7. Diaz v.

Encanto
G.R. No. 171303, January 20, 2016

Facts: In this case, plaintiff-defendant Elizabeth Diaz, a professor at the University of the Philippines since 1963
applied for a sabbatical leave with pay, but it was denied. This issue was brought to court where there was a
finding that the grant or denial of such leave is not a matter of right as it is subject to the exigencies of the service,
like acute shortage of teaching staff. Even the Office of the Ombudsman has similar findings with the CA that
the grant of leave is not a matter of right and that there was no bad faith on the part of the officials of the UP in
denying it. Yet, before the SC, the applicant insisted that the concerned officials acted in bad faith. Sustaining
the findings of the CA and the Ombudsman, the SC

Issue: Did the respondents act in bad faith when they resolved Diaz’s Application for leave thus entitling her to
damages?

Held: There are no traces of bad faith or malice in denying the application for sabbatical leave. They
processed the application in accordance with their usual procedure. While the RTC declared that petitioner
Diaz should have been granted a sabbatical leave, it is important to note that the RTC awarded damages to
petitioner Diaz merely for the unreasonable and unconscionable delay in the resolution of her sabbatical leave
application. It is an elementary rule in this jurisdiction that good faith is presumed and that the burden of proving
bad faith rests upon the party alleging the same.
----------------------------------------------------------

Issue: Did the respondents act in bad faith when they resolved Diaz’s Application for leave thus entitling her to
damages?

Held: No, they did not act in bad faith. Diaz’s complaint for recovery of damages before the RTC was based on
the alleged bad faith of the respondents in denying her application for sabbatical leave vis-à-vis Articles 19 and
20 of the Civil Code. The former provision prescribes a primordial limitation on all rights by setting certain
standards that must be observed in the exercise thereof. Abuse of right under such provision exists when the
following elements are present:

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 Ombudsman, and all three courts, stating from the RTC to the Supreme Court, have already established that
a sabbatical leave is not a right, and therefore, petitioner Diaz cannot demand its grant. It does not matter that
there was only one reason for the denial of her application, as the approving authorities found it to be enough.
Moreover, not only the Court of Appeals but also the Ombudsman, and this Court, have ruled that the respondents
did not act in bad faith when petitioner Diaz’s sabbatical leave application was denied.

Facts: Plaintiff-appellant [Elizabeth L. Diaz] has been teaching at UP since 1963. In 1988, Diaz filed a letter-
application directly with the UP's Office of the President for sabbatical leave with pay for one (1) year effective
June 1988 to May 1989, for "rest, renewal and study." Cecilia Lazaro, Chair of the Broadcast Department,
initially recommended to CMC Dean Encanto that Diaz's sabbatical application be granted. After they discussed
the options available to the CMC, Lazaro, on May 10, 1988, recommended instead that Diaz be granted any
leave of absence she may be qualified for. In her May 2, 1988 letter, Diaz indicated her unwillingness to teach.
Considering the CMC's experience with Diaz who dropped her courses in the previous semester, Lazaro deleted
Diaz's name in the final schedule of classes for the 1st semester of AY 1988-89 beginning June 6, 1988.
Incidentally, Diaz received her salary for June 1988, indicating that her sabbatical might be approved.

1
Thereafter, Encanto referred Diaz's sabbatical application to the Secretary of U.P., recommending its denial.
When requested by (Chancellor) Tabujara, Encanto transmitted to the former a Reference Slip together with her
comments thereon. Meanwhile, Encanto requested Ermelina Kalagayan to hold Diaz's salary effective July 1,
1988 until further notice considering that her sabbatical application has not yet been approved and that she did
not teach that semester. Consequently, Diaz's name was deleted in the payroll from September 1988 to January
1989.

On July 4, 1988, Tabujara recommended instead that Diaz be granted a leave without pay in order to enable the
CMC to hire a substitute. The next day, the U.P.'s Secretary referred to Abad, Vice-President (VP) for Academic
Affairs, the fact of denial of such sabbatical request, for his own comment/recommendation to the U.P. President.
Meantime, Diaz confessed her problems to Abad. On July 8, 1988, Abad returned the Reference Slip indicating
therein that Diaz had promised him earlier "to put down in writing, from her point of view, the historical backdrop
as it were to the latest denial of her sabbatical leave." With comments, Abad then referred the matter to the U.P.
President.

Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 42 issued by the U.P. President, the Academic Policy Coordinating
Committee (APCC), on July 21, 1988, reviewed the case of Diaz. When reminded by Abad, Diaz again promised
to give the background information.

On Diaz's request to teach for that semester, AY 1988-89, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Edgardo
Pacheco, and the HRDO Director, Atty. Pio Frago, instructed Encanto that "Until Prof. Diaz officially reports
for duty, accomplishes the Certificate of Report for Duty, and the Dean of CMC confirms her date of actual
report for duty, she is considered absent without official leave (AWOL) for the University."

