10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351
invalid exercise of a right that had been suspended when he
VOL. 351, FEBRUARY 15, 2001
Amonoy vs. Gutierrez
* is repugnant to the modern concept of social law. It cannot be said
G.R. No. 140420. February 15, 2001.
SERGIO AMONOY, petitioner, vs. Spouses JOSE
GUTIERREZ and ANGELA FORNILDA, respondents.
Damages; Human Relations; Well settled is the maxim that
damage resulting from the legitimate exercise of a person’s rights
is a loss without injury—damnum absque injuria—for which the
law gives no remedy.— Well-settled is the maxim that damage
resulting from the legitimate exercise of a person’s rights is a loss
without injury—damnum absque injuria—for which the law gives
no remedy. In other words, one who merely exercises one’s rights
does no actionable injury and cannot be held liable for damages.
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Amonoy vs. Gutierrez
Same; Same; Abuse of Rights; Temporary Restraining Orders;
Even if the acts of a party may have been legally justified at the
outset, their continuation after the issuance of the TRO amounted
to an insidious abuse of his right—his acts constituted not only an
abuse of a right, but an invalid exercise of a right that had been
suspended.—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
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001756332953ff11398ae003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351
received the TRO from this Court on June 4, 1986. By then, he
was no longer entitled to proceed with the demolition.
Same; Same; Same; The exercise of a right ends when the
right disappears, and it disappears when it is abused, especially to
the prejudice of others.—A commentator on this topic explains:
731 The exercise of a right ends when the right disappears, and it
disappears when it is abused, especially to the prejudice of others.
The mask of a right without the spirit of justice which gives it life,
that a person exercises a right when he unnecessarily prejudices
another x x x. Over and above the specific precepts of positive law
are the supreme norms of justice x x x; and he who violates them
violates the law. For this reason, it is not permissible to abuse our
rights to prejudice others.“
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the
Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
     Mamaril, Arca & Associates for petitioner.
     Romeo B. Igot Law Offices for private respondents.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Damnum absque injuria. Under this principle, the
legitimate exercise of a person’s rights, even if it causes
loss to another, does not automatically result in an
actionable injury. The law does not prescribe a remedy for
the loss. This principle does not, however, apply when
732 there is an abuse of a person’s right, or when the exercise of
this right is suspended or extinguished pursuant to a court
733
VOL. 351, FEBRUARY 15, 2001 733
Amonoy vs. Gutierrez
order. Indeed, in the availment of one’s rights, one must act
with justice, give others their due, and observe honesty and
good faith.
The Case
Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 1 of the
Rules of Court, assailing the April 21, 1999 Decision of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 41451, which set
2
aside the judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
1/10 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001756332953ff11398ae003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/10
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351
Tanay, Rizal. The RTC had earlier dismissed the
Complaint for damages filed by herein respondents against
petitioner. The dispositive portion of the challenged CA
Decision reads as follows:
“WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is SET ASIDE, and in its
stead judgment is rendered ordering the defendant-appellee
Sergio Amonoy to pay the plaintiffs-appellants Bruno and
Bernardina Gutierrez as actual damages the 3 sum of [t]wo
[h]undred [f]ifty [tlhousand [p]esos (P250,000.00).”
4 September 1972 judgment was rendered in favor of Amonoy
Likewise assailed is the October 19, 1999 CA Resolution,
