+le if he instead acts in +ad faith, %ith
intent to pre&udice another. Complementing this principle are (rticles " and # f the Civil Code %hich
grant the latter indemnity for the in&ury he suffers +ecause of such a+use of right or duty.

hat petitioner )illanueva ignored the in&unction sho%s +ad faith and intent to spite Rosqueta %ho
remained in the eyes of the la% the Deputy Commissioner. :is e6clusion of her from the centennial
anniversary memora+ilia %as not an honest mista;e +y any rec;oning. <ndeed, he %ithheld her salary and
prevented her from assuming the duties of the position. (s the Court said in (monoy v. -pouses
Gutierre5, a party*s refusal to a+ide +y a court order en&oining him from doing an act, other%ise la%ful,
constitutes an a+use and an unla%ful e6ercise of right.

$%e &' correctly a(ar#e# )oral #a)a*es to res+on#ent Rosqueta . -uch damages may +e a%arded
%hen the defendant*s transgression is the immediate cause of the plaintiffs anguish in the cases specified
in (rticle #9 of the Civil Code.