Sergio Amonoy v. Sps Gutierrez & Angela Fornilda GR No.

140420 Feb 15, 2001 There was a special proceedings for the settlement of the estate of deceased Julio Cantolos involving 6 parcels of land. Amonoy was the counsel there of CAtolos, et al. (maybe heirs ito) Of course as a lawyer he will have attorneys fees. Pagsamba and Fornilda executed a deed of real estate mortgage on the 2 lots in favour of Amonoy to secure his attys fees. His attys fees were not yet paid so a civil case was filed by himfor the foreclosure. The heirs opposed and contended that the P27,600 attys fees charged were unconscionable. Judgment was rendered in favour of Amonoy. The 2 lots were sold at public auction. The lots were sold at public auction and Amonoy was the highest bidder. A writ of possession was issued b which a notice to vacate was made. Orders for the demolition of the house of the Gutierrezes were issued. However a TRO was issued enjoining the demolition of the houses. But the houses were already destroyed from the time the SC issued the TRO. Because of that A COMPLAINT for DAMAGES was filed by Sps. Gutierrez and Fornilda against Amonoy. RTC-dismissed. CA-Amonoy liable Amonoys contention petition for review He cannot be liable for the demolition of reposndents house. He was merely acting in accordance with the Writ of Demolition ordered by the RTC.

True, petitioner commenced the demolition of respondents house on May 30, 1986 under the authority of a Writ of Demolition issued by the RTC. But the records show that a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), enjoining the demolition of respondents house, was issued by the Supreme Court on June 2, 1986. The CA also found, based on the Certificate of Service of the Supreme Court process server, that a copy of the TRO was served on petitioner himself on June 4, 1986. Petitioner, however, did not heed the TRO of this Court. We agree with the CA that he unlawfully pursued the demolition of respondents house well until the middle of 1987. 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. Had he not insisted on completing the demolition, respondents would not have suffered the loss that engendered the suit before the RTC. Verily, his acts constituted not only an abuse of a right, but an invalid exercise of a right that had been suspended when he received the TRO from this Court on June 4, 1986. By then, he was no longer entitled to proceed with the demolition.

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. In insisting on his alleged right, he wantonly violated this Courts Order and wittingly caused the destruction of respondents house. Obviously, petitioner cannot invoke damnum absque injuria, a principle premised on the valid exercise of a right. Anything less or beyond such exercise will not give rise to the legal protection that the principle accords. And when damage or prejudice to another is occasioned thereby, liability cannot be obscured, much less abated.

Nota Bene: Well-settled is the maxim that damage resulting from the legitimate exercise of a persons rights is a loss without injury -- damnum absque injuria -- for which the law gives no remedy. In other words, one who merely exercises ones rights does no actionable injury and cannot be held liable for damages.

ISSUE: Whether Amonoy is liable for damages HELD: Petition has no merit. Damnum absque injuria finds no application in this case.

SANDOVAL MAE DLSU-LAW TORTS AND DAMAGES