Professional Documents
Culture Documents
351 SCRA 73 Civil Law Article 19 Abuse of Rights Damnum Absque Injuria
In 1965, Atty. Sergio Amonoy represented Alfonso Fornilda (Formida in some
records) in a partition case. Since Fornilda had no money to pay, he agreed to
make use of whatever property he acquires as a security for the payment of
Amonoys attorneys fees which amounts to P27k. In July 1969, Fornilda died. A
month later, the property was finally adjudicated and Fornilda, through his heirs,
got his just share from the property in dispute. Fornilda was however unable to
pay Amonoy. Hence, Amonoy sought to foreclose the property in 1970. The heirs
of Fornilda, the spouses Jose Gutierrez and Angela Fornilda then sued Amonoy
questioning the validity of his mortgage agreement with Fornilda. It was their
claim that the attorneys fees he was collecting was unconscionable and that the
same was based on an invalid mortgage due to the existing att0rney-client
relationship between him and Fornilda at the time the mortgage was executed.
The spouses lost in the trial court as well as in the Court of Appeals but they
appealed to the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R.No. L-72306. Meanwhile, in
1973, Amonoy was able to foreclose the property. Amonoy was also the highest
bidder in the public sale conducted in view of the foreclosure. He was able to buy
the property of Fornilda for P23k. But constructed on said property was the house
of the spouses Gutierrez.
Pending the spousess appeal with the Supreme Court, Amonoy was able to
secure a demolition order and so on May 30, 1986, Amonoy started demolishing
the houses of the spouses. But on June 2, 1986, the Supreme Court issued a
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the demolition order. On June 4, 1986,
Amonoy received a copy of the TRO. Finally, on June 24, 1989, the Supreme Court
promulgated a decision on G.R.No. L-72306 where it ruled that the mortgage
between Amonoy and Fornilda is void, hence, Amonoy has no right over the
property. But by this time, the house of the spouses was already demolished
because it appears that despite the TRO, Amonoy continued demolishing the
house until it was fully demolished in the middle of 1987.
The spouses then sued Amonoy for damages. It is now the contention of Amonoy
that he incurred no liability because he was merely exercising his right to
demolish (pursuant to the demolition order) hence what happened was a case of
damnum absque injuria (injury without damage).
ISSUE: Whether or not Amonoy is correct.
HELD: No. Amonoy initially had the right to demolish but when he received the
TRO that right had already ceased. Hence, his continued exercise of said right
after the TRO was already unjustified. As quoted by the Supreme Court: The
exercise of a right ends when the right disappears, and it disappears when it is
abused, especially to the prejudice of others.
What Amonoy did is an abuse of right. Article 19, known to contain what is
commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, sets certain standards
which may be observed not only in the exercise of ones rights but also in the
performance of ones duties. These standards are the following: to act with
justice; to give everyone his due; recognizes the primordial limitation on all rights:
that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 and
results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the
wrongdoer must be held responsible.
Clearly then, the demolition of the spousess house by Amonoy, despite his
receipt of the TRO, was not only an abuse but also an unlawful exercise of such
right.