Joyce V. Ardiente, Petitioner, vs. Sps. Javier and Ma.

Theresa Pastorfide,
Cagayan de Oro Water District and Gaspar Gonzales, Jr., Respondents
G.R. No. 161921; July 17, 2013
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking
to reverse and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA),
dated August 28, 2003 and December 17, 2003, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No.
73000. The CA Decision affirmed with modification the August 15, 2001 Decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 24, while the CA
Resolution denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
Facts:
Spouses Joyce V. Ardiente and Dr. Roberto S. Ardiente are owners of a housing unit
at Emily Homes, Balulang, Cagayan de Oro City with a lot area of one hundred fiftythree (153) square meters and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 69905
(the housing unit).
On June 2, 1994, Joyce Ardiente 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 in consideration of P70,000.00. The Memorandum of
Agreement carries a stipulation:
4. That the water and power bill of the subject property shall be for the account of
the Second Party (Ma. Theresa Pastorfide) effective June 1, 1994.
For four (4) years, Ma. Theresa's use of the water connection in the name of Joyce
Ardiente was never questioned nor perturbed, until on March 12, 1999, without
notice, the water connection of Ma. Theresa was cut off.
Ma. Theresa Pastorfide went to the office of the Cagayan de Oro Water District
(COWD) to complain, she was told that she was delinquent for three (3) months
corresponding to the months of December 1998, January 1999, and February 1999.
Ma. Theresa argued that the due date of her payment was March 18, 1999 yet.
COWD told her that it was at the instance of Joyce Ardiente that the water line was
cut off.
On March 15, 1999, 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. The COWD reiterated that it was at the
instance of Joyce Ardiente that the water line was cut off
Aggrieved, on April 14, 1999, Ma. Theresa Pastorfide filed a complaint for damages
against petitioner, COWD and its manager Gaspar Gonzalez.
RTC rendered judgment holding as follows:
xxxx
In the exercise of their rights and performance of their duties, defendants did not
act with justice, gave plaintiffs their due and observe honesty and good faith. Before
disconnecting the water supply, defendants COWD and Engr. Gaspar Gonzales did
not even send a disconnection notice to plaintiffs as testified to by Engr. Bienvenido
Batar, in-charge of the Commercial Department of defendant COWD. There was one
though, but only three (3) days after the actual disconnection on March 12, 1999.
The due date for payment was yet on March 15. Clearly, they did not act with
justice. Neither did they observe honesty.

They should not have been swayed by the prodding of Joyce V. Ardiente. They
should have investigated first as to the present ownership of the house. For doing
the act because Ardiente told them, they were negligent. Defendant Joyce Ardiente
should have requested before the cutting off of the water supply, plaintiffs to pay.
While she attempted to tell plaintiffs but she did not have the patience of seeing
them. She knew that it was plaintiffs who had been using the water four (4) years
ago and not hers. She should have been very careful. x x x 5
The Court ordered Ardiente, COWD and Gonzales to pay jointly and severally
plaintiffs, the following sums:
(a) P200,000.00 for moral damages;
(b) 200,000.00 for exemplary damages; and
(c) 50,000.00 for attorney's fee.
Petitioner, COWD and Gonzalez filed an appeal with the CA. However, CA affirmed
the decisionof the RTC with modification on the awarded damages.
Issue:
Whether or not it was proper for Spouses Ardiente together with Cagayan De Oro
Water to be liable jointly and severally for damages for the cutting of the water
line/supply of Pastorfide.
Ruling:
Yes. 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 this 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 Pastorfides 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 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.