You are on page 1of 5

3 GF EQUITY V VALENZONA price of proprietary share is around 5M but he purchased

the share of Dr. Butalid for only 3M.


FACTS:
CCCI issued Proprietary Ownership Certificate
GF Equity Corp., represented by Utengsu, hired to respondent. The CCCI Board of Directors, however,
Valenzona as coach for the Alaska Basketball Team in deferred the proprietary membership of the respondent.
the PBA. The employment contract a termination clause Subsequently, respondent received a letter from CCCI's
providing, “if any time during the contract, the COACH, corporate secretary, informing him that the Board
in the SOLE OPINION of the Corporation fails to exhibit disapproved his application for proprietary membership.
skill or competitive ability, the corporation may terminate
his contract. Respondent wrote several letter s to CCCI to
reconsider his application for membership but all was
In 1988, despite Alaska finishing third in the unanswered. Consequently, respondent filed with the
conference, GF Equity terminated the services of RTC a complaint for damages. RTC ruled in favor of
Valenzona pursuan to the termination clause. respondent ordering defendants to pay, jointly and
severally the plaintiff compensatory, moral and
6 years from then, Valenzona filed a case for exemplary damages. Petitioner appealed to the CA. The
breach of contract with daamges contending that GF CA affirmed the trial court's decision.
Equity arbitrarily and unilaterally terminated his
employment. GF maintained on the other hand, its right Main contention of Petitioner is their defense of
to terminate was pursuant to the termination clause. of damnum absque injuria or damage without injury.

RTC ruled in favor of GF equity holding that Issues:


Valenzona was fully aware that he entered into a bad
bargain. CA then reversing the decision, held that the W/N Cebu Country Club is liable for damages.
contract was void being absence of mutuality, and that
GF Equity abused its right under said contract. GF Held:
Equity appeals. (awarded actual, moral & exemplary
dam.) Yes. Article 2219 of the NCC states in essence
that moral damages may be recovered in acts and
ISSUE: actions referred to in Article 21. Art 21 provides in part
that any person who willfully causes injury to others in
Is Valenzona entitled to damages? manner that is contrary to M, GC, or PP shall
compensate the latter for damages.
RULING:
In this case, although the board of CCCI has the
Yes. Every person must, in the exercise of his right to approve or disprove any application for
rights and the performance of his duties, act with justice, proprietary membership, but the same should not be
give every man his due, and observe honesty and good exercised arbitrarily. (They have a black ball voting system
faith. (Art 19 of the CC) wherein it requires unanimity of votes. However, only 1 black
ball was present, thus, lack of unanimity.) Here, the SC was
Here, GF Equity while holding a right to convinced that the respondent suffered mental anguish,
terminate its employees, pursuant to manage social humiliation and wounded feelings because of the
prerogative, exercised the same arbitrarily. It negligently arbitrary denial of his application.
failed to provide any legal basis to justify the dismissal of
Valenzona and therefore entitles the latter However, the SC court held that the damages
compensation. The contract which the purported right awarded are excessive and decided to reduce it. In
was based upon was void, in that the contract’s validly awarding damages, there is no hard-and-fast rule. To be
was left solely and exclusively to the discretion of GF fair and reasonable amount, the award of damages
Equity. should not be palpable and scandalously excessive.

