Case Summary (G.R. No. 66020)
Petitioner’s Role and Underlying Transactions
Amonoy acted as counsel for certain heirs in the settlement of the estate of Julio Cantolos. Two lots were adjudicated to Asuncion Pasamba and Alfonso Fornilda, and these heirs executed a mortgage in favor of Amonoy to secure payment of attorney’s fees. After the estate was closed, foreclosure proceedings were initiated for unpaid attorney’s fees, culminating in judicial auction(s) at which Amonoy was the highest bidder and the properties were confirmed sold to him. One of the lots sold included the lot on which the Gutierrez spouses had their house.
Procedural History — Collateral and Subsequent Suits
After the foreclosure and confirmed sale (early 1970s), the heirs filed an annulment suit (Civil Case No. 18731) challenging the foreclosure judgment; that suit was dismissed by the trial court and the dismissal affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Subsequently, a Writ of Possession and orders authorizing demolition were issued by the trial court, and demolition was carried out beginning May 30, 1986. The heirs/petitioners to the Supreme Court secured a temporary restraining order (TRO) from the Supreme Court on June 2, 1986 enjoining demolition. A later Supreme Court decision (G.R. No. L-72306) set aside the trial court’s writs and made the TRO permanent, ordering return of parcels to petitioners unless conveyed to innocent third persons.
Lower Court Rulings and Appeal
Respondents filed a Complaint for damages in RTC on December 15, 1989 for destruction of their house. The RTC dismissed the complaint in a January 27, 1993 decision. On appeal, the Court of Appeals set aside the RTC judgment and ordered petitioner Amonoy to pay the respondents P250,000 as actual damages. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, and Amonoy sought review by certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issue Presented
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held petitioner liable for damages arising from the demolition of respondents’ house — specifically, whether the doctrine damnum absque injuria (loss without injury) shielded petitioner from liability for acts performed under a writ of demolition issued by the trial court.
Governing Legal Principle — Damnum Absque Injuria and Limits
The Court reiterated the well-established maxim that damage resulting from the legitimate exercise of a legal right is damnum absque injuria — a loss for which the law provides no remedy. However, this principle presupposes that the right is exercised lawfully and without abuse. Where an exercise of right constitutes an abuse, or where the exercise is suspended, extinguished, or otherwise invalidated by court order, damnum absque injuria does not apply and the actor may be held liable for resulting damage.
Application of TRO and the Suspension of the Right to Demolish
The records established that a TRO from the Supreme Court enjoining demolition was issued on June 2, 1986 and, according to the CA’s findings, was served on Amonoy on June 4, 1986. Amonoy did not heed the TRO. Testimony (respondent Angela Gutierrez) showed that demolition, begun May 30, 1986, was not completed the next day but continued until about mid-1987 and that the demolition was completed by men identified as Fiscal Amonoy’s. Thus, although the demolition may initially have been under authority of the trial court’s writ, its continuation after receipt of the Supreme Court’s TRO was a continuation in defiance of a superior court order.
Abuse of Rights and Article 19 Standards
The Court relied on the doctrine embodied in Article 19 (as explained in Albenson Enterprises Corp. v. CA and related authority cited in the decision) that the exercise of rights must conform to standards: to act with justice, to give everyone his due, and to observe honesty and good faith. A legal right, when exercised in contravention of these standards and causing harm to another, may give rise to liability. Here, continuing demolition despite a Supreme Court TRO constituted both an abuse of right and an unlawful exercise of a right that had been suspended by the TRO.
Rejection of Damnum Absque Injuria Defense and Basis of Liability
Because the demolition continued after the TRO (and because the right to continue was thereby suspended), Amonoy could not invoke damnum absque injuria. The Court held that his insistence on completing demolition despite knowledge of the TRO evinced bad faith and wanton disregard of the Supreme Court’s order. That conduct gave rise to civil liability based on the general obligation to repair damage caused by one’s acts or omissions, whether intentional or negligent, consistent with precedents cit
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 66020)
Nature of the Case and Relief Sought
- Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Sergio Amonoy before the Supreme Court, assailing the April 21, 1999 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CV No. 41451 and the October 19, 1999 Resolution denying motion for reconsideration.
- The Court of Appeals had set aside the judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tanay, Rizal, which had earlier dismissed the respondents’ Complaint for damages; the CA rendered judgment ordering petitioner to pay plaintiffs-appellants Bruno and Bernardina Gutierrez P250,000.00 as actual damages.
- Petition challenges CA ruling of liability and award of actual damages; petitioner contends nonliability on the ground of damnum absque injuria (loss without legal injury) because he acted pursuant to a Writ of Demolition issued by the RTC.
Parties and Representation
- Petitioner: Sergio Amonoy.
- Respondents: Spouses Jose Gutierrez and Angela Fornilda (also referred to as Angela Gutierrez and Leocadia Fornilda in related proceedings).
- Petitioner’s Memorandum signed by Attorneys Gelacio C. Mamaril and Roberto B. Arca.
