Case Summary (G.R. No. L-26762)
Key Dates
May 1998 — petitioner sought respondent’s verbal consent to bore a hole in the shared perimeter wall.
June 9, 1998 — respondent filed a letter‑complaint with the Las Piñas City Office of the City Engineer and Building Official.
December 1998 — barangay conciliation proceedings failed to resolve the dispute; a joint survey occurred.
March 1999 — respondent filed a complaint for damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC); petitioner later obtained a building permit (March 15, 1999) and paid an administrative fine.
May 29, 2006 — RTC rendered decision awarding moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees to respondent.
May 26, 2009 — Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification, reducing damages.
April 6, 2011 — Supreme Court decision (governing constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution, as the decision falls after 1990).
Applicable Law
Constitutional basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date post‑1990).
Civil Code provisions applied: Article 2176 (quasi‑delict liability), Article 2219 (cases warranting moral damages), and Article 2220 (willful injury to property and moral damages for bad faith/fraud). Relevant jurisprudential standards for moral and exemplary damages and for proving bad faith/malice were also applied.
Factual Background
Petitioner represented the planned work as merely boring a hole or making an extension but in fact constructed a second story with a terrace atop the dividing wall and demolished the wall into multiple sections. Respondent alleged persistent dust and debris falling into his property, trampling and damage to his vegetable garden, unauthorized entry of workers into his premises to erect scaffoldings, and continued construction despite stop‑work notices and absence of a building permit. Multiple complaints and barangay “sumbongs” were filed; attempts at conciliation failed.
Evidence at Trial
Respondent and his wife testified to the disturbance, dust, and alleged trespasses. Architect Antonio Punzalan III testified that preventive measures (installation of GI sheet strainers, scaffoldings, daily clean‑ups at 5:00 p.m.) were implemented and that the perimeter wall was within petitioner’s title boundaries based on TCT and tax declarations; neighbor consents were secured. Engineer Crisostomo Chan testified regarding the building‑permit process; Engineer Sonia Haduca’s joint survey found an encroachment of six centimeters at the lower portion of the wall, deemed negligible under the Land Survey Law (permissible encroachment up to ten centimeters). Petitioner later obtained a building permit and paid the administrative fine.
Procedural History
RTC (Las Piñas, Branch 255) rendered judgment for respondent, awarding P100,000 moral damages, P100,000 exemplary damages, and P50,000 attorney’s fees, finding fault and negligence under Article 2176 and misrepresentation by petitioner. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed but reduced moral damages to P50,000 and exemplary damages to P25,000. The CA denied reconsideration. Petitioner filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether respondent proved entitlement to moral damages: did he show physical, mental, or psychological injury and that such injuries were proximately caused by petitioner’s wrongful act or omission?
- Whether exemplary damages were justified: was there proof of willful, malicious, or bad‑faith conduct by petitioner?
- Whether attorney’s fees were warranted based on the showing of bad faith or fraud.
Legal Standards Applied
- Article 2176 (quasi‑delict): liability arises from fault or negligence causing damage to another.
- Moral damages (Article 2219) are compensatory, recoverable in specific cases (including quasi‑delicts causing physical injuries) and require proof of injury and causal nexus. The claimant must prove (1) evidence of injury (physical, mental, reputation), (2) a culpable act or omission established factually, (3) proximate causation between the act/omission and the injury, and (4) that the act falls within the instances under Articles 2219/2220.
- Article 2220: moral damages may be awarded for willful injury to property or where breach of contract involved fraud/bad faith; exemplary damages require proof of malice or bad faith. Malice entails conscious design to do a wrongful act for dishonest purposes and is distinct from negligence.
RTC Findings and Rationale
The RTC found petitioner negligent for commencing renovation without a building permit and for misrepresenting the scope of the work (purported one hole vs. demolition and construction of a second storey). The court concluded that respondent suffered inconvenience and damage from noise, dust, and falling debris and that petitioner failed to install adequate safety devices or clean the affected area, thereby warranting moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees under Article 2176.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA affirmed the RTC’s finding of liability but modified the quantum, lowering the awards for moral and exemplary damages (P50,000 and P25,000 respectively). The CA relied on the obligation under Article 19 of the Civil Code to act with justice, honesty, and good faith in exercising rights and performing duties.
Supreme Court Analysis and Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition in part and vacated the CA decision. The Court reaffirmed the legal requirements for moral and exemplary damages: a claimant must establish the injury, the culpable act or omission, proximate causation linking the wrongdoing to injury, and that the acts fall within Articles 2219/2220. Applying these standards, the Court concluded:
- Petitioner’s initial lack of a building permit and possible misrepresentation of intent rendered him administratively liable but did not by itself establish malice or bad faith sufficient for moral or exemplary damages. Lack of
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-26762)
Procedural History
- Case reported at 662 Phil. 782, Third Division; G.R. No. 188715; decision date April 06, 2011; penned by Justice Carpio Morales.