which denied the Motion for Reconsideration.
The Facts
The appellate court narrated the factual antecedents of this
case as follows:
This case had its roots in Special Proceedings No. 3103 of Branch
I of the CFI of Pasig, Rizal, for the settlement of the estate of the
deceased Julio Cantolos, involving six (6) parcels of land situated
in Tanay, Rizal. Amonoy was the counsel of therein Francisca
Catolos, Agnes Catolos, Asuncion Pasamba and Alfonso Formilda.
On 12 January 1965, the Project of Partition submitted was
approved and x x x two (2) of the said lots were adjudicated to
Asuncion Pasamba and Alfonso Formilda. The attor-
________________
1 Rollo, pp. 34-44. The CA Decision was penned by Justice Roberto A. Barrios,
with the concurrence of Justices Godardo A. Jacinto (Division chairman) and
Renato C. Dacudao.
2 Rollo, pp. 83-87; written by Judge Gil P. Fernandez.
3 Rollo, p. 41.
4 Rollo, pp. 43-44.
734
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Amonoy vs. Gutierrez
ne/s fees charged by Amonoy was P27,600.00 and on 20 January
1965 Asuncion Pasamba and Alfonso Formilda executed a deed of
real estate mortgage on the said two (2) lots adjudicated to them,
in favor of Amonoy to secure the payment of his attorney’s fees.
But it was only on 6 August 1969 after the taxes had been paid,
the claims settled and the properties adjudicated, that the estate
was declared closed and terminated.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001756332953ff11398ae003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351
“Asuncion Pasamba died on 24 February 1969 while Alfonso
Fornilda passed away on 2 July 1969. Among the heirs of the
latter was his daughter, plaintiff-appellant Angela Gutierrez.
“Because his attorney’s fees thus secured by the two lots were
not paid, on 21 January 1970 Amonoy filed for their foreclosure in
Civil Case No. 12726 entitled Sergio Amonoy vs. Heirs of Asuncion
Pasamba and Heirs of Alfonso Fornilda before the CFI of Pasig,
Rizal, and this was assigned to Branch VIII. The heirs opposed,
contending that the attorney’s fees charged [were] unconscionable
and that the agreed sum was only P11,695.92. But on 28
requiring the heirs to pay within 90 days the P27,600.00 secured
by the mortgage, P11,880.00 as value of the harvests, and
P9.645.00 as another round of attorney’s fees. Failing in that, the
two (2) lots would be sold at public auction.
“They failed to pay. On 6 February 1973, the said lots were
foreclosed and on 23 March 1973 the auction sale was held where
Amonoy was the highest bidder at P23,760.00. On 2 May 1973 his
bid was judicially confirmed. A deficiency was claimed and to
satisfy it another execution sale was conducted, and again the
highest bidder was Amonoy at P12,137.50.
“Included in those sold was the lot on which the Gutierrez
spouses had their house.
“More than a year after the Decision in Civil Case No. 12726
was rendered, the said decedent’s heirs filed on 19 December 1973
before the CFI of Pasig, Rizal[,] Civil Case No. 18731 entitled
Maria Penano, et al. vs. Sergio Amonoy, et al., a suit for the
annulment thereof. The case was dismissed by the CFI on 7
November 1977, and this was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on
22 July 1981.
“Thereafter, the CFI on 25 July 1985 issued a Writ of
Possession and pursuant to which a notice to vacate was made on
26 August 1985. On Amonoy’s motion of 24 April 1986, the Orders
of 25 April 1986 and 6 May 1986 were issued for the demolition of
structures in the said lots, including the house of the Gutierrez
spouses.
735
VOL. 351, FEBRUARY 15, 2001 735
Amonoy vs. Gutierrez
“On 27 September 1985 the petition entitled David Fornilda, et
al. vs. Branch 164 RTC IVth Pasig, Deputy Sheriff Joaquin
Antonil and Atty. Sergio Amonoy, G.R. No. L-72306, was filed
before the Supreme Court. Among the petitioners was the
plaintiff-appellant Angela Gutierrez. On a twin Musiyun
(Mahigpit na Musiyon Para Papanagutin Kaugnay ng
3/10 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001756332953ff11398ae003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/10
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351 10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351