On November 8, 1988, Abad, then as OIC, issued a Memorandum to Diaz to confirm as valid Encanto's reason
of shortage of teaching staff in denying her sabbatical. Later, he also informed Diaz of her lack of service during
the first semester of AY 1988-89, hence, she is not entitled to be paid and asked her to clarify her status of being
on leave without pay.

[While Diaz was able to teach during the second semester of AY 1988-89, she was not able to claim her salaries
for her refusal to submit the Report for Duty Form.[6] She received her salaries for June to July 15, 1989, but
could no longer claim her salary after July 15, 1989, when Encanto reminded the University Cashier, in a letter
dated July 26, 1989,[7] that Diaz had to "accomplish the Report for Duty Form to entitle her to salaries and make
official her return to the service of the University."[8] Diaz's name was subsequently included in the payroll
starting July 1990, when she submitted a Report for Duty after her return from compulsory summer leave.[9]

Meanwhile, on July 18, 1989, Diaz instituted a complaint against the U.P., Abueva, Encanto, Tabujara and Abad
with the Regional Trial Court, Pasig, Metro Manila praying that the latter be adjudged, jointly and severally to
pay her damages. She claimed, among others, that [respondents] conspired together as joint tortfeasors, in not
paying her salaries from July 1, 1988 in the first semester of academic year 1988-89, for the entire period when
her sabbatical application was left unresolved, as well as the salaries she earned from teaching in the second
semester from November 1988 to May 1989. She likewise claimed moral and exemplary damages and attorney's
fees.

8. California Clothing, Inc. v. Quinones

G.R. No. 175822, October 23, 2013

Doctrine: The elements of abuse of rights are 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.

Under the abuse of rights principle found in Article 19 of the Civil Code, a person must, in the exercise of legal
right or duty, act in good faith. He would be liable if he instead acted in bad faith, with intent to prejudice another.
Good faith refers to the state of mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. It consists of

2
the intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another. Malice or bad
faith, on the other hand, implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose
or moral obliquity.

Facts: On July 25, 2001, Shirley G. Quiñones (“Shirley”), a Reservation Ticketing Agent of Cebu Pacific Air in
Lapu Lapu City, went inside the Guess USA Boutique at the second floor of Robinson's Department Store
(Robinson's) in Cebu City. She fitted four items: two jeans, a blouse and a shorts, then decided to purchase the
black jeans worth P2,098.00. Shirley allegedly paid to the cashier evidenced by a receipt issued by the store.
While she was walking through the skywalk connecting Robinson's and Mercury Drug Store (Mercury) where
she was heading next, a Guess employee approached and informed her that she failed to pay the item she got.
She, however, insisted that she paid and showed the employee the receipt issued in her favor. She then suggested
that they talk about it at the Cebu Pacific Office located at the basement of the mall. She first went to Mercury
then met the Guess employees as agreed upon.
When she arrived at the Cebu Pacific Office, the Guess employees allegedly subjected her to humiliation in front
of the clients of Cebu Pacific and repeatedly demanded payment for the black jeans. They supposedly even
searched her wallet to check how much money she had, followed by another argument. Shirley, thereafter, went
home.
On the same day, the Guess employees allegedly gave a letter to the Director of Cebu Pacific Air narrating the
incident, but the latter refused to receive it as it did not concern the office and the same took place while
respondent was off duty. Another letter was allegedly prepared and was supposed to be sent to the Cebu Pacific
Office in Robinson's, but the latter again refused to receive it. Shirley also claimed that the Human Resource
Department (HRD) of Robinson's was furnished said letter and the latter in fact conducted an investigation for
purposes of canceling respondent's Robinson's credit card. Shirley further claimed that she was not given a copy
of said damaging letter.
Guess claimed that there was a miscommunication between the cashier and the invoicer leading to the erroneous
issuance of the receipt to respondent. When they realized the mistake, they made a cash count and discovered
that the amount which is equivalent to the price of the black jeans was missing. They, thus, concluded that it was
Shirley who failed to make such payment. It was, therefore, within their right to verify from Shirley whether she
indeed paid or not and collect from her if she did not. However, the question now is whether such right was
exercised in good faith or they went overboard giving respondent a cause of action against them.

Issue: May an action for damages based on abuse of rights principle under Article 19 of the Civil Code prosper
against Guess?

