CALIFORNIA CLOTHING v. SHIRLEY G.

QUIÑONES
GR No.175822, DIVISION, October 23, 2013, PERALTA, J.
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.It is evident from the circumstances of the case that petitioners
went overboard and tried to force respondent to pay the amount they were demanding. In the
guise of asking for assistance, petitioners even sent a demand letter to respondent's employer not
only informing it of the incident but obviously imputing bad acts on the part of respondent.

FACTS:
On July 25, 2001, respondent, a Reservation Ticketing Agent of Cebu Pacific Air, went inside
the Guess USA Boutique of Robinson's Department Store in Cebu City. She fitted four items:
two jeans ,a blouse and a shorts, then decided to purchase the black jeans. Respondent
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, a Guess
employee approached and informed her that she failed to pay. She, however, insisted that
she paid and showed the employee the receipt. 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. 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
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. 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. With the above
experience, respondent claimed to have suffered physical anxiety, sleepless nights, mental
anguish, fright, serious apprehension, besmirched reputation, moral shock and social
humiliation. She thus filed the Complaint for Damages against petitioners. The RTC found
no evidence to prove bad faith on the part of the Guess employees to warrant the award of
damages. On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners are guilty of abuse of right. (YES)

RULING:
The issuance of the receipt notwithstanding, petitioners had the right to verify from
respondent whether she indeed made payment if they had reason to believe that she did
not. However, the exercise of such right is not without limitations. Any abuse in the
exercise of such right causing damage or injury to another is actionable under the Civil
Code. 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.
In this case, it is evident from the circumstances of the case that petitioners went
overboard and tried to force respondent to pay the amount they were demanding. In the
guise of asking for assistance, petitioners even sent a demand letter to respondent's
employer not only informing it of the incident but obviously imputing bad acts on the part
of respondent. Petitioners accused respondent 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 respondent had the intention to evade payment. Contrary to
petitioners' claim, respondent 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 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. In view of the foregoing, respondent is entitled to an award of
moral damages and attorney's fee.

Joyce V. Ardiente Vs. Spouses Javier and Ma. Theresa Pastofide

G.R. No. 161921. July 17, 2013 J. Peralta
Article 20 provides that "every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes
damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same." It speaks of the general sanctions of
all other provisions of law which do not especially provide for its own sanction. When a right is
exercised in A manner which does not conform to the standards set forth in the said provision
and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer
must be responsible. Thus, if the provision does not provide a remedy for its violation, an action
for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 of the Civil Code would be proper. 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.

FACTS:
Petitioners, Joyce V. Ardiente and her husband Dr. Roberto S. Ardiente are owners of a
housing unit at Emily Homes, Balulang, Cagayan de Oro City.Joyce entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement (selling, transferring and conveying in favor of Ma. Theresa
Pastorfide all their rights and interests in the housing unit at Emily Homes in consideration
of P70,000.00. For four (4) years, Ma. Theresa's use of the water connection in the name of
Joyce Ardiente was never questioned nor perturbed. Later on, the water connection of Ma.
Theresa was cut off. Cagayan de Oro Water District (COWD) told Ma. Theresa that she was
delinquent for three (3) months corresponding to the months. A certain, Mrs. Madjos later
told her that it was at the instance of Joyce Ardiente that the water line was cut off . Ma.
Theresa paid the delinquent bills. On the same date, through her lawyer, Ma. Theresa wrote
a letter to the COWD to explain who authorized the cutting of the water line. COWD,
through the general manager, [respondent] Gaspar Gonzalez, Jr., answered the letter
dated March 15, 1999 and reiterated that it was at the instance of Joyce Ardiente that the
water line was cut off. Ma. Theresa Pastorfide and her husband filed a complaint for
damages against petitioner, COWD and its manager Gaspar Gonzalez. RTC ruled in favor of
respondents. CA affirmed. Petitioner, COWD and Gonzalez filed their respective Motions for
Reconsideration, but these were denied by the CA COWD and Gonzalez filed a petition for
review on certiorari with this Court. However, based on technical grounds and on the
finding that the CA did not commit any reversible error in its assailed Decision, the petition
was denied via a Resolution. COWD and Gonzalez filed a motion for reconsideration, but
the same was denied with finality. Petitioner, on the other hand, timely filed the instant
petition.

ISSUE:
Whether the principle of abuse of rights has been violated resulting in damages under
Article 20 or other applicable provision of law

RULING:
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. Petitioner claims that her
request for disconnection was based on the advise of COWD personnel and that her
intention was just to compel the Spouses Pastorfide to comply with their agreement that
petitioner's account with COWD be transferred in respondent spouses' name. If such was
petitioner's only intention, then she should have advised respondent spouses before or
immediately after submitting her request for disconnection, telling them that her request
was simply to force them to comply with their obligation under their Memorandum of
Agreement. But she did not. 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. This article, known to
contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, sets certain
standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of one's rights, but also in the
performance of one's duties. These standards are the following: to act with justice; to give
everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith. The law, therefore, 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