3/8/2017 G.R.No.

180764

SECONDDIVISION


TITUSB.VILLANUEVA,G.R.No.180764
Petitioner,
Present:
Carpio,J.,Chairperson,
versusBrion,
DelCastillo,
Abad,and
Perez,JJ.
EMMAM.ROSQUETA,
Respondent.Promulgated:

January19,2010
xx

DECISION

ABAD,J.:


This case is about the right to recover damages for alleged abuse of right committed by a
superior public officer in preventing a subordinate from doing her assigned task and being
officiallyrecognizedforit.

TheFactsandtheCase

Respondent Emma M. Rosqueta (Rosqueta), formerly Deputy Commissioner of the
RevenueCollectionandMonitoringGroupoftheBureauofCustoms(theBureau),tenderedher
courtesy resignation from that post on January 23, 2001, shortly after President Gloria
MacapagalArroyo assumed office. But five months later on June 5, 2001, she withdrew her
resignation,claimingthatsheenjoyedsecurityoftenureandthatshehadresignedagainsther
[1]
willonordersofhersuperior.
Meantime,onJuly13,2001PresidentArroyoappointedGilValera(Valera)torespondent
Rosquetasposition.Challengingsuchappointment,Rosquetafiledapetitionforprohibition,quo
warranto,andinjunctionagainstpetitionerTitusB.Villanueva(Villanueva),thenCommissioner
[2]
of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, and Valera with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
ManilainCivilCase01101539.On August 27, 2001 the RTC issued a temporary restraining
[3]
order (TRO), enjoining Villanueva and the Finance Secretary from implementing Valeras
appointment.OnAugust28,2001thetrialcourtsupersededtheTROwithawritofpreliminary
[4]
injunction.

Petitioner Villanueva, Valera, and the Secretary of Finance challenged the injunction
orderbeforetheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.SP66070.OnSeptember14,2001theCA

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/180764.htm 1/6
3/8/2017 G.R.No.180764

issueditsownTRO,enjoiningtheimplementationoftheRTCsinjunctionorder.But the TRO

lapsedafter60daysandtheCAeventuallydismissedthepetitionbeforeit.

On November 22, 2001 while the preliminary injunction in the quo warranto case was
againinforce,petitionerVillanuevaissuedCustomsMemorandumOrder402001,authorizing
ValeratoexercisethepowersandfunctionsoftheDeputyCommissioner.

DuringtheBureauscelebrationofitscentennialanniversaryinFebruary2002,itsspecial
Panoramamagazineeditionfeaturedallthecustomsdeputycommissioners,exceptrespondent
Rosqueta. The souvenir program, authorized by the Bureaus Steering Committee headed by
petitioner Villanueva to be issued on the occasion, had a space where Rosquetas picture was
supposed to be but it instead stated that her position was under litigation. Meanwhile, the
commemorativebillboarddisplayedattheBureausmaingateincludedValeras picture but not
Rosquetas.

[5]
OnFebruary28,2002respondentRosquetafiledacomplaint fordamagesbeforethe
RTCofQuezonCityagainstpetitionerVillanuevainCivilCaseQ0246256,allegingthatthe
latter maliciously excluded her from the centennial anniversary memorabilia. Further, she
claimed that he prevented her from performing her duties as Deputy Commissioner, withheld
hersalaries,andrefusedtoactonherleaveapplications.Thus,sheaskedtheRTCtoawardher
P1,000,000.00 in moral damages, P500,000.00 in exemplary damages, and P300,000.00 in
attorneysfeesandcostsofsuit.

[6]
But the RTC dismissed respondent Rosquetas complaint, stating that petitioner
Villanueva committed no wrong and incurred no omission that entitled her to damages. The
RTCfoundthatVillanuevahadvalidlyandlegallyreplacedherasDeputyCommissionerseven
monthsbeforetheBureauscentennialanniversary.

[7]
But the CA reversed the RTCs decision, holding instead that petitioner Villanuevas
refusaltocomplywiththepreliminaryinjunctionorderissuedinthequowarrantocaseearned
[8]
for Rosqueta the right to recover moral damages from him. Citing the abuse of right
principle, the RTC said that Villanueva acted maliciously when he prevented Rosqueta from
performingherduties,deprivedherofsalariesandleaves,anddeniedherofficialrecognitionas
DeputyCommissionerbyexcludingherfromthecentennialanniversarymemorabilia.Thus,the
appellate court ordered Villanueva to pay P500,000.00 in moral damages, P200,000.00 in
exemplarydamagesandP100,000.00inattorneysfeesandlitigationexpenses.With the denial
of his motion for reconsideration, Villanueva filed this petition for review on certiorari under
Rule45.