- Petition for review assails the May 26, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed with modification the May 29, 2006 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City, Branch 255, in Civil Case No. LP-99-0058.
- RTC had ordered petitioner to pay respondent moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
- The Court of Appeals reduced the awards of moral and exemplary damages; denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated July 10, 2009.
- The present petition seeks review of the appellate court’s affirmation with modification of the trial court’s decision.
Parties and Relationship
- Petitioner: Rodolfo N. Regala.
- Respondent: Federico P. Carin.
- Relationship: Adjacent neighbors residing on Spirig Street, BF Resort Village, Las Piñas City.
Factual Background
- Petitioner decided to renovate his one-storey residence by constructing a second floor and approached respondent in May 1998, stating the work was merely an extension and requesting permission to bore a hole through a perimeter (dividing) wall shared by their properties.
- Respondent verbally consented on condition that petitioner would clean the area affected by the work.
- Petitioner’s actual intention was to build a second storey with a terrace atop the dividing wall.
- During construction, dust and dirt fell on respondent’s property; petitioner allegedly failed to clean the debris and otherwise mitigate nuisance.
- Respondent filed a letter-complaint with the Office of the City Engineer and Building Official of Las Piñas City on June 9, 1998, alleging lack of building permit, demolition of the dividing wall, failure to clean debris, unauthorized entry by laborers, trampling of respondent’s vegetable garden, and that petitioner claimed ownership of the perimeter wall.
- Several complaints (“sumbongs”) were lodged by respondent before Barangay Talon Dos for encroachment, invasion of privacy, damages, and illegal construction of scaffoldings inside respondent’s property.
- Barangay conciliation in December 1998 failed to produce a satisfactory agreement.
- Despite several stop-work notices from the City Engineer’s Office for lack of building permit, petitioner continued construction.
- Respondent filed a complaint for damages in March 1999, alleging petitioner demolished the whole length of the wall into five parts to construct a second floor with terrace, resulting in debris ruining his garden and forcing him to shut windows.
Petitioner’s Assertions and Defenses
- Petitioner denied respondent’s allegations and claimed sole and exclusive ownership of the perimeter wall, stating it was built within his property and formed part of the house and lot he purchased from BF Homes, Inc. in 1981.
- Petitioner contended that obtaining neighbors’ consent was a formality required by the Building Official to facilitate issuance of a building permit and did not imply co-ownership of the wall.
- Petitioner asserted that he eventually secured the required building permit in March 1999 and paid the administrative fine.
- Petitioner denied demolishing the whole length of the wall, contending that he and his contractor’s laborers cleaned respondent’s area after each workday until respondent barred them, demanded dismantling of scaffoldings, and threatened to shoot anyone entering the premises.
- Petitioner alleged respondent instituted the complaint as leverage to force withdrawal of criminal charges for slander and light threats that petitioner had earlier filed against respondent.
Complaint, Relief Sought, and Docketing
- Respondent’s complaint sought moral and exemplary damages for the alleged damage and disturbance caused by petitioner’s construction activities.
- The case was docketed as Civil Case No. LP-99-0058 before RTC Branch 255, Las Piñas City.
Trial Evidence and Witnesses
- Respondent and his wife testified and confirmed the material allegations of the complaint.
- Petitioner testified and presented witnesses, including:
- Architect Antonio Punzalan III: testified he installed galvanized iron (GI) sheet strainers to prevent debris from falling onto respondent’s property; instructed workers to clean the affected area daily at 5:00 p.m.; surveyed petitioner’s property based on Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) and tax declarations; and secured neighbors’ consent prior to construction; indicated that workers had consent to clean respondent’s property daily until barred.
- Engineer Crisostomo Chan (Office of the Building Official of Las Piñas City): testified regarding circumstances surrounding respondent’s complaint for illegal construction and that a building permit was eventually issued to petitioner on March 15, 1999.
- Engineer Sonia Haduca: testified that a joint survey conducted in December 1998 found an encroachment by petitioner of six centimeters at the lower portion of the existing wall, which she considered negligible because the Land Survey Law permits an encroachment of up to ten centimeters.
- Documentary evidence cited in the record includes:
- Exhibit “B”: respondent’s letter-complaint (records, pp. 281-282).
- Exhibit “7”: Neighbor’s Consent dated June 12, 1998.
- Exhibit “11”: TCT and tax declarations.
- Exhibits “5” to “6”: photographs or documentation of scaffol