Kathryn P.

Akmad
Bulacan State University
College of Law
Amonoy v. Gutierrez
FACTS: 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 se of !hate"er property he
ac#ires as a secrity for the payment of Amonoy$s attorney$s fees !hich amonts to %&'k. In (ly
1969, Fornilda died. A month later, the property !as finally ad)dicated and Fornilda, throgh his heirs,
got his )st share from the property in dispte. Fornilda !as ho!e"er na*le to pay Amonoy. +ence,
Amonoy soght to foreclose the property in 19',. -he heirs of Fornilda, the sposes (ose .tierre/ and
Angela Fornilda then sed Amonoy #estioning the "alidity of his mortgage agreement !ith Fornilda.
It !as their claim that the attorney$s fees he !as collecting !as nconsciona*le and that the same !as
*ased on an in"alid mortgage de to the e0isting att,rney1client relationship *et!een him and Fornilda
at the time the mortgage !as e0ected.
-he sposes lost in the trial cort as !ell as in the 2ort of Appeals *t they appealed to the Spreme
2ort, docketed as ..3.4o. 51'&6,6. 7ean!hile, in 19'6, Amonoy !as a*le to foreclose the property.
Amonoy !as also the highest *idder in the p*lic sale condcted in "ie! of the foreclosre. +e !as
a*le to *y the property of Fornilda for %&6k. 8t constrcted on said property !as the hose of the
sposes .tierre/.
%ending the sposes$s appeal !ith the Spreme 2ort, Amonoy !as a*le to secre a demolition order
and so on 7ay 6,, 1996, Amonoy started demolishing the hoses of the sposes. 8t on (ne &, 1996,
the Spreme 2ort issed a -emporary 3estraining :rder (-3:) against the demolition order. :n (ne
;, 1996, Amonoy recei"ed a copy of the -3:. Finally, on (ne &;, 1999, the Spreme 2ort
promlgated a decision on ..3.4o. 51'&6,6 !here it rled that the mortgage *et!een Amonoy and
Fornilda is "oid, hence, Amonoy has no right o"er the property. 8t *y this time, the hose of the
sposes !as already demolished *ecase it appears that despite the -3:, Amonoy contined
demolishing the hose ntil it !as flly demolished in the middle of 199'.
-he sposes then sed Amonoy for damages. It is no! the contention of Amonoy that he incrred no
lia*ility *ecase he !as merely e0ercising his right to demolish (prsant to the demolition order)
hence !hat happened !as a case of damnm a*s#e in)ria (in)ry !ithot damage).
ISSUE: <hether or not Amonoy is correct.
HELD: 4o. Amonoy initially had the right to demolish *t !hen he recei"ed the -3: that right had
already ceased. +ence, his contined e0ercise of said right after the -3: !as already n)stified. As
#oted *y the Spreme 2ort= >-he e0ercise of a right ends !hen the right disappears, and it disappears
!hen it is a*sed, especially to the pre)dice of others. ?
<hat Amonoy did is an a*se of right. Article 19, kno!n to contain !hat is commonly referred to as
the principle of a*se of rights, sets certain standards !hich may *e o*ser"ed not only in the e0ercise of
one$s rights *t also in the performance of one$s dties. -hese standards are the follo!ing= to act !ith
)stice@ to gi"e e"eryone his de@ recogni/es the primordial limitation on all rights= that in their
e0ercise, the norms of hman condct set forth in Article 19 and reslts in damage to another, a legal
!rong is there*y committed for !hich the !rongdoer mst *e held responsi*le.
2learly then, the demolition of the sposes$s hose *y Amonoy, despite his receipt of the -3:, !as not
only an a*se *t also an nla!fl e0ercise of sch right.
1