TheIssuePresented

ThekeyissuepresentedinthiscaseiswhetherornottheCAerredinholdingpetitioner
Villanueva liable in damages to respondent Rosqueta for ignoring the preliminary injunction
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/180764.htm 2/6
3/8/2017 G.R.No.180764

orderthattheRTCissuedinthequowarrantocase(CivilCase01101539),thusdenyingherof
therighttodoherjobasDeputyCommissioneroftheBureauandtobeofficiallyrecognizedas
suchpublicofficer.

TheCourtsRuling

[9]
UndertheabuseofrightprinciplefoundinArticle19oftheCivilCode, apersonmust,
intheexerciseofhislegalrightorduty,actingoodfaith.Hewouldbeliableifheinsteadactsin
[10]
badfaith,withintenttoprejudiceanother.ComplementingthisprincipleareArticles20 and
[11]
21 of the Civil Code which grant the latter indemnity for the injury he suffers because of
[12]
suchabuseofrightorduty.

PetitionerVillanuevaclaimsthathemerelyactedonadviceoftheOfficeoftheSolicitor
General (OSG) when he allowed Valera to assume the office as Deputy Commissioner since
respondentRosquetaheldthepositionmerelyinatemporarycapacityandsinceshelackedthe
CareerExecutiveServiceeligibilityrequiredforthejob.

ButpetitionerVillanuevacannotseekshelterintheallegedadvicethattheOSGgavehim.
Surely,agovernmentofficialofhisrankmustknowthatapreliminaryinjunctionorderissued
by a court of law had to be obeyed, especially since the question of Valeras right to replace
respondentRosquetahadnotyetbeenproperlyresolved.

That petitioner Villanueva ignored the injunction shows bad faith and intent to spite
RosquetawhoremainedintheeyesofthelawtheDeputyCommissioner.Hisexclusionofher
from the centennial anniversary memorabilia was not an honest mistake by any reckoning.
Indeed,hewithheldhersalaryandpreventedherfromassumingthedutiesoftheposition.As
[13]
the Court said in Amonoy v. Spouses Gutierrez, a partys refusal to abide by a court order
enjoining him from doing an act, otherwise lawful, constitutes an abuse and an unlawful
exerciseofright.

ThatrespondentRosquetawaslaterappointedDeputyCommissionerforanotherdivision
of the Bureau is immaterial. While such appointment, when accepted, rendered the quo
warranto case moot and academic, it did not have the effect of wiping out the injuries she
suffered on account of petitioner Villanuevas treatment of her. The damage suit is an
independentaction.

TheCAcorrectlyawardedmoraldamagestorespondentRosqueta.Suchdamagesmaybe
[14]
awardedwhenthedefendantstransgressionistheimmediatecauseoftheplaintiffsanguish
[15] [16]
inthecasesspecifiedinArticle2219 oftheCivilCode.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/180764.htm 3/6
3/8/2017 G.R.No.180764

Here, respondent Rosquetas colleagues and friends testified that she suffered severe
[17]
anxietyonaccountofthespeculationoverheremploymentstatus. Shehadtoendurebeing
referred to as a squatter in her workplace. She had to face inquiries from family and friends
aboutherexclusionfromtheBureauscentennialanniversarymemorabilia.Shedidnothaveto
endurealltheseaffrontsandtheangstanddepressiontheyproducedhadVillanuevaabidedin
goodfaithbythecourtsorderinherfavor.Clearly,sheisentitledtomoraldamages.

TheCourt,however,findstheawardofP500,000.00excessive.As it held in Philippine
[18]
Commercial International Bank v. Alejandro, moral damages are not a bonanza. They are
giventoeasethedefendantsgriefandsuffering.Moraldamagesshouldreasonablyapproximate
theextentofhurtcausedandthegravityofthewrongdone.Here,thatwouldbeP200,000.00.

