Ardiente v. Pastorfide
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Joyce V. Ardiente (petitioner) and her husband owned a housing unit. On June 2, 1994, petitioner entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Ma. Theresa Pastorfide (respondent) selling her rights and interests in the housing unit for ₱70,000.00. The MOA stipulated that respondent would be responsible for the water and power bills effective June 1, 1994, and would assume the mortgage loan. For four years, respondent used the water connection under petitioner's name without issue. On March 12, 1999, the water connection was cut off without notice. Respondent was informed by Cagayan de Oro Water District (COWD) personnel that the disconnection was at the instance of petitioner due to alleged delinquency for December 1998, January 1999, and February 1999, despite the due date being March 18, 1999. Respondent paid the delinquent bills on March 15, 1999, and wrote COWD demanding an explanation. COWD, through its general manager Gaspar Gonzalez, Jr. (respondent), confirmed the disconnection was at petitioner's instance. Procedural History: On April 14, 1999, respondent spouses Pastorfide filed a complaint for damages against petitioner, COWD, and Gonzalez. The water line was restored only on December 14, 1999, after a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was issued. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled that defendants (petitioner, COWD, and Gonzalez) acted without justice, failed to give plaintiffs their due, and did not observe honesty and good faith. The RTC found COWD and Gonzalez negligent for not sending a disconnection notice and for being swayed by petitioner's request without investigating ownership. Petitioner was found negligent for not having patience to see respondents and for not having the patience to tell them to pay before requesting disconnection. The RTC ordered defendants to jointly and severally pay ₱200,000.00 for moral damages, ₱200,000.00 for exemplary damages, and ₱50,000.00 for attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modification, reducing moral and exemplary damages to ₱100,000.00 each and attorney's fees to ₱25,000.00. The CA found petitioner acted in bad faith by applying for disconnection, causing prejudice. COWD and Gonzalez were found to have failed to give notice and derelicted in reconnecting the water line. Both petitioner and COWD/Gonzalez filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied. COWD and Gonzalez filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was denied with finality. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari, assigning errors to the CA for upholding her joint and solidary liability with COWD and Gonzalez, for failing to find contributory negligence on the part of respondents, and for granting damages against her. Petitioner also incorrectly impleaded COWD and Gonzalez as respondents.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Joyce V. Ardiente is jointly and solidarily liable with COWD and Engr. Gaspar Gonzales for the disconnection of the water supply. Whether respondents spouses Pastorfide were guilty of contributory negligence. Whether respondents spouses Pastorfide were bound to observe Article 19 of the Civil Code (principle of abuse of rights). Whether the award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees against petitioner Ardiente was proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari and affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner Joyce V. Ardiente, along with COWD and Gonzalez, were found jointly and solidarily liable for damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of joint and solidary liability: The Court reiterated that factual findings of the RTC, affirmed by the CA, are binding on the Supreme Court, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner admitted requesting COWD to disconnect the water supply of the respondents. While it was within her right to require respondents to transfer the account, the remedy of disconnection was not proper. The Court found an abuse of right and bad faith on the part of petitioner when she requested the disconnection without warning or notice to the respondents. This act, coupled with the failure of COWD and Gonzalez to provide prior notice of disconnection and their subsequent neglect to reconnect the water supply despite payment, established their solidary liability. The principle of abuse of rights under Article 19 of the Civil Code was invoked, stating that the exercise of a right must be in accordance with justice, honesty, and good faith, and not be excessive or unduly harsh. On the issue of contributory negligence: The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claim of contributory negligence. While respondents failed to pay their water bills for three months and did not immediately transfer the account, this did not justify petitioner's drastic action of requesting disconnection without prior notice. The Court emphasized that the exercise of rights must not be done in a manner that causes undue harm to others. The respondents' failure to pay and transfer the account did not equate to contributory negligence that would absolve petitioner from liability for her abusive exercise of right. On the application of Article 19 of the Civil Code (abuse of rights): The Court extensively discussed the principle of abuse of rights as enshrined in Article 19 of the Civil Code. It held that every person must act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith in the exercise of their rights and performance of their duties. When a right is exercised in a manner that does not conform to these norms and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is committed. The Court found that petitioner's act of requesting disconnection without warning, and the subsequent actions of COWD and Gonzalez, constituted an abuse of rights and bad faith, making them liable for damages under Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code. On the award of damages and attorney's fees: The Court affirmed the award of moral damages based on Article 2219 in connection with Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code, given the suffering and prejudice caused to the respondents by the deprivation of water. Exemplary damages were sustained under Article 2229 as a deterrent against socially deleterious actions, considering the prolonged deprivation of water for over nine months. Attorney's fees were also affirmed under Article 2208, as the respondents were compelled to litigate and incur expenses to protect their interest due to the defendants' bad faith.
Main Doctrine
A party who exercises a legal right in a manner that is not in accordance with justice, honesty, and good faith, causing damage to another, may be held liable for damages under the principle of abuse of rights, even if the act itself is not explicitly prohibited by law.