Titus Villanueva vs.
Emma Rosqueta
G.R. No. 180764, January 19, 2010
FACTS: Respondent Emma M. Rosqueta (Rosqueta), formerly Deputy Commissioner of the
Revenue Collection and Monitoring Group of the Bureau of Customs (the Bureau), tendered her
courtesy resignation from that post on January 23, 2001, shortly after President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo assumed office. But five months later, she withdrew her resignation, claiming that she
enjoyed security of tenure and that she had resigned against her will on orders of her superior.
Meantime, on July 13, 2001 President Arroyo appointed Gil Valera (Valera) to respondent
Rosqueta’s position. Challenging such appointment, Rosqueta filed a petition for prohibition, quo
warranto, and injunction against petitioner Titus B. Villanueva (Villanueva), then Commissioner
of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, and Valera with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The
RTC issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), enjoining Villanueva and the Finance Secretary
from implementing Valera’s appointment. On August 28, 2001 the trial court superseded the TRO
with a writ of preliminary injunction.
On November 22, 2001 while the preliminary injunction in the quo warranto case was again in force,
petitioner Villanueva issued Customs Memorandum Order 40-2001, authorizing Valera to exercise
the powers and functions of the Deputy Commissioner.
During the Bureau’s celebration of its centennial anniversary, its special Panorama magazine edition
featured all the customs deputy commissioners, except respondent Rosqueta. The souvenir
program, authorized by the Bureau’s Steering Committee headed by petitioner Villanueva to be
issued on the occasion, had a space where Rosqueta’s picture was supposed to be but it instead
stated that her position was “under litigation.” Meanwhile, the commemorative billboard displayed at
the Bureau’s main gate included Valera’s picture but not Rosqueta’s.
On February 28, 2002 respondent Rosqueta filed a complaint for damages before the RTC of
Quezon City against petitioner Villanueva, alleging that the latter maliciously excluded her from
the centennial anniversary memorabilia. Further, she claimed that he prevented her from performing
her duties as Deputy Commissioner, withheld her salaries, and refused to act on her leave
applications. Thus, she asked the RTC to award her P1,000,000.00 in moral damages, P500,000.00
in exemplary damages, and P300,000.00 in attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
RTC dismissed the case. CA reversed granting Villanueva to pay P500,000.00 in moral damages,
P200,000.00 in exemplary damages and P100,000.00 in attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in holding petitioner Villanueva liable for damages to respondent
Rosqueta.
RULING:
Under the abuse of right principle found in Article 19 of the Civil Code, a person must, in the exercise
of his legal right or duty, act in good faith. He would be liable if he instead acts in bad faith, with
intent to prejudice another. Complementing this principle are Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code
which grant the latter indemnity for the injury he suffers because of such abuse of right or duty.
Petitioner Villanueva claims that he merely acted on advice of the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) when he allowed Valera to assume the office as Deputy Commissioner. Petitioner Villanueva
cannot seek shelter in the alleged advice that the OSG gave him. Surely, a government official of his
rank must know that a preliminary injunction order issued by a court of law had to be obeyed,
especially since the question of Valera’s right to replace respondent Rosqueta had not yet been
properly resolved.
That petitioner Villanueva ignored the injunction shows bad faith and intent to spite Rosqueta who
remained in the eyes of the law the Deputy Commissioner. His exclusion of her from
the centennial anniversary memorabilia was not an honest mistake by any reckoning. Indeed, he
withheld her salary and prevented her from assuming the duties of the position.
The CA correctly awarded moral damages to respondent Rosqueta. Here, respondent Rosqueta’s
colleagues and friends testified that she suffered severe anxiety on account of the speculation over
her employment status. She had to endure being referred to as a “squatter” in her workplace. She
had to face inquiries from family and friends about her exclusion from the
Bureau’s centennialanniversary memorabilia. She did not have to endure all these affronts and the
angst and depression they produced had Villanueva abided in good faith by the court’s order in her
favor. Clearly, she is entitled to moral damages.
Joyce V. Ardiente vs. Spouses Javier and Ma. Theresa Pastorfide, Cagayan De Oro Water
District and Gaspar Gonzalez, Jr.
G.R. No. 161921 July 17, 2013
FACTS:
Joyce V. Ardiente and her husband Dr. Roberto S. Ardiente are owners of a housing unit at
Emily Homes. Joyce V. Ardiente entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with Ma. Theresa
Pastorfide where she sold, conveyed, and transferred all their rights and interests in the Emily
Homes Housing unit to Ma. Theresa Pastorfide. 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
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. 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:
Whether the respondents are liable for damages
HELD:
Yes. It is true that it is within petitioner's right to ask and even require the Spouses Pastorfide to
cause the transfer of the former's account with COWD to the latter's name pursuant to their
Memorandum of Agreement. However, the remedy to enforce such right is not to cause the
disconnection of the respondent spouses' water supply. 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; there must be no intention to harm another. Otherwise, liability for damages to the injured
party will attach.
In the present case, intention to harm was evident on the part of petitioner when she requested for
the disconnection of respondent spouses’ water supply without warning or informing the latter of
such request. What made matters worse is the fact that COWD undertook the disconnection also
without prior notice and even failed to reconnect the Spouses Pastorfide’s water supply despite
payment of their arrears. There was clearly an abuse of right on the part of
petitioner, COWD and Gonzalez. They are guilty of bad faith.
The principle of abuse of rights as enshrined in 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. In Globe Mackay Cable and Radio
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, it was elucidated that while Article 19 "lays down a rule of conduct
for the government of human relations and for the maintenance of social order, it does not provide a
remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21would
be proper." To recapitulate, 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. On the part of COWD and
Gonzalez, it is their failure to give prior notice of the impending disconnection and their subsequent
neglect to reconnect respondent spouses' water supply despite the latter's settlement of their
delinquent account. On the basis of the foregoing, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from
the ruling of both the RTC and the CA that petitioner, COWD and Gonzalez are solidarily liable. The
Spouses Pastorfide are entitled to moral damages based on the provisions of Article 2219, in
connection with Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code.