Ruling: Yes. Initially, there was nothing wrong with petitioners asking Shirley whether she paid or not. The
Guess employees were able to talk to respondent at the Cebu Pacific Office. The confrontation started well, but
it eventually turned sour when voices were raised by both parties. Considering, however, that Shirley was in
possession of the item purchased from the shop, together with the official receipt of payment issued by
petitioners, the latter cannot insist that no such payment was made on the basis of a mere speculation. Their
claim should have been proven by substantial evidence in the proper forum.
It is evident from the circumstances of the case that petitioners went overboard and tried to force Shirley to pay
the amount they were demanding. In the guise of asking for assistance, petitioners even sent a demand letter to
Shirley's employer not only informing it of the incident but obviously imputing bad acts on the part of
respondent. Petitioners claimed that after receiving the receipt of payment and the item purchased, Shirley "was
noted to hurriedly left (sic) the store."
Petitioners accused Shirley that not only did she fail to pay for the jeans she purchased but that she deliberately
took the same without paying for it and later hurriedly left the shop to evade payment. These accusations were
made despite the issuance of the receipt of payment and the release of the item purchased. There was, likewise,
no showing that Shirley had the intention to evade payment. Contrary to petitioners' claim, Shirley was not in a
rush in leaving the shop or the mall. This is evidenced by the fact that the Guess employees did not have a hard
time looking for her when they realized the supposed non-payment.
It can be inferred from the foregoing that in sending the demand letter to Shirley's employer, petitioners intended
not only to ask for assistance in collecting the disputed amount but to tarnish Shirley's reputation in the eyes of

3
her employer. To malign Shirley without substantial evidence and despite the latter's possession of enough
evidence in her favor, is clearly impermissible. A person should not use his right unjustly or contrary to honesty
and good faith, otherwise, he opens himself to liability. The exercise of a right must be in accordance with the
purpose for which it was established and must not be excessive or unduly harsh. In this case, petitioners
obviously abused their rights.
===========================================

Facts: Shirley G. Quiñones is a Reservation Ticketing Agent of Cebu Pacific Air in Lapu
Lapu City, went inside the Guess Boutique at the second floor of Robinson’s Department
Store in Cebu City. She decided to purchase the black jeans. Respondent allegedly paid
to the cashier evidenced by a receipt issued by the store.While she was walking to
her next destination, an employee from the Guess store approached and informed her
that she failed to pay the item she got. She, however, insisted that she paid and
showed the receipt issued.She then suggested that they talk about it at the Cebu Pacific
Office located at the basement of the mall. When she arrived at the Cebu Pacific
Office, the Guess employees allegedly subjected her to humiliation in front of the clients
of Cebu Pacific and repeatedly demanded payment for the black jeans.They supposedly
even searched her wallet to check how much money she had, followed by another
argument. On the same day, the Guess employees allegedly gave a letter to the Director
of Cebu Pacific Air narrating the incident, but the latter refused to receive it
as it did not concern the office.Another letter was allegedly prepared and was supposed
to be sent to the Cebu Pacific Office in Robinson’s, but the latter again refused to
receive it. Respondent also claimed that the Human Resource Department of Robinson’s
was furnished said letter and the latter in fact conducted an investigation for purposes
of canceling respondent’s Robinson’s credit card. She thus filed the Complaint for
Damagesbefore the RTC against petitioners California Clothing, Inc., Villagonzalo,
Hawayon and Ybañez. Petitioners and the other defendants admitted the issuance of the
receipt of payment. They claimed, however, that instead of the cashier (Hawayon) issuing
the official receipt, it was the invoicer (Villagonzalo) who did it manually. They
explained that there was miscommunication between the employees at that time because
prior to the issuance of the receipt. Realizing the mistake, Villagonzalo rushed outside
to look for respondent and when he saw the latter, he invited her to go back to
the shop to make clarifications as to whether or not payment was indeed made. Instead,
however, of going back to the shop, respondent suggested that they meet at the Cebu
Pacific Office. Villagonzalo, Hawayon and Ybañez thus went to the agreed venue
where they talked to respondent.They pointed out that it appeared in their conversation
that respondent could not recall whom she gave the payment.They emphasized that
they were gentle and polite in talking to respondent and it was the latter who was
arrogant in answering their questions.Issue:Did California Clothing, Inc. and Michelle Ybañez
abuse their rights by subjecting Shirley Quiñones to ridicule and humiliation by their act
of questioning and the sending of the letter to the Cebu Pacific Office?Held:Yes.
36“In this case, petitioners claimed that there was a miscommunication between the
cashier and the invoicer leading to the erroneous issuance of the receipt to
respondent. When they realized the mistake, they made a cash count and discovered
that the amount which is equivalent to the price of the black jeans was missing.
They, thus, concluded that it was respondent who failed to make such payment.
It was, therefore, within their right to verify from respondent whether she indeed paid
or not and collect from her if she did not. However, the question now is whether
such right was exercised in good faith or they went overboard giving respondent a
cause of action against them.Under the abuse of rights principle found in Article 19 of
the Civil Code, a person must, in the exercise of legal right or duty, act in good
faith. He would be liable if he instead acted in bad faith, with intent to prejudice
another.Good faith refers to the state of mind which is manifested by the acts

