FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 217806, July 28, 2020
DIVISION ADELAIDA C. NAVARRO-BANARIA, PETITIONER, V. ERNESTO A. BANARIA, PANFILO A. BANARIA, GRACIA SEVERA BANARIA-ESPIRITU, REINA CLARA BANARIA- MAGTOTO, MARCELINO S. BANARIA, PAULINA BANARIA-GELIDO, MARIA LOURDES DIVINE BANARIA-DURAN, GRACIA ISABELITA BANARIA-ESPIRITU, GEOFFREY BANARIA-ESPIRITU, ANNE MARIE ESPIRITU-PAPPANIA, JUSTIN BANARIA-ESPIRITU, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J. JR., J.:
This resolves the petition for review on certiorari1 filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to review the Decision2 dated October 15, 2014 of the Honorable Court of Appeals (Special First Division) in CA-G.R. No. 97264, denying the appeal of herein petitioner by affirming with modification the Judgment3 dated May 23, 2011 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 216 (Quezon City) in Civil Case No. Q-0452212, and its Resolution4 dated April 14, 2015, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiffs and against the defendant Adelaida C. Navarro-Banaria ordering said defendant to pay unto the plaintiffs the following:Aggrieved, petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which, through the assailed October 15, 2014 Decision, affirmed with modification the Decision of the RTC. The fallo15 of the decision of the appellate court reads: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
1. the total amount of $3,619.00 (US Dollars) which may be paid in Philippine Currency computed at the exchange rate at the time of payment, representing the total sum for their (plaintiffs) travel expenses;
2. the amount of P61,200.00, Philippine currency, for the food and refreshments spent during the birthday of Pascasio S. Banana, Sr., which the latter was not able to attend; the amount of P3,000.00 for the birthday cake; and the amount of P3,275.00 for the balloon arrangements;
3. the amount of P60,000.00, Philippine Currency, for each and every plaintiff, as and by way of moral damages;
4. the amount of P50,000.00, Philippine Currency, for the herein plaintiffs, as and by way of exemplary damages;
5. the amount of P60,000.00, Philippine Currency, as and by way of attorney's fees; and
the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Judgment dated 23 May 2011 of the Regional Trial Court-Branch 216 (Quezon City) is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: a) the amount of $3,619.00 (US Dollars) awarded as actual damages in favor of the plaintiffs-appellees is DELETED for lack of factual and legal basis; b) the amount of moral damages awarded for ALL the plaintiffs-appellees is REDUCED to a fixed amount of Php300,000.00; c) the amount of exemplary damages awarded in favor of the plaintiffs-appellees is REDUCED to Php30,000.00; and d) the amount of attorney's fees awarded to plaintiffs-appellees is likewise REDUCED to php50,000.00.Despite petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the CA affirmed its October 15, 2014 Decision via the April 14, 2015 Resolution.
The rest of the challenged Judgment stands.
SO ORDERED.
A. Whether the Hon. Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner violated Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code regarding Human Relations; and
B. Whether the Hon. Court of Appeals erred in granting damages to the respondents.
[Article 19], 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. But 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 21 would be proper.16 (Emphasis supplied)While Article 19 of the New Civil Code may have been intended as a mere declaration of principle, the "cardinal law on human conduct" expressed in said article has given rise to certain rules, e.g., that where a person exercises his rights but does so arbitrarily or unjustly or performs his duties in a manner that is not in keeping with honesty and good faith, he opens himself to liability. The elements of an abuse of rights under Article 19 are: (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.17
Endnotes:
* Designated additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier per Raffle dated April 22, 2019.
1Rollo, p. 17-33.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of the Court), with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (also now a Member of the Court); id. at 34-49.
3 RTC Decision was not attached.
4 Penned by Associate Justice Samuel II. Gaerlan (now a member of the Court), with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a member of the Court); rollo, pp. 50-53.
5Rollo, p. 35.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 36.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 37.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 38.
15 Id. at 48-49.
16 501 Phil 153, 166(2005).
17Metroheights Subdivision Homeowners Association, Inc. v. CMS Construction and Development Corp., G.R. No. 209359, October 17, 2018.
