CALIFORNIA CLOTHING, INC. vs.

QUIONES
G.R. No. 175822 (October 23,
2013)
FACTS:
Respondent, Shirley G. Quiones, a
ticketing agent of Cebu Pacific Air,
bought a pair of black
jeans worth P2,098.00 from Guess
USA Boutique. While she was on
her way to Mercury Drug Store, a
Guess employee approached her
and bluntly made the allegation
that she failed to pay the black
jeans. However, Ms. Quiones
maintained that she had already
made payment of the item and to
prove her point, she presented the
official receipt that was given her
before leaving the boutique. To
clarify things, Ms Quiones even

suggested that they should talk

about the matter in the Cebu
Pacific Office located within the
mall. While in the office, the Guess
employee allegedly berated and
humiliated her in front of its clients.
A demand was in fact ask of her by
the said employee during said
confrontation while repeatedly
asserting that she never paid the
item that was bought from the
boutique. Not satisfied and even
making things worst, petitioner
even sent a letter to the
respondents employer narrating
the circumstances of the alleged
non payment. The irresponsible act
of petitioner unnecessarily drag
respondents name into trouble,
thereby giving her sleepless nights,
wounded feelings, besmirch
reputation, mental anguish, freight,
moral shock, physical anxiety and

humiliation, all of which become

the respondent's legal basis to file
a complaint for moral, exemplary
and nominal damages as well as
for payment of attorney's fees and
litigation expenses against
petitioner.
In defense, Petitioners repute
everything that was alleged of
them, even asserting that they only
approached and talk with
respondent to clarify whether
payment was in fact made and
nothing else. They even stressed
that they talked to respondent in a
gentle and polite manner. In their
contrary position, petitioner also
sought payment of moral and
exemplary damages, attorneys
fees and litigation expenses as
counterclaim. The Regional Trial
Court dismissed both the complaint

and counterclaim stating that the

petitioners acted in good faith and
the respondent was the one who
put herself in that situation by
inviting the Guess employees to
the Cebu Pacific Office to discuss
about the issue of payment.
However, the Court of Appeals
reversed and set aside the
Regional Trial Court decision stating
that there was preponderance of
evidence showing that petitioners
indeed acted in bad faith and were
guilty of the act complained of.
Since petitioners acted in bad faith,
respondent was entitled to the
damages claimed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners acted in
bad faith which resulted to the
Court of Appeals awarding

moral damages and attorneys fees

to respondent, Shirley G. Quiones.
RULING:
Yes. Petitioners acted in bad faith
and the award for moral damages
and attorneys fees to
respondent was proper. The
Supreme Court affirmed the Court
of Appeals decision. The principle
of abuse of rights under Article 19
of the Civil Code is present in the
case. Respondent complained
when petitioners embarrassed her
and insisted that she did not pay
for the black jeans despite the
issuance of an official receipt in her
favor. The court cited the case of
Carpio vs. Valmonte enumerating
the elements of abuse of rights, as
follows: (1) there is a legal right or
duty; (2) which is exercised in bad

faith; (3) for the sole intent of

prejudicing or injuring another.
The elements stated are complete
in the present case. First,
petitioners continued to insist that
there was no payment made when
in fact respondent already
presented the black jeans with the
original receipt. Second, they
accused the respondent to not only
did she fail to pay for the black
jeans but she intentionally stole it
and quickly left the shop. Third, the
letters sent to the respondents
employer was not merely intended
to ask for assistance in the
collection of payment but also to
ruin the respondents reputation.
The exercise of rights is subject to
limitations thus, it must be made in
accordance with law and the
purpose for which it was
established. Respondent was

awarded P50,000.00 as moral

damages and P20,000.00 as
attorneys fees.