4
of the individual concerned. It consists of the intention to abstain from taking an
unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another.Malice or bad faith, on the other
hand, implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest
purpose or moral obliquity. Initially, there was nothing wrong with petitioners asking
respondent whether she paid or not. The Guess employees were able to talk to
respondent at the Cebu Pacific Office. The confrontation started well, but it eventually
turned sour when voices were raised by both parties. As aptly held by both the RTC
and the CA, such was the natural consequence of two parties with conflicting views
insistingon their respective beliefs. Considering, however, that respondent was in possession
of the item purchased from the shop, together with the official receipt of payment
issued by petitioners, the latter cannot insist that no such payment was made on the
basis of a mere speculation. Their claim should have been proven by substantial evidence
in the proper forum.xxxIt can be inferred from the foregoing that in sending the
demand letter to respondent’s employer, petitioners intended not only to ask for
assistance in collecting the disputed amount but to tarnish respondent’s reputation in
the eyes of her employer. To malign respondent without substantial evidence and
despite the latter’s possession of enough evidence in her favor, is clearly impermissible.A
person should not use his right unjustly or contrary to honesty and good faith, otherwise,
he opens himself to liability.The exercise of a right must be in accordance with the
purpose for which it was established and must not be excessive or unduly harsh.In this
case, petitioners obviously abused their rights.
=============================================

On July 25, 2001, respondent Shirley G. Quiñones, a Reservation Ticketing Agent of Cebu Pacific Air in Lapu
Lapu City, went inside the Guess USA Boutique at the second floor of Robinson’s Department Store
(Robinson’s) in Cebu City. She fitted four items: two jeans, a blouse and a shorts, then decided to purchase the
black jeans worth P2,098.00.[4] Respondent allegedly paid to the cashier evidenced by a receipt5 issued by the
store.[6] While she was walking through the skywalk connecting Robinson’s and Mercury Drug Store (Mercury)
where she was heading next, a Guess employee approached and informed her that she failed to pay the item she
got. She, however, insisted that she paid and showed the employee the receipt issued in her favor.[7] She then
suggested that they talk about it at the Cebu Pacific Office located at the basement of the mall. She first went to
Mercury then met the Guess employees as agreed upon.[8]

When she arrived at the Cebu Pacific Office, the Guess employees allegedly subjected her to humiliation in front
of the clients of Cebu Pacific and repeatedly demanded payment for the black jeans.[9] They supposedly even
searched her wallet to check how much money she had, followed by another argument. Respondent, thereafter,
went home.[10]
=========================================

FACTS: Respondent went inside the Guess USA Boutique in Robinson’s Department Store in Cebu City and
decided to purchase the black jeans worth P2098. While she was walking, she was confronted by a Guess
employee and told her that she failed to pay for the item she got to which respondent replied that she did and
showed the receipt. Respondent then suggested they talk about it in the Cebu Pacific office in the mall. While
there, she was allegedly embarrassed and humiliated by the Guess employees in front of their clients. The next
day, Guess employees event sent a demand letter to respondents employers. While the RTC ruled for them,
CA reversed the decision saying that the acts done by the employees were not in good faith. Petitioners pray
for the reversal of the decision of CA.

ISSUE: Did the Guess employees violate Articles 20 and 21 of Civil Code of the Philippines?

HELD: The Court affirmed CA’s decision and held that the employees abused their rights and did not have
good faith in their actions against respondent where there was no clear evidence that she was evading to pay
for the merchandise. The petition is thus denied for lack of merit.

5
Facts: Respondent, Shirley G. Quiñones, 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
employeeapproached her and saidthat she failed to pay for the black jeans. Nevertheless, she presented
an official receipt and suggested that they should talk about the matter in the Cebu Pacific Office
located within the mall.While they were in the office, the Guess employees allegedly humiliated her in
front of the clients of Cebu Pacific, repeatedly demanded payment andeven searched the respondent’s
walletto check how much money she had. Another argument ensued and after that, respondent went
home. The Guess employees submitted two letters to the Director of Cebu Pacific narratingtheincident
but the said letters were not received.Respondent filed a complaintfor damages against the petitioners,
California Clothing, Inc., Excelsis Villagonzalo, Imelda Hawayon and Michelle S. Ybañez,alleging that
due to the incident, she suffered physical anxiety, sleepless nights, mental anguish, fright, serious
apprehension, besmirched reputation, moral shock and humiliation. She demanded payment for moral,
nominal, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.Petitioners stated that
they approached the respondent to clarifywhether or not payment was made and that they approached and
talked to the respondent in a gentleand polite manner. They sought payment formoral and exemplary
damages,attorney’s 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
Courtdecision stating that there was preponderance of evidence showingthepetitioners acted in bad faith
but,Hawayon andVillagonzalo were absolvedfrom liability due to good faith.Since petitioners acted in bad faith,
respondent was entitled to damages and attorney’s fees.