TheCourtaffirmsthegrantofexemplarydamagesbywayofexampleorcorrectionfor
thepublicgoodbut,inlinewiththesamereasoning,reducesittoP50,000.00.Finally,theCourt
affirmstheawardofattorneysfeesandlitigationexpensesbutreducesittoP50,000.00.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision of the
CourtofAppealsdatedApril30,2007inCAG.R.CV85931withMODIFICATION in that
petitionerTitusB.VillanuevaisORDEREDtopayrespondentEmmaM.Rosquetathesumof
P200,000.00inmoraldamages,P50,000.00inexemplarydamages,andP50,000.00inattorneys
feesandlitigationexpenses.

SOORDERED.


ROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJustice


WECONCUR:



ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice




ARTUROD.BRIONMARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice




JOSEP.PEREZ
AssociateJustice



http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/180764.htm 4/6
3/8/2017 G.R.No.180764

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethe
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.



ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision


CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation,IcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultation
beforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.




REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
FormerCommissionerofCustoms,RenatoA.Ampil.
[2]
Branch51.
[3]
Hon.JoseIsidroCamacho.
[4]
Records,p.12.ItisherebyorderedbytheundersignedJudgeoftheRegionalTrialCourtthatuntilfurtherorders,you,thesaid
respondentsandallyourattorneys,representatives,agentsandanyotherpersonsassistingareherebyenjoinedfromimplementingor
enforcingtheappointmentofrespondentGILA.VALERAtothepositionofCustomsDeputyCommissionerforRevenueCollection
andMonitoringandrespondentValerafromassumingthesaidofficeorexercisingitsfunctionsuntilfurtherordersfromthisCourt.
[5]
Id.at18.
[6]
Rollo,pp.80109.PennedbyJudgeThelmaA.Ponferrada.
[7]
Id.at4865.PennedbyAssociateJusticeEnricoA.LanzanasandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesRemediosSalazarFernando
andRosalindaAsuncionVicente.
[8]
Id.at63.
[9]
Art.19.Everypersonmust,intheexerciseofhisrightsandintheperformanceofhisduties,actwithjustice,giveeveryonehis
due,andobservehonestyandgoodfaith.
[10]
Art.20.Everypersonwho,contrarytolaw,willfullyornegligentlycausesdamagetoanother,shallindemnifythelatterforthe
same.
[11]
Art.21.Anypersonwhowillfullycauseslossorinjurytoanotherinamannerthatiscontrarytomoralsorgoodcustomsor
publicpolicyshallcompensatethelatterforthedamage.
[12]
Carpiov.Valmonte,481Phil.352,362(2004).
[13]
404Phil.586,594(2001).
[14]
Art.2217,CivilCode.Moraldamagesincludephysicalsuffering,mentalanguish,fright,seriousanxiety,besmirchedreputation,
woundedfeelings,moralshock,socialhumiliation,andsimilarinjury.Thoughincapableofpecuniarycomputation,moraldamages
mayberecoverediftheyaretheproximateresultofthedefendantswrongfulactforomission.
[15]
Art.2219.Moraldamagesmayberecoveredinthefollowingandanalogouscases:
1)Acriminaloffenseresultinginphysicalinjuries
2)Quasidelictscausingphysicalinjuries
3)Seduction,abduction,rape,orotherlasciviousacts
4)Adulteryorconcubinage
5)Illegalorarbitrarydetentionorarrest
6)Illegalsearch
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/180764.htm 5/6
3/8/2017 G.R.No.180764

7)Libel,slanderoranyotherformofdefamation
8)Maliciousprosecution
9)ActsmentionedinArticle309
10)ActsandactionsreferredtoinArticles21,26,27,28,29,30,32,34and35.
Theparentsofthefemaleseduced,abducted,raped,orabused,referredtoinNo.3ofthisArticle,mayalsorecovermoraldamages.
Thespouse,descendants,ascendants,andbrothersandsistersmaybringtheactionmentionedinNo.9ofthisArticle,intheorder
named.
[16]
Carpiov.Valmonte,supranote12,at364.
[17]
TestimonyofWilnoraCawile,TSN,March5,2003,pp.1618testimonyofWilhelminaFaustino,TSN,May15,2003,pp.10
13,1925testimonyofJohnAclaro,June6,2003,pp.2026.
[18]
G.R.No.175587,September21,2007,533SCRA738,757758.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/180764.htm 6/6