18Nikko Hotel Manila Garden v. Reyes, 492 Phil 615, 627 (2005).
19International Container Terminal Services v. Chua, 730 Phil. 475, 489 (2014).
20Lee v. People, G.R. No. 205746 (Notice), April 3, 2013.
21Japan Airlines v. Simangan, 575 Phil. 359, 377 (2008).
22Air France v. Gillego, 653 Phil. 138, 153 (2010).
CAGUIOA, J.:
I concur with the ponencia in its findings of abuse of right on the part of petitioner, in clear breach of the most rudimentary principles of human relations as embodied in Article 19 in relation to Article 21 of the Civil Code.1 I take this opportunity to recall and to emphasize the underlying propositions governing the principle of abuse of right, and echo the breadth of application that these encompassing provisions historically contemplated, both of which support a decisive finding of abuse of right in the present case.
The invocation of the abuse of right principle under Article 19 in relation to either Article 20 or 21 is admittedly not subject to a hard and fast evaluation of mathematical precision, owing perhaps to its design as an all-inclusive provision that seeks to redress other wrongs or injurious acts not covered by legislative foresight. Article 19 is based on the maxim suum jus summa injuria (the abuse of a right is the greatest possible wrong),2 and is described as the guide to relational behavior that rise from the dictates of good conscience and govern any human society, to wit:
Therein are formulated some basic principles that are to be observed for the rightful relationship between human being and for the stability of the social order. The present Civil Code merely states the effects of the law, but fails to draw out the spirit of the law. This chapter is designed to indicate certain norms that spring from the fountain of good conscience. These guides for human conduct should run as golden threads through society, to the end that law may approach its supreme ideal, which is the sway and dominance of Justice.3cralawlawlibraryThis provision on the basic tenets of decent human behavior, however, may not be invoked independently of Articles 20 and 21, which provide for the legal consequences of such an abuse. Article 20 is said to underpin the entire legal system, and ensures that no person who suffers damage, because of the act of another, may find himself without redress.4 It is further said to extend our understanding of what tortious acts may consist of, with its language indicative of the incorporation into our traditional contemplation of tort or culpa aquiliana-the Anglo-American concept of tort which includes malice.5 Article 21, for its part, stretched the "sphere of wrongs" provided for by positive law, and filled in the gaps to ensure remedy for people who have sustained material injuries from moral wrongs, in the absence of any other express provision.6
x x x In Roman Law the maxim was "qui iure suo utitur neminem laedit [i.e.], he who exercises his own right injures no one. Taken absolutely and literally the maxim is false and leads to absurd consequences. The exercise of rights must be done within certain limits. These limitations can be classified into two categories: 1. The intrinsic limitations which emanate from the right itself, [i.e.] from its nature and purpose, 2. The extrinsic limitations which emanate from the rights of others. The Intrinsic limitations are the following: (a) those derived from the nature of the right, [e.g.], the depositary cannot use the things deposited without authorization otherwise the character of the contract is destroyed; (b) Limitations arising from good faith; and (c) Limitations imposed by the economic and social ends of the right which require the holder of the right to exercise the right in accordance with the end for which it was granted or created. Hence the principle of ABUSE OF RIGHT. The extrinsic limitations are: (a) Those in favor of third persons who act in good faith; and (b) Those arising from the concurrence or conflict with the rights of others.Under the aforementioned operative definition of abuse of right, therefore, petitioner's acts of failing to actually bring Pascasio (the father of respondents) to the birthday celebration which respondents mounted for him, and her concomitant failure to inform the latter of their foreseen absence from the party, or to just let them know that they had already returned to Manila after the schedule of the same, despite her justifications - that, based on her own narrative, are easily surmountable challenges - betrays intention and bad faith on petitioner's part. This is a clear breach of the intrinsic limitation on her right as the spouse of Pascasio arising from good faith, as well as breach of the extrinsic limitation arising from its conflict with the rights of others. So that although she indeed possessed the determinate right of bringing or not bringing her spouse to the birthday celebration, her exercise of said right placed her squarely against the basic rule on observance of good faith.