Issue: Whether or not petitioners acted in bad faith which resulted to the Court of Appealsawarding
moral damages and attorney’s fees to respondent, Shirley G. Quiñones.C.

Ruling: Yes,petitioners acted in bad faith and the award formoral damages and attorney’sfeesto 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. Valmontein which the elements of abuse of rightswere
enumerated. “The elements of abuse of rights are 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
respondent already presented the black jeans with the original receipt. Second, they accused the respondent
that not only did she fail to pay for the black jeansbut she intentionally stole it and quickly left the shop. Third,
the letters sent to the respondent’s employer was not only intended to ask for assistance in collection ofthe
payment butalsoto ruin the respondent’s reputation.The exercise of rights is subject to limitations. Thus, it must
be in accordance with the purpose of its establishment and not abused.Respondent was awarded P50,000.00as
moral damages and P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Ardiente v. Spouses Pastorfide

G.R. No. 161921, July 17, 2013

FACTS: Ma. Theresa Pastorfide entered a MOA with Joyce Ardiente where the latter sold, conveyed, and
transferred all their rights and interests in the Emily Homes Housing unit to the former. It has been agreed by
the parties that the water bill will remain in the account of Ardiente. On March 12, 1999, Ma. Theresa's water
supply was disconnected without notice. She complained to the Cagayan De Oro Water District (COWD) and
she found out that the account has become delinquent. She paid the three months due and wrote a letter through
her counsel to the COWD to explain why her water supply was cut without notice.

6
The general manager of the COWD, Gaspar Gonzalez, replied that it was Joyce Ardiente who requested the
disconnection of the water supply. A complaint for damages was filed against Ardiente, COWD and Gonzalez
by Ma. Theresa. The RTC ruled in favor of Ma. Theresa on the ground that the defendants committed abuse of
their rights. The ruling was upheld by the CA on appeal with modification on the award of the amount for
damages.Hence this petition before the SC.

ISSUE: Are the defendants liable for damages?

RULING: Yes. The court ruled that the principle of abuse of rights under Section 19 of the Civil Code was
violated. It provides that "every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties,
act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith."

A right, although it is legal for being recognized by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of illegality
(Globe Mackay and Radio Corporation v CA), when it is exercised in a manner that does not conform with the
norms enshrined in Article 19 and the same causes damage to another. The person exercising an abuse of right
is thus liable for damages caused to another. The herein petitioner is liable for damages by ordering the cutting
of the water supply of the respondent without giving notice about such intention. The COWD and Gonzalez are
likewise liable for damages by disconnecting the water supply without prior notice and for their subsequent
neglect of reconnecting the water supply even when the respondent already paid the delinquent account.
==========================================

Facts: A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside the Decision
and Resolution of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the then decision of the RTC regarding its judgment
sums of money for moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The decision being contested
sprouted from the cutting off of water supply of Pastorfide by the Cagayan de Oro Water District as requested
by Ardiente. In this case, Ardiente owned a piece of property, which was subsequently sold and conveyed to
Pastorfide, however, the connection of water supply as well as other utilities remained in the name of Ardiente
which was never questioned, until such time that Pastorfide became delinquent in paying the water bill.

Issue: Whether or not it was proper for Ardiente together with Cagayan De Oro Water district to cut off the water
supply of Pastorfide owing to the fact that Ardiente has already conveyed ownership of property to Pastorfide.

Ruling: No, it was not proper. Petitioner's acts which violated the abovementioned provisions of law is her
unjustifiable act of having the respondent spouses' water supply disconnected, coupled with her failure to warn
or at least notify respondent spouses of such intention. The principle of abuse of Rights in the enshrined Article
19 of the civil Code provides that every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his
duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. It recognizes a primordial
limitation on all rights; that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be
observed. A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become
the source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms
enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the
wrongdoer must be held responsible.

10. Nikko Hotel Manila Garden v. Reyes

G.R. No. 154259, February 28, 2005

FACTS: Mr. Reyes attended the personal party thrown for the hotel’s manager, Mr. Masakazu Tsuroka, on
account of Dr. Violeta Filart vouching for his attendance, to which she agreed. While at the buffet table, Ruby
Lim, executive secretary of Hotel Nikko, allegedly ordered him to leave the party in a loud voice, effectively
embarrassing him in front of many people. Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that she asked the respondent
to leave in a discreet manner. Petitioner prays for the reversal of the decision of CA against them.