Awarded only actual, since moral and exemplary must Further, the principle of damnum absque
be substantiated by clear evidence. injuria or damage without injury does not apply when
there is an abuse of a person's right such as in this case.
CEBU COUNTRY CLUB v. RICARDO F.
ELIZAGAQUE, GR No. 160273, 2008-01-18 [TC and CA aptly held that petitioners committed fraud and
evident bad faith in disapproving respondent’s applications. This is
contrary to morals, good custom or public policy. Hence, petitioners
Facts: are liable for damages pursuant to Article 19 in relation to Article 21 of
the same Code.
Petitioner CCCI is a domestic corporation It bears stressing that the amendment to Section 3(c) of
operating as a non-profit and non-stock private CCCI’s Amended By-Laws requiring the unanimous vote of the
membership club. Respondent Elizagaque filed with directors present at a special or regular meeting was not printed on the
application form respondent filled and submitted to CCCI. What was
CCCI an application for proprietary membership. The printed thereon was the original provision of Section 3(c) which was
silent on the required number of votes needed for admission of an or malice in sending the demand letters to respondent.
applicant as a proprietary member.]
There was ground for Nala's actions since she believed
that the property was owned by her husband Eulogio
Duyan and that respondent was illegally occupying the
NALA VS. CABANSAG
same.
FACTS:
Artemio filed Civil Case for damages in October It may be true that respondent suffered mental
1991. He bought a 50-square meter property from anguish, serious anxiety and sleepless nights when he
spouses Eugenio Gomez, Jr. and Felisa Duyan Gomez received the demand letters; however, there is a material
on July 23, 1990. Said property is part of a 400-square distinction between damages and injury.
meter lot registered in the name of the Gomez spouses.
In October 1991, he received a demand letter from Atty. Injury is the legal invasion of a legal right while
Alexander del Prado (Atty. Del Prado), in behalf of damage is the hurt, loss or harm which results from the
Purisima Nala (Nala), asking for the payment of rentals injury.14Thus, there can be damage without injury in
from 1987 to 1991 until he leaves the premises, as said those instances in which the loss or harm was not the
property is owned by Nala, failing which criminal and civil result of a violation of a legal duty. In such cases, the
actions will be filed against him. Another demand letter consequences must be borne by the injured person
was sent on May 14, 1991. Because of such demands, alone; the law affords no remedy for damages resulting
respondent suffered damages and was constrained to from an act which does not amount to a legal injury or
file the case against Nala and Atty. Del Prado. 3 wrong. These situations are often called damnum
absque injuria.15
RTC rendered its decision in favor of Cabansag.
One who makes use of his own legal right does
In affirming the RTC Decision, the CA took note no injury.16 Thus, whatever damages are suffered by
of the Decision dated September 5, 1994 rendered by respondent should be borne solely by him.
the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 80, dismissing Civil
Case No. 91-8821, an action for reconveyance of real xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
property and cancellation of TCT No. 281115 with
damages, filed by Nala against spouses Gomez. damnum absque injuria - one who merely
exercises ones rights does no actionable injury
Petitioner’s Contention: CA erred in not
considering the right of Purisima Nala to assert her rights
and cannot be held liable for damages.
and interest over the property and in awarding damages
and attorneyy’s fees without basis. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

AMONOY v GUTIEREZ-FORNILDA
ISSUE:
Whether Petitioners are liable for damages
FACTS: A settlement of the estate of Julio involving 6
RULING: NO. parcels of land was filed before the CFI in Pasig. In Jan
1965, a project of partition was approved, 2 lots were
Both the RTC and the CA failed to indicate the adjudicated to Asuncion and Alfonso. The attorney’s
particular provision of law under which it held petitioners fees charged to Amonoy was 27,600 was secured
liable for damages. Based on the allegations in through the execution of a deed of real estate mortgage
respondent's complaint, it may be gathered that the to the 2 lots. After both died and the fees were left
basis for his claim for damages is Article 19 of the Civil
unpaid, Amonoy filed for the foreclosure of the
Code, which provides:
mortgage. The same was granted and sold at public
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his
auction where Amonoy won as highest bidder. The lot
rights and in the performance of his duties, act with sold also contained the Gutierrez spouses house.
justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty
and good faith. The spouses filed for the annulment of the sale. The
same was denied and the lower court issued notice to
In order to be liable for damages under the vacate the lot. They opted for a TRO of the execution
abuse of rights principle, the following requisites must however when the Supreme Court promulgated the
concur: (a) the existence of a legal right or duty; (b)
same, the spouses’ house had already been
which is exercised in bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent
of prejudicing or injuring another.11 demolished.