- Respondents’ Memorandum signed by Attorneys Romeo B. Igot and Liberato F. Mojica.
Procedural History — Summary of Judicial Proceedings
- Special Proceedings No. 3103 before Branch I of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pasig, Rizal, for settlement of the estate of Julio Cantolos, involving six parcels in Tanay, Rizal.
- On 12 January 1965, Project of Partition approved; two lots adjudicated to Asuncion Pasamba and Alfonso Fornilda.
- Attorney’s fees charged by Amonoy amounted to P27,600.00; to secure payment, on 20 January 1965 Asuncion Pasamba and Alfonso Fornilda executed a deed of real estate mortgage on those two lots in favor of Amonoy.
- Estate declared closed and terminated on 6 August 1969 after taxes paid and claims settled.
- Asuncion Pasamba died 24 February 1969; Alfonso Fornilda died 2 July 1969; among Alfonso’s heirs was plaintiff-appellant Angela Gutierrez.
- On 21 January 1970, Amonoy filed foreclosure in Civil Case No. 12726 before CFI of Pasig, Rizal, Branch VIII, against heirs of Pasamba and Fornilda for unpaid attorney’s fees.
- Heirs alleged unconscionable fees and contended agreed sum was only P11,695.92.
- On 28 September 1972, judgment in Civil Case No. 12726 rendered in favor of Amonoy ordering heirs to pay P27,600.00 (mortgage), P11,880.00 (value of harvests), and P9,645.00 (additional attorney’s fees) within 90 days, otherwise lots to be sold at public auction.
- Heirs failed to pay; lots foreclosed on 6 February 1973; auction sale on 23 March 1973 where Amonoy highest bidder at P23,760.00; judicial confirmation of bid on 2 May 1973.
- Deficiency claimed; execution sale conducted; highest bidder again Amonoy at P12,137.50.
- Included in sold lots was the lot on which the Gutierrez spouses’ house stood.
- On 19 December 1973, heirs filed Civil Case No. 18731 (Maria Penano, et al. vs. Sergio Amonoy, et al.) for annulment of the foreclosure/decision; CFI dismissed on 7 November 1977; Court of Appeals affirmed on 22 July 1981.
- CFI issued a Writ of Possession on 25 July 1985; notice to vacate on 26 August 1985.
- On Amonoy’s motion of 24 April 1986, the CFI issued Orders dated 25 April 1986 and 6 May 1986 authorizing demolition of structures in the lots, including the Gutierrez house.
- Petition G.R. No. L-72306 (David Fornilda, et al. vs Branch 164 RTC IVth Pasig, Deputy Sheriff Joaquin Antonil and Atty. Sergio Amonoy), filed 27 September 1985 before the Supreme Court, included Angela Gutierrez among petitioners; a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued 2 June 1986 enjoined demolition of petitioners’ houses.
- Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. L-72306 promulgated 5 October 1988: certiorari granted, lower court’s Order dated 25 July 1985 and Orders dated 25 April and 16 May 1986 directing demolition set aside; TRO made permanent; six contested parcels ordered returned to petitioners unless conveyed to innocent third persons.
- By the time the Supreme Court promulgated its Decision, respondents’ house had already been destroyed purportedly under a Writ of Demolition ordered by the lower court.
- Respondents filed Complaint for damages before the RTC on December 15, 1989, in connection with the destruction of their house.
- RTC dismissed respondents’ suit in a Decision dated January 27, 1993.
- On appeal, Court of Appeals set aside the RTC decision and ordered petitioner to pay respondents P250,000.00 as actual damages by its April 21, 1999 Decision; Motion for Reconsideration denied by CA Resolution dated October 19, 1999.
- Case deemed submitted for resolution in the Supreme Court on July 21, 2000 upon receipt of respondents’ Memorandum.
Factual Antecedents — Detailed Chronology of the Property Transactions and Demolition
- 12 January 1965: Project of Partition approved; two lots adjudicated to Asuncion Pasamba and Alfonso Fornilda.
- 20 January 1965: Deed of real estate mortgage executed by Asuncion and Alfonso in favor of Amonoy to secure payment of attorney’s fees of P27,600.00.
- 6 August 1969: Estate declared closed and terminated after payment of taxes and settlement of claims.
- Deaths of Asuncion Pasamba (24 February 1969) and Alfonso Fornilda (2 July 1969); Angela Gutierrez is among heirs of Alfonso.
- 21 January 1970: Foreclosure suit filed by Amonoy (Civil Case No. 12726).
- 28 September 1972: Judgment ordering payment (P27,600.00 + P11,880.00 + P9,645.00) and sale at public auction if unpaid.
- 6 February 1973: Foreclosure completed; auction on 23 March 1973 where Amonoy was highest bidder (P23,760.00); judicial confirmation 2 May 1973.
- Additional execution sale with Amonoy highest bidder (P12,137.50); sale included lot with respondents’ house.
- Subsequent annulment suit by heirs dismissed by CFI on 7 November 1977 and CA affirmed on 22 July 1981.
- 25 July 1985: CFI issued Writ of Possession; 2