7
ISSUE: Did the petitioner violate articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code thus entitling the respondent for
compensation of damages?

HELD: Petitioner did not violate articles 19 and 21 for there was no intention on her part to humiliate Reyes as
demonstrated by the fact that she was close to be able to kiss the respondent while she was asking him to leave.
The decision of CA was reversed and of RTC Quezon City affirmed.
=========================================

FACTS: Petitioners Nikko Hotel Manila and Ruby Lim assailed the decision of the Court of Appeals in reversing
the decision of RTC of Quezon City. CA held petitioner liable for damages to Roberto Reyes aka “Amang
Bisaya”, an entertainment artist.

There are two versions of the story:

Mr. Reyes: On the eve of October 13, 1994, Mr. Reyes while having coffee at the lobby of Nikko Hotel was
approached by Dr. Violet Filart, a friend several years back. According to Mr. Reyes, Dr. Filart invited him to
join a birthday party at the penthouse for the hotel’s former General Manager, Mr. Tsuruoka. Plaintiff agreed
as Dr. Filart agreed to vouch for him and carried a basket of fruits, the latter’s gift. He He lined up at the buffet
table as soon as it was ready but to his great shock, shame and embarrassment, Ruby Lim, Hotel’s Executive
Secretary, asked him to leave in a loud voice enough to be heard by the people around them. He was asked to
leave the party and a Makati policeman accompanied him to step-out the hotel. All these time, Dr Filart ignored
him adding to his shame and humiliation.

Ms. Ruby Lim: She admitted asking Mr. Reyes to leave the party but not in the manner claimed by the plaintiff.
Ms. Lim approached several people including Dr. Filart’s sister, Ms. Zenaida Fruto, if Dr. Filart did invite him
as the captain waiter told Ms. Lim that Mr. Reyes was with Dr. Filart’s group. She wasn’t able to ask it personally
with Dr. Filart since the latter was talking over the phone and doesn’t want to interrupt her. She asked Mr. Reyes
to leave because the celebrant specifically ordered that the party should be intimate consisting only of those who
part of the list. She even asked politely with the plaintiff to finish his food then leave the party.

During the plaintiff’s cross-examination, he was asked how close was Ms. Lim when she approached him at the
buffet table. Mr. Reyes answered “very close because we nearly kissed each other”. Considering the close
proximity, it was Ms. Lim’s intention to relay the request only be heard by him. It was Mr. Reyes who made a
scene causing everybody to know what happened.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners acted abusively in asking Mr. Reyes to leave the party.

HELD: Supreme Court held that petitioners did not act abusively in asking Mr. Reyes to leave the party. Plaintiff
failed to establish any proof of ill-motive on the part of Ms. Lim who did all the necessary precautions to ensure
that Mr. Reyes will not be humiliated in requesting him to leave the party. Considering almost 20 years of
experience in the hotel industry, Ms. Lim is experienced enough to know how to handle such matters. Hence,
petitioners will not be held liable for damages brought under Article 19 and 20 of the Civil Code.
============================================

FACTS: In the evening of October 13, 1994, while drinking coffee at the lobby of Hotel Nikko, respondent was
invited by a friend, Dr. Filart to join her in a party in celebration of the birthday of the hotel’s manager. During
the party and when respondent was lined-up at the buffet table, he was stopped by Ruby Lim, the Executive
Secretary of the hotel, and asked to leave the party. Shocked and embarrassed, he tried to explain that he was
invited by Dr. Filart, who was herself a guest. Not long after, a Makati policeman approached him and escorted
him out of her party.

8
Ms. Lim admitted having asked respondent to leave the party but not under the ignominious circumstances
painted by Mr. Reyes, that she did the act politely and discreetly. Mindful of the wish of the celebrant to keep
the party intimate and exclusive, she spoke to the respondent herself when she saw him by the buffet table with
no other guests in the immediate vicinity. She asked him to leave the party after he finished eating. After she had
turned to leave, the latter screamed and made a big scene.

Dr. Filart testified that she did not want the celebrant to think that she invited Mr. Reyes to the party.

Respondent filed an action for actual, moral and/or exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The lower court
dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the trial court, consequently
imposing upon Hotel Nikko moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. On motion for reconsideration,
the Court of Appeals affirmed its decision. Thus, this instant petition for review.

ISSUES: Whether or not Ms. Ruby Lim is liable under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code in asking Mr. Reyes
to leave the party as he was not invited by the celebrant thereof and whether or not Hotel Nikko, as the employer
of Ms. Lim, be solidarily liable with her.