x x x x
x x x x "The abusive act" says Josserand, "is simply that which, performed in accordance with a subjective right whose limits has been respected, is nevertheless contrary to right considered in general and as the sum total of all obligatory laws. It is perfectly possible to have in one's own favor such a determinate right but nevertheless have against one the whole of law and this is the situation which produces that famous maxim "summum his summa iniuria". The responsibility arising from the abuse of right covers both the subjective character of right and its social end and function.9cralawlawlibrary
Second, defendant-appellant testified that before going to Tarlac, she and Pascasio attended a birthday celebration at the Century Club, Quezon City on 21 February 2004. Her testimony further reveals that as early as that day, Pascasio was (allegedly) already decided on not attending the party prepared by his children. If said testimony is to be believed, it puzzles the Court why defendant-appellant did not attempt to contact, at that earliest time, plaintiffs-appellees to advise them of their father's sudden change of heart. Defendant-appellant knew that the celebration prepared by the Banaria children is not simple as guests were invited and a considerable sum of money is spent for the event. Indeed, had defendant-appellant informed plaintiffs-appellees of her predicament, the damage or injury that plaintiffs-appellees are now complaining of could have been prevented.Further, petitioner argues that this was no more than a case of damnum absque injuria, or a damage without injury as the loss or harm suffered was not a result of a violation of a legal duty.10 Here, petitioner is in error. Damnum absque injuria or damage without injury may not be appreciated in petitioner's actions as said principle contemplates a situation wherein in the exercise of a right, "the purpose was good, the exercise normal and still damage is caused".11 As applied to petitioner's actions, her failure to inform respondents of their intended absence from the party or their whereabouts, in the least, to the extent that respondents found it necessary to file a Missing Person's report with the local police,12 exhibits the utter lack of consideration for respondents, or otherwise a deficit in good faith relations with the latter.
(Sgd.)ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAQGUIOA | ||
Associate Justice |
Endnotes:
1 In brief, the factual backdrop involves a legal spouse who did not bring her frail and ailing husband (Pascasio) to the latter's 90th birthday celebration prepared for him by his children from a previous marriage, and relatedly failed to advice Pascasio's family of his absence or the reason therefor whether prior to or after the same. As a consequence of such, herein petitioner's stepchildren sustained injury and loss, and prompted them to file a complaint for damages against petitioner, imputing against her malicious and injurious abuse of rights.
2 See Desiderio P Jurado, CIVIL LAW REVIEWER, 2009 ed., p. 33.
3 See Francisco R. Capistrano, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES WITH COMMENTS AND ANNOTATIONS, 1950 ed., Vol. 1, p.2
4 Id.
5 Eduardo P. Caguioa, COMMENTS AND CASES ON CIVIL LAW, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 1959 ed.. Vol. I, p. 29.
6 Id.
7Baksh v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97336, February 19, 1993, 219 SCRA 115, 127-128; citing Arturo M. Tolentino, COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TUB CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 1985 ed.,
Vol. 1, p. 72; the case adds;In the general scheme of the Philippine legal system envisioned by the Commission responsible for drafting the New Civil Code, intentional and malicious acts, with certain exceptions, are to be governed by the Revised Penal Code while negligent acts or omissions are to be covered by Article 2176 of the Civil Code, in between these opposite spectrums are injurious acts which, in the absence of Article 21, would have been beyond redress. Thus, Article 21 fills that vacuum. It is even postulated that together with Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code, Article 21 has greatly broadened the scope of the law on civil wrongs; it has become much more supple and adaptable than the Anglo-American law on torts.8Andrade v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127932, December 7, 2001, 371 SCRA 555, 563.
9 Supra note 5 at 26-27. Emphasis in the original.
10Rollo. p. 31.
11 Supra note 5 at 28.
12Rollo, p. 36.
13 G.R. No. 164749, March 15, 2017, 820 SCRA 301.
14 Id. at 350; citing Mendoza v. Sps. Gomez, G.R. No. 1601 10, June 18, 2014, 726 SCRA 505, 526.
15 Supra note 5 at 30; citing Report of Code Commission, pp. 40-41.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary