Honeste vivere, non
alterum laedere et jus suum cuique tribuere.
To live virtuously, not to injure others and to give
everyone his due. These supreme norms of justice are the underlying principles
of law and order in society.
FACTS:
·
In 1982, respondent Quiamco was approached by Davalan, Gabutero
and Generoso to settle the civil aspect of a criminal case for robbery filed by
Quiamco against them.
·
They surrendered to him a red Honda motorcycle and a photocopy of
its certificate of registration. Respondent asked for the original certificate
of registration but the three accused never came to see him again.
·
Meanwhile, the motorcycle was parked in an
open space inside respondent‘s business establishment, where it was visible
and accessible to the public.
·
It turned out that, in October 1981, the motorcycle had been sold
on installment basis to Gabutero by Uypitching Sons, Inc. And to secure its
payment, the motorcycle was mortgaged to petitioner corporation.
·
When Gabutero could no longer pay the installments, Davalan
assumed the obligation and continued the payments.
·
In September 1982, however, Davalan stopped paying the remaining
installments.
·
Nine years later, petitioner Uypitching, accompanied by policemen,
went to Avesco-AVNE Enterprises to recover the motorcycle.
·
The leader of the police team talked to the clerk in charge and
asked for respondent. While P/Lt. Vendiola and the clerk were talking,
petitioner Uypitching paced back and forth inside the establishment uttering
"Quiamco is a thief of a motorcycle."
·
Unable to find respondent, the
policemen on petitioner Uypitching‘s instructionand
over the clerk‘s objection, took the motorcycle.
·
Petitioner Uypitching filed a criminal complaint for qualified
theft and/or violation of the Anti-Fencing Law against respondent but was
dismissed.
·
Respondent filed an action for damages against petitioners in the
RTC
·
The trial court rendered a decision finding that petitioner
Uypitching was motivated with malice and ill will when he called respondent a
thief, took the motorcycle in an abusive manner and filed a baseless complaint
for qualified theft and/or violation of the Anti-Fencing Law
·
Petitioners appealed the RTC decision but
the CA affirmed the trial court‘s decision.
ISSUE:
WON the filing of a complaint for qualified theft
and/or violation of the Anti-Fencing Law
warranted the award of moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney‘s fees and costs in favor of respondent.
HELD: YES.
They were held
liable for damages not only for instituting a groundless complaint against
respondent but also for making a slanderous remark and for taking the motorcycle from respondent’s establishment in
an abusive manner .Petitioners Abused Their
Right of Recovery as Mortgagee(s)
A mortgagee may take steps
to recover the mortgaged property to enable it
to enforce or protect its foreclosure right there on. There is, however, a
well-defined procedure for the recovery of possession of mortgaged
property: if a mortgagee is unable to obtain possession of a mortgaged property
for its sale on foreclosure, he must
bring a civil action either to recover such possession as a preliminary
step to the sale, or to obtain judicial foreclosure .Petitioner
corporation failed to bring the proper civil action necessary to acquire legal possession
of the motorcycle. Instead, petitioner
Uypitching descended on respondent‘s establishment with his policemen
and ordered the seizure of the motorcycle without a search warrant or court
order. Worse, in the course of the illegal seizure of the motorcycle,
petitioner Uypitching even mouthed a slanderous statement.
Petitioners‘ acts violated the
law as well as public morals, and transgressed the proper norms of human relations.
The basic principle
of human relations, embodied in Article 19 of the Civil Code .Article 19, also
known as the "principle of abuse of right," prescribes that a person
should not use his right unjustly or contrary to honesty and good faith ,otherwise
he opens himself to liability. There is an abuse of right when it is exercised
solely to prejudice or injure another.
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
nointention to harm another.
In this case, the manner by which the motorcycle was taken at petitioners‘ instance was not
only attended by bad faith but also contrary to the procedure laid down by law.
Considered in conjunction with the defamatory statement, petitioners’
exercise of the right to recover the
mortgaged vehicle was utterly prejudicial and injurious to respondent.
Petitioners acted in an excessively harsh fashion to
the prejudice of respondent.
No comments:
Post a Comment