RULING: The Court found more credible the lower court’s findings of facts. There was no proof of motive on
the part of Ms. Lim to humiliate Mr. Reyes and to expose him to ridicule and shame. Mr. Reyes’ version of the
story was unsupported, failing to present any witness to back his story. Ms. Lim, not having abused her right to
ask Mr. Reyes to leave the party to which he was not invited, cannot be made liable for damages under Articles
19 and 21 of the Civil Code. Necessarily, neither can her employer, Hotel Nikko, be held liable as its liability
springs from that of its employees.

When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results
in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be responsible. Article
21 states that any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

Without proof of any ill-motive on her part, Ms. Lim’s act cannot amount to abusive conduct.

The maxim “Volenti Non Fit Injuria” (self-inflicted injury) was upheld by the Court, that is, to which a person
assents is not esteemed in law as injury, that consent to injury precludes the recovery of damages by one who
has knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger.
==============================================

FACTS: While drinking coffee at the lobby of Hotel Nikko, respondent Reyes was invited by a friend, Dr. Filart
to join her in a party in celebration of the birthday of the hotel’s manager. During the party and when respondent
was lined up at the buffet table he was stopped by Ruby Lim, the executive secretary of the hotel, and asked him
to leave the party. Shocked and embarrassed, he tried to explain that he was invited by Dr. Filart, who was herself
a guest. Then, Makati policeman approached him and escorted him out of the party. Lim admitted that she asked
Reyes to leave but not in an ignominious manner, as how it was described by Reyes. Suddenly, Reyes screamed
and made a big scene. Respondent filed an action for moral or exemplary damages. RTC dismissed the appeal.
CA granted the appeal. Hence this petition.

ISSUE: W/N Hotel Nikko is liable under Art 19 & 21 of Civil Code

HELD: No proof on the part of Lim to humiliate Mr Reyes and expose him to ridicule and shame. Reyes’ version
of story was unsupported by failing to present witness to back his story. No damages.
====================================================

FACTS: One evening in October 1994, an exclusive party was being held at the Nikko Hotel Manila Garden.
The party was being held for a prominent Japanese national. The person in charge at the party was Ruby Lim

9
who was also the executive secretary of the hotel. Later during the party, she noticed Robert Reyes popularly
known as Amay Bisaya. Reyes was not on the list of exclusive guests. Lim first tried to find out who invited
Reyes to the party. When she ascertained that the host celebrant did not invite Reyes, Lim approached Reyes
and told the latter, in a discreet voice, to finish his food and leave the party. Reyes however made a scene and
began shouting at Lim. Later, a policeman was called to escort Reyes out of the party.

Reyes then sued Lim and Nikko Hotel Manila Garden for damages. According to him, he said that he was
invited by another party guest, Dr. Violeta Filart. He said that while he was on the line to get his food, Lim
approached him and ordered him in a loud voice to leave the party immediately. He told Lim he was invited by
Dr. Filart however when he was calling for Dr. Filart the latter ignored him. Later, he was escorted out of the
party like a common criminal.

The trial court ruled in favor of Lim and Nikko Hotel. However, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Reyes as
it ruled that Lim abused her right and that Reyes deserved to be treated humanely and fairly. It is true that Lim
had the right to ask Reyes to leave the party but she should have done it respectfully.

ISSUE: Whether or not Lim acted with abuse of rights.

HELD: No. The Supreme Court found the version of Lim more credible. She has been employed by the hotel
for more than 20 years at that time. Her job requires her to be polite at all times. It is very unlikely for her to
make a scene in the party she was managing. That would only make her look bad.
Reyes based his complaint on Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. Art. 19 which provides:
Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
was not violated by Lim as it appears that even Reyes testified in court that when Lim told him to leave, Lim did
so very close to him – so close that they could almost kiss. This only proves that Lim intended that only Reyes
shall hear whatever is it that she’s going to tell Reyes and exclude other guests from hearing.

Article 21 on the other hand is commonly known as contra bonus mores:

Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs
or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

This article is likewise not violated. Lim, as proven by evidence on record, did not demean Reyes. They do not
know each other personally. She has no reason to treat him wrongfully especially so that Reyes himself is a
prominent person.

On the other hand, Reyes brought whatever damage he incurred upon himself. Under the doctrine of volenti non
fit injuria*, by coming to the party uninvited, Reyes opens himself to the risk of being turned away, and thus
being embarrassed. The injury he incurred is thus self-inflicted. Evidence even shows that Dr. Filart herself
denied inviting Reyes into the party and that Reyes simply gate-crashed. Reyes did not even present any
supporting evidence to support any of his claims. Since he brought injury upon himself, neither Lim nor Nikko
Hotel can be held liable for damages.