There is nothing on record which will prove that


Nala and her counsel, Atty. Del Prado, acted in bad faith
Thus, a complaint for damages in connection with the exam upon learning that the INC rating was not
destruction of the house was filed by respondents before removed in his academic report/requirements.
the RTC.
Jader sued UE for damages alleging moral
RTC – dismissed the suit
shock, mental anguish, serious anxiety,
CA – set aside RTC and ordered petitioners to pay 250k besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and
as actual damages sleepless nights, and for moral and exemplary
damages, unrealized income, attorney’s fees
ISSUE: WON petitioner is liable for damages and costs of suit.
RULING: YES.
UST on the other hand denied liability and
Petitioner invokes Damnum absque injuria – damage argued that Jader was just negligent for not
resulting from the legitimate exercise of a person’s rights verifying the result of his removal exam in
is a loss without injury. One who merely exercises ones Practice Court 1.
rights does no actionable injury and cannot be held liable
for damages. LOWER COURT RULINGS:
RTC- In favor of Jader and ordered UST to pay
The same is not applicable in this case as the court finds him P35,470 and ATTORNEY’S fees and cost
that Amonoy commenced demolition on May 30, 1986 of suit.
under the writ of demolition. However, records show that
the TRO was issued by the SC on June 2, 1986 and the
CA- AFFIRMED with modification. It added
same was served to petitioner on June 4. Petitioner did
P50K as moral damages.
not heed the TRO and unlawfully pursued the demolition
of the respondents house until 1987.
ISSUE: WHETHER the educational institution
Although the acts may have been legally justified, the is liable for damages for misleading the
continuation despite the issuance of the TRO resulted to student.
an insidious abuse of his right.
RULING: YES. An aggrieved party should
(Art 19) A right, though by itself legal because recognized or
establish the absence of good faith to enforce
granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source
of some illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner which
his right under Article 19. Good faith indicates
does not conform with norms enshrined in Article 19 and honest intention and fair dealings. 
results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby FURTHER, under the contract of education,
committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. the school has the contractual obligation to
inform its students if he or she can graduate.
Clearly then, the demolition of respondents house
by petitioner, despite his receipt of the TRO, was not
Commencement exercises are ways to
only an abuse but also an unlawful exercise of such announce that the students have satisfied all
right. In insisting on his alleged right, he wantonly requirements for a degree and prior to
violated this Courts Order and wittingly caused the graduation, has obligation to inform the student
destruction of respondents house. of his or her grades and performance.

ITC, the school was in bad faith.


UST v JADER - Has the only access to information, has
control with the administration, and has
Facts: Romeo Jader was a law graduate of power over professors in ensuring
UE. He failed in Practice Court 1 however his compliance to school’s rules and orders
name appeared in the Tentative List of - OUGHT to understand the essence of
Candidates for graduation. Upon belief that he informing JADER of his grade> TIME IS
satisfied all requirements to graduate, he OF THE ESSENCE since he is
attended investiture (baccalaureate ra gud ni) preparing for BAR EXAMS
ceremonies and eventually received his Law - EVEN failed to remove JADER’s name
Diploma. However, he did not take the bar on the tentative list of graduates
knowing that he was not qualified
By openly accusing respondent as the only person who
AS FOR MORAL DAMAGES: went out of the room before the loss of the jewelry in the
presence of all the guests therein, and ordering that she
Jader is not entitled to MORAL DAMAGES. As be immediately bodily searched, petitioner virtually
a senior law student, he should have verified if branded respondent as the thief. To malign respondent
he is eligible to graduate and take the bar without an iota of proof that she was the one who
examinations. actually stole the jewelry is an act which, by any
standard or principle of law is impermissible.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Art. 19 was intended to expand the concept of torts by
granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of To find the existence of an abuse of right, the
moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to following elements must be present: (1) there is a legal
provide specifically in statutory law. right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for
the sole intent or prejudicing or injuring another. When a
right is exercised in a manner which discards these
norms resulting in damage to another, a legal wrong
CARPIO VS VALMONTE
is committed for which the actor can be held
accountable.
Facts:
Respondent was a wedding coordinator. On the day of Moral damages may be awarded whenever the
the wedding of Michelle & Jon, she was accused and defendants wrongful act or omission is the proximate
singled out by petitioner (Michelle’s aunt) as the thief of cause of the plaintiffs physical suffering, mental anguish,
two diamond rings and a set of diamond earrings, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
bracelet, and necklace. For this reason, respondent then feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar
filed a complaint for actual, moral and exemplary injury in the cases specified or
damages. analogous to those provided in Article 2219 of the Civil
Code.
RTC: denied Valmonte’s complaint; that petitioner
merely exercised her right and if damage results from a xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
person exercising his legal right, it is damnum absque
injuria. It added that no proof was presented by GARCIA VS. SALVADOR
Valmonte to show that petitioner acted maliciously and in
bad faith in pointing to her as the culprit. Facts:

CA: reversed; that Valmonte has clearly established that Respondent Ranida Salvador started working as a
she was singled out by petitioner as the one responsible trainee in the Accounting Department of Limay Bulk
for the loss of her jewelry; that petitioner’s verbal assault Handling Terminal, Inc.. As a prerequisite for regular
upon Valmonte was done with malice and in bad faith
employment, she underwent a medical examination at
since it was made in the presence of many people
without any solid proof except petitioners suspicion. the Community Diagnostic Center (CDC). Garcia who is
Awarded moral damages, but no actual. a medical technologist, conducted the HBs Ag (Hepatitis
B Surface Antigen) test, CDC issued the test result
Issue: W/N respondent is entitled for said damages indicating that Ranida was "HBs Ag: Reactive." (May
Hepa B daw sya!) The result bore the name and
Ruling: Only moral damages. signature of Garcia as examiner and the rubber stamp
signature (So dili personally signed) of Castro as
In the sphere of our law on human relations, the victim of
a wrongful act or omission, whether done willfully or pathologist. The company terminated Ranida’s
negligently, is not left without any remedy or recourse to employment for the failing physical examination. (Valid
obtain relief for the damage or injury he sustained; Cite Termination kay not physically fit)
Art 19-21 civil code.
When Ranida informed her father, Ramon,
In this case, respondent successfully refuted petitioner’s about her ailment, the latter suffered a heart attack and
testimony. Valmonte narrated in great detail her was confined at the Bataan Doctors Hospital.
distressing experience on that fateful day. Petitioner’s
verbal reproach against respondent was certainly Thus, Ranida submitted herself to several re-
uncalled for. She did not act with justice and good faith
testing/confirmatory tests and all indicated NEGATIVE
for apparently, she had no other purpose in mind but to
prejudice respondent. Certainly, petitioner transgressed result. (Lesson: Dili kailangan Optimistic pirmi!)
the provisions of Article 19 in relation to Article 21 for
which she should be held accountable. Ranida and Ramon filed a complaint for
damages against petitioner Garcia and Castro, claiming
that, by reason of the erroneous interpretation of the 4) proximate causation.
results of Ranida’s examination, she lost her job and
suffered serious mental anxiety, trauma and sleepless All the elements are present in the case at bar.
nights, while Ramon was hospitalized and lost business
Owners and operators of clinical laboratories have the
opportunities.
duty to comply with statutes, as well as rules and
RTC: Dismissed the case. Failure to present sufficient regulations, purposely promulgated to protect and
evidence to prove liability of Garcia (MedTech) and promote the health of the people by preventing the
Castro (Pathologist); should presented Sto. Domingo operation of substandard, improperly managed and
(Company physician) who interpreted the result. inadequately supported clinical laboratories and by
improving the quality of performance of clinical
CA: Garcia liable for gross negligence. Castro laboratory examinations. Their business is impressed
exonerated for lack of participation in the issuance of the with public interest, as such, high standards of
result. (Rubber stamp lang iya name) performance are expected from them.

Issue: The public demands no less than an effective and


efficient performance of clinical laboratory examinations
Whether Garcia is liable for damages through compliance with the quality standards set by
laws and regulations.
Held:
In fine, violation of a statutory duty is negligence. Where
Hell Yes!
the law imposes upon a person the duty to do
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or something, his omission or non-performance will render
negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify him liable to whoever may be injured thereby.
the latter for the same.

Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of


the interest of another person that degree of care,
precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly
demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.

For health care providers, the test of the existence of


negligence is:

(1) Did the health care provider either fail to do


something which a reasonably prudent health
care provider would have done, or
(2) that he or she did something that a reasonably
prudent health care provider would not have
done;
(3) and that failure or action caused injury to the
patient;

if yes, then he is guilty of negligence.

Garcia's failure to comply with laws, rules


promulgated for the protection of public safety
and interest is failure to observe the care which
a reasonably prudent health care provider would
observe --> BREACH OF DUTY!

Thus, the elements of an actionable conduct are:

1) duty,

2) breach,

3) injury, and

You might also like