G.R. No.
L-46061 November 14, 1984
ST. LOUIS REALTY CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and CONRADO J. ARAMIL, respondents.
St. Louis Realty caused to be published with the permission of Arcadio S.
Arcadio (but without permission of Doctor Aramil) in the issue of the Sunday
Times of December 15, 1968 an advertisement with the heading "WHERE
THE HEART IS". Below that heading was the photograph of the residence of
Doctor Aramil and the Arcadio family and then below the photograph was the
following write-up:
Home is where the heart is. And the hearts of MR. AND MRS. ARCADIO S.
ARCADIO and their family have been captured by BROOKSIDE HILLS. They
used to rent a small 2-bedroom house in a cramped neighborhood, sadly
inadequate and unwholesome for the needs of a large family. They dream(ed)
of a more pleasant place free from the din and dust of city life yet near all
facilities. Plans took shape when they heard of BROOKSIDE HILLS. With thrift
and determination, they bought a lot and built their dream house ... for P31,000.
The Arcadios are now part of the friendly, thriving community of BROOKSIDE
HILLS... a beautiful first-class subdivision planned for wholesome family living.
The same advertisement appeared in the Sunday Times dated January 5,
1969. Doctor Aramil a neuropsychiatrist and a member of the faculty of the U.
E. Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Hospital, noticed the mistake. On that same
date, he wrote St. Louis Realty the following letter of protest:
Dear Sirs:
This is anent to your advertisements appearing in the December 15, 1968 and
January 5, 1969 issues of the Sunday Times which boldly depicted my house
at the above-mentioned address and implying that it belonged to another
person. I am not aware of any permission or authority on my part for the use of
my house for such publicity.
This unauthorized use of my house for your promotional gain and much more
the apparent distortions therein are I believe not only transgression to my
private property but also damaging to my prestige in the medical profession I
have had invited in several occasions numerous medical colleagues, medical
students and friends to my house and after reading your December 15
advertisement some of them have uttered some remarks purporting doubts as
to my professional and personal integrity. Such sly remarks although in light
vein as "it looks like your house," "how much are you renting from the
Arcadios?", " like your wife portrayed in the papers as belonging to another
husband," etc., have resulted in no little mental anguish on my part.
I have referred this matter to the Legal Panel of the Philippine Medical
Association and their final advice is pending upon my submission of supporting
ownership papers.
The letter was received by Ernesto Magtoto, an officer of St. Louis Realty in
charge of advertising. He stopped publication of the advertisement. He
contacted Doctor Aramil and offered his apologies. However, no rectification or
apology was published.
On February 20, 1969, Aramil's counsel demanded from St. Louis Realty
actual, moral and exemplary damages of P110,000 (Exh. D). In its answer
dated March 10, St. Louis Realty claimed that there was an honest mistake
and that if Aramil so desired, rectification would be published in the Manila
Times (Exh. 3).
It published in the issue of the Manila Times of March 18, 1969 a new
advertisement with the Arcadio family and their real house. But it did not
publish any apology to Doctor Aramil and an explanation of the error.
On March 29, Aramil filed his complaint for damages. St. Louis Realty
published in the issue of the Manila Times of April 15, 1969 the following
"NOTICE OF RECTIFICATION" in a space 4 by 3 inches:
This will serve as a notice that our print ad 'Where the Heart is' which appeared
in the Manila Times issue of March 18, 1969 is a rectification of the same ad
that appeared in the Manila Times issues rectification of the same ad that
appeal of December 15, 1968 and January 5, 1969 wherein a photo of the
house of another Brookside Homeowner (Dr. Aramil-private respondent) was
mistakenly used as a background for the featured homeowner's the Arcadio
family.
Judge Jose M. Leuterio observed that St. Louis Realty should have
immediately published a rectification and apology. He found that as a result of
St. Louis Realty's mistake, magnified by its utter lack of sincerity, Doctor Aramil
suffered mental anguish and his income was reduced by about P1,000 to
P1,500 a month. Moreover, there was violation of Aramil's right to privacy (Art.
26, Civil Code).
The Appellate Court reasoned out that St. Louis Realty committed an
actionable quasi-delict under articles 21 and 26 of the Civil Code
It argues that the case is not covered by article 26 which provides that "every
person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors and other persons". "Prying into the privacy of another's residence"
and "meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another"
and "similar acts", "though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall
produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief".
The damages fixed by Judge Leuterio are sanctioned by Articles 2200, 2208
and 2219 of the Civil Code. Article 2219 allows moral damages for acts and
actions mentioned in Article 26. As lengthily explained by Justice Gatmaitan,
the acts and omissions of the firm fan under Article 26.
St. Louis Realty's employee was grossly negligent in mixing up the Aramil and
Arcadio residences in a widely circulated publication like the Sunday Times. To
suit its purpose, it never made any written apology and explanation of the
mix-up. It just contented itself with a cavalier "rectification ".
Either way, his private life was mistakenly and unnecessarily exposed. He
suffered diminution of income and mental anguish.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed. Costs against
the petitioner