11. Spouses Hing v. Choachuy

G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013

Sometime in April 2005, Aldo Development & Resources, Inc. (owned by Choachuy’s) filed a case for
Injunction and Damages with Writ of Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order against the Hing’s.
The latter claimed that the Hing’s constructed a fence without a valid permit and that it would destroy the walls
of their building. The court denied the application for lack of evidence. So in order to get evidences for the case,
on June 2005, Choachuy illegally set-up two video surveillance cameras facing the Hing’s property. Their

10
employees even took pictures of the said construction of the fence. The Hing’s then filed a case against the
Choachuy’s for violating their right to privacy. On October 2005, the RTC issued a order granting the application
of the Hing’s for TRO and directed the Choachuy’s to remove the two video surveillance cameras they installed.
The Choachuy’s appealed the case to the Court of Appeals and the RTC’s decision was annulled and set aside.
The Hing’s then raised the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the installation of two video surveillance cameras of Choachuy’s violated the Hing’s
right to privacy.

HELD: Such act of the Choachuy’s violated the right of privacy of the Hing’s under Article 26(1) prohibiting
the “prying into the privacy of another’s residence.” Although it is a business office and not a residence, the
owner has the right to exclude the public or deny them access.
==============================================

FACTS: On August 23, 2005, petitioner-spouses Bill and Victoria Hing filed with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Mandaue City a Complaintfor Injunction and Damages with prayer for issuance of a Writ of
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), docketed as Civil Case MAN-5223 and
raffled to Branch 28, against respondents Alexander Choachuy, Sr. and Allan Choachuy.

Petitioners alleged that they are the registered owners of a parcel of land (Lot 1900-B) covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 42817 situated in Barangay Basak, City of Mandaue, Cebu;that respondents are
the owners of Aldo Development & Resources, Inc. (Aldo) located at Lots 1901 and 1900-C, adjacent to the
property of petitioners;that respondents constructed an auto-repair shop building (Aldo Goodyear Servitec) on
Lot 1900-C; that in April 2005, Aldo filed a case against petitioners for Injunction and Damages with Writ of
Preliminary Injunction/TRO, docketed as Civil Case No. MAN-5125;that in that case, Aldo claimed that
petitioners were constructing a fence without a valid permit and that the said construction would destroy the wall
of its building, which is adjacent to petitioners property;that the court, in that case, denied Aldos application for
preliminary injunction for failure to substantiate its allegations;that, in order to get evidence to support the said
case, respondents on June 13, 2005 illegally set-up and installed on the building of Aldo Goodyear Servitec two
video surveillance cameras facing petitioners property;that respondents, through their employees and without
the consent of petitioners, also took pictures of petitioners on-going construction;and that the acts of respondents
violate petitioners right to privacy.Thus, petitioners prayed that respondents be ordered to remove the video
surveillance cameras and enjoined from conducting illegal surveillance.

In their Answer with Counterclaim,respondents claimed that they did not install the video surveillance
cameras,nor did they order their employees to take pictures of petitioners construction.They also clarified that
they are not the owners of Aldo but are mere stockholders.

On October 18, 2005, the RTC issued an Ordergranting the application for a TRO.

Respondents moved for a reconsiderationbut the RTC denied the same in its Orderdated February 6, 2006.

Aggrieved, respondents filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorariunder Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with
application for a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction.

On July 10, 2007, the CA issued its Decisiongranting the Petition for Certiorari. The CA ruled that the Writ of
Preliminary Injunction was issued with grave abuse of discretion because petitioners failed to show a clear and
unmistakable right to an injunctive writ.The CA explained that the right to privacy of residence under Article
26(1) of the Civil Code was not violated since the property subject of the controversy is not used as a residence.
The CA alsosaid that since respondents are not the owners of the building, they could not have installed video
surveillance cameras.They are mere stockholders of Aldo, which has a separate juridical personality.Thus, they
are not the proper parties.

11
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a violation of petitioners right to privacy?

Thus, an individual’s right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code should not be confined to his house
or residence as it may extend to places where he has the right to exclude the public or deny them access. The
phrase "prying into the privacy of another’s residence," therefore, covers places, locations, or even situations
which an individual considers as private. And as long as his right is recognized by society, other individuals may
not infringe on his right to privacy. The CA, therefore, erred in limiting the application of Article 26(1) of the
Civil Code only to residences.

12. Dezuzuarregui v. Hon.Villarosa

G.R. No. 183788, April 5, 2010

13. Pimentel v. Pimentel

G.R. No. 172060, September 13, 2010

14. Tomlin II v. Atty. Moya II

A.C. No. 6971, February 23, 2006

15. Geluz v. CA
G.R. No. L-16439, July 20, 1961

16. Continental Steel Manufacturing Corp. v. Hon. Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator

G.R. No. 182836, October 13, 2009

12