SERGIO AMONOY, petitioner, v.

SPOUSES JOSE GUTIERREZ

AND ANGELA FORNILDA, respondents.
G.R. No. 140420. February 15, 2001

Facts:

Amonoy was the counsel of the successors of the deceased Julio Cantolos for the
settlement of the latter’s estate. On January 1965, the lots were adjudicated to Asuncion
Pasamba and Alfonso Formilda. On January 20, 1965, Pasamba and Formilda executed a
deed of real estate mortgage on the said two lots adjudicated to them, in favor of Amonoy
to secure the payment of his attorney’s fees. But on August 6, 1969, after the taxes had
been paid, the claims settled and the properties adjudicated, the estate was declared
closed and terminated. When Pasamba and Formilda passed away, Formilda was
succeeded by the spouses Gutierrez. On January 21, 1970, Amonoy filed for the closure of
the two lots alleging the non-payment of attorney’s fees. The herein respondents denied
the allegation, but judgment was rendered in favor of Amonoy.

Still for failure to pay attorney’s fees, the lots were foreclosed. Amonoy was able to buy the
lots by auction where the house of the spouses Gutierrez was situated. On Amonoy’s
motion of April 24, 1986, orders were implemented for the demolition of structures in the
said lot, including herein respondents’ house. On September 27, 1985, David Formilda
petitioned to the Supreme Court for a TRO for the suspension of the demolition, which
was granted, but the houses have already been demolished. A complaint for damages was
filed by respondents, which was denied by RTC but granted by CA, thus this case.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that Amonoy was liable for damages to
respondents.

Ruling:

Petitioner invokes that it is well-settled that the maxim of damage resulting from the
legitimate exercise of a person’s rights is a loss without injury — damnum absque injuria
— for which the law gives no remedy, saying he is not liable for damages. The precept of
Damnum Absque Injuria has no application is this case. Petitioner did not heed the TRO
suspending the demolition of structures. Although the acts of petitioner may have
been legally justified at the outset, their continuation after the issuance of the TRO
amounted to an insidious abuse of his right. Indubitably, his actions were tainted with
bad faith.

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 one’s
rights but also in the performance of one’s duties. These standards are the following: to
act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith. This
must be observed. Clearly then, the demolition of respondents’ house by petitioner,
despite his receipt of the TRO, was not only an abuse but also an unlawful exercise of such
right. The petition is denied. The decision of CA is affirmed.