Paglalapastangan, and Musiyung Makahingi ng Utos sa “Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in deciding8
that
Pagpapapigil ng Pagpapagiba at Pananagutin sa the petitioner [was] liable to the respondents for damages.“
Paglalapastangan) with full titles as fanciful and elongated as
their Petisyung (Petisyung Makapagsuri Taglay and Pagpigil ng
Utos), a temporary restraining order was granted on 2 June 1986 The Court’s Ruling
enjoining the demolition of the petitioners’ houses.
“Then on 5 October 1988 a Decision was rendered in the said The Petition has no merit.
G.R. No. L-72306 disposing that:

“WHEREFORE, Certiorari is granted; the Order of respondent Trial Main Issue:

Court, dated 25 July 1985, granting a Writ of Possession, as well as its Petitioner’s Liability
Orders, dated 25 April 1986 and 16 May 1986, directing and authorizing
respondent Sheriff to demolish the houses of petitioners Angela and Well-settled is the maxim that damage resulting from the
Leocadia Fornilda are hereby set aside, and the Temporary Restraining legitimate exercise of a person’s rights is a loss without
Order heretofore issued, is made permanent. The six (6) parcels of land injury—damnum
9
absque injuria—for which the law gives
herein controverted are hereby ordered returned to petitioners unless no remedy. In other words, one who merely exercises one’s
rights does no actionable injury and cannot be held liable
5

some of them have been conveyed to innocent third persons.”

for damages.
But by the time the Supreme Court promulgated the above- Petitioner invokes this legal precept in arguing that he
mentioned Decision, respondents’ house had already been is not liable for the demolition of respondents’ house. He
destroyed, supposedly in accordance with a Writ of maintains that he was merely acting in accordance with
Demolition ordered by the lower court. the Writ of Demolition ordered by the RTC.
Thus, a Complaint for damages in connection with the We reject this submission. Damnum absque injuria finds
destruction of their house was filed by respondents against no application to this case.
petitioner before the RTC on December 15,1989. True, petitioner commenced the demolition of
In its January 27, 1993 Decision, the RTC dismissed respondents’ house on May 30, 1986 under the authority of
respondents’ suit. On appeal, the CA set aside the lower a Writ of Demolition issued by the RTC. But the records
court’s ruling and ordered petitioner to pay respondents show that a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), enjoining
P250.000 as actual damages. Petitioner then filed a Motion the demolition of respondents’
for Reconsideration, which
6
was also denied.
Hence, this recourse. ________________

________________ Romeo B. Igot and Liberato F. Mojica. Filed earlier was petitioner’s
Memorandum, signed by Attys. Gelacio C. Mamaril and Roberto B. Arca.
5 Rollo, pp. 35-37. 7 Rollo, pp. 180-210.
6 The case was deemed submitted for resolution on July 21, 2000, upon 8 Ibid., p. 192. Upper case used in the original.
receipt by this Court of respondents’ Memorandum signed by Attys. 9 Custodio v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 483, February 9, 1996; China
Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 231 SCRA 472, March 28, 1994;
736
Saba v. Court of Appeals, 189 SCRA 50, August 24, 1990; Ilocos Norte
Electric Company v. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 5, November 6, 1989;
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Auyong Hidn v. CTA, 59 SCRA 110, September 12, 1974.
Amonoy vs. Gutierrez
737

VOL. 351, FEBRUARY 15, 2001 737

The Issue
Amonoy vs. Gutierrez
7
In his Memorandum, petitioner submits this lone issue for
our consideration:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001756332953ff11398ae003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001756332953ff11398ae003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351 10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351

house, was issued by the Supreme Court on June 2, 1986. 738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
The CA also found, based on the Certificate of Service of Amonoy vs. Gutierrez
the Supreme Court process server, that a copy of the TRO
was served on petitioner himself on June 4, 1986.
tions were tainted with bad faith. Had he not insisted on
Petitioner, however, did not heed the TRO of this Court.
completing the demolition, respondents would not have
We agree with the CA that he unlawfully pursued the
demolition of respondents’ house well until the middle of suffered the loss that engendered the suit before the RTC.
1987. This is clear from Respondent Angela Gutierrez’s Verily, his acts constituted not only an abuse of a right, but
an invalid exercise of a right that had been suspended when
testimony. The appellate court quoted the following
10
he received the TRO from this Court on June 4, 1986. By
pertinent portion thereof:
then, he was no longer entitled to proceed with the
“Q. On May 30, 1986, were they able to destroy your demolition.
house? A commentator on this topic explains:
A. Not all, a certain portion only. “The exercise of a right ends when the right disappears, and it
  x x x     x x x     x x x disappears when it is abused, especially to the prejudice of others.
The mask of a right without the spirit of justice which gives it life,
Q. Was your house completely demolished?
is repugnant to the modern concept of social law. It cannot be said
A. No, sir. that a person exercises a right when he unnecessarily prejudices
Q. How about the following day? another x x x. Over and abeve the specific precepts of positive law
are the supreme norms of justice x x x; and he who violates them
A. It was completely demolished.“
violates the law. For this reason,
12
it is not permissible to abuse our
  x x x     x x x     x x x rights to prejudice others.“
Q. Until when[,] Mrs. Witness? 13
Likewise, in Albenson Enterprises Corp. v. CA, the Court
A. Until 1987. discussed the concept of abuse of rights as follows:
Q. About what month of 1987?
“Article 19, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the
A. Middle of the year. principle of abuse of rights, sets certain standards which may be
Q. Can you tell the Honorable Court who completed the observed not only in the exercise of one’s rights but also in the
demolition? performance of one’s duties. These standards are the following: to
11 act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to observe honesty
A. The men of Fiscal Amonoy.“
and good faith. The law, therefore, recognizes the primordial
limitation on all rights: that in their exercise, the norms of human
The foregoing disproves the claim of petitioner that the conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed. A right, though
demolition, which allegedly commenced only on May 30, by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may
1986, was completed the following day. It likewise belies nevertheless become the source of some illegality. When a right is
his allegation that the demolitions had already ceased exercised in a manner which does not conform with norms
when he received notice of the TRO. enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal
Although the acts of petitioner may have been legally wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held
justified at the outset, their continuation after the issuance responsible x x x.“
of the TRO amounted to an insidious abuse of his right.
Indubitably, his ac- 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
10 CA Decision, pp. 6-7; rollo, pp. 39-40.
11 TSN, February 12, 1991, pp. 14-15.
________________
738
12 Alicia Gonzales-Decano, Notes on Torts and Damages, p. 97.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001756332953ff11398ae003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/10 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001756332953ff11398ae003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10

10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351 10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351

13 217 SCRA 16, 24-25, January 11, 1993, per Bidin, J. 740

739
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 351, FEBRUARY 15, 2001 739 Amonoy vs. Gutierrez

Amonoy vs. Gutierrez

The principle of abuse of rights stated in Article 19 of the
Civil Code departs from the classical theory that “he who
wantonly violated this Court’s Order and wittingly caused uses a right injures no one“—the modern tendency is to
the destruction of respondents’ house. depart from the classical and traditional theory, and to
Obviously, petitioner cannot invoke damnum absque grant indemnity for damages in cases where there is an
injuria,
14
a principle premised on the valid exercise of a abuse of rights, even when the act is not illicit; The absence
right. Anything less or beyond such exercise will not give of good faith is essential to abuse of right. (Sea Commercial
rise to the legal protection that the principle accords. And Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 319 SCRA 210 [1999])
when damage or prejudice to another is occasioned thereby,
liability cannot be obscured, much less abated. ——o0o——
In the ultimate analysis, petitioner’s liability is
premised on the obligation to repair or to make whole the
damage caused to another by reason of one’s act or
omission, whether done intentionally
15
or negligently and
whether or not punishable by law.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the
appealed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
SO ORDERED.

          Melo (Chairman), Vitug, Gonzaga-Reyes and

Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment affirmed.

Notes.—The victorious party in an election case cannot

be indemnified for expenses which he has incurred in an
electoral contest in the absence of a wrongful act or
omission or breach of obligation clearly attributable to the
losing party, and if any damage had been suffered by the
former due to the execution of judgment pending appeal,
that damage may be said to be equivalent to damnum.
absque injuria. (Malaluan vs. Commission on Elections,
254 SCRA 397 [1996])
One who makes use of his own legal right does no injury,
and if damage results from a person’s exercising his legal
rights, it is damnum absque injuria. (Pro Line Sports
Center, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 162 [1997])

________________

14 Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 176 SCRA
778, August 25, 1989.
15 Occena v. Icamina, 181 SCRA 328, January 22, 1990.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001756332953ff11398ae003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/10 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001756332953ff11398ae003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10