Joyce Ardiente v. Spouses Javier and Ma.

Theresa Pastorfide, Cagayan De Oro Water District and Gaspar Gonzales, Jr. GR.
NO. 161921, July 17, 2013

FACTS:
Ma. Theresa Pastorfide entered a MOA with Joyce Ardiente where the latter sold, conveyed, and transferred all their rights
and interests in the Emily Homes Housing unit to the former. It has been agreed by the parties that the water bill will
remain in the account of Ardiente. On March 12, 1999, Ma. Theresa's water supply was disconnected without notice. She
complained to the Cagayan De Oro Water District (COWD) and she found out that the account has become delinquent.
She paid the three months due and wrote a letter through her counsel to the COWD to explain why her water supply was
cut without notice.

The general manager of the COWD, Gaspar Gonzalez, replied that it was Joyce Ardiente who requested the disconnection
of the water supply. A complaint for damages was filed against Ardiente, COWD and Gonzalez by Ma. Theresa. The RTC
ruled in favor of Ma. Theresa on the ground that the defendants committed abuse of their rights. The ruling was upheld by
the CA on appeal with modification on the award of the amount for damages.Hence this petition before the SC.

ISSUE:
Are the defendants liable for damages?

RULING:
Yes. The court ruled that the principle of abuse of rights under Section 19 of the Civil Code was violated. It provides that
"every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due,
and observe honesty and good faith."

A right, although it is legal for being recognized by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of illegality ( Globe
Mackay and Radio Corporation v CA), when it is exercised in a manner that does not conform with the norms enshrined in
Article 19 and the same causes damage to another. The person exercising an abuse of right is thus liable for damages caused
to another. The herein petitioner is liable for damages by ordering the cutting of the water supply of the respondent
without giving notice about such intention. The COWD and Gonzalez are likewise liable for damages by disconnecting the
water supply without prior notice and for their subsequent neglect of reconnecting the water supply even when the
respondent already paid the delinquent account.

G.R. NO. 202791, June 10, 2013

PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., Petitioner, v. LEANDRO LEGASPI, Respondent.

FACTS

Legaspi was employed on board a vessel of Phil Trans. Under their CBA, the company agreed to pay a maximum disability
compensation of up to US$60,000.00 only. Respondent suffered Cardiac Arrest while on board. As a result, respondent
was repatriated. Respondent filed a complaint for full and permanent disability compensation against petitioner before the
Labor Arbiter (LA) which the latter granted but in the amount of US$80,000.00 based on Agreement for Catering
Personnel, not on the CBA.

Not satisfied, petitioner appealed before the NLRC) but it only affirmed the LAs decision. During the hearing, petitioner
agreed to pay respondent US$81,320.00, the respondent acknowledged receipt of the amount and undertook to return it
to petitioner in the event the latter's petition for certiorari would be granted.

Petitioner timely filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. Petitioner contended that it was entitled to the return of the
excess payment it gave to respondent. the CA denied the motion and ruled that the petition should have been dismissed for
being moot and academic not only because the decision had become final and executory but also because the judgment
had been satisfied even before the filing of the petition for certiorari. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it
was denied by the CA, hence, this petition.
ISSUES
Is PETITIONER ESTOPPED from COLLECTING THE EXCESS PAYMENT IT MADE TO THE RESPONDENT

The Court's Ruling

The Court finds that the Receipt of the Judgment Award with Undertaking was a fair and binding agreement. As the
agreement was voluntarily entered into and represented a reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not
later be disowned simply because of a change of mind. Respondent agreed to the stipulation that he would return the
amount paid to him in the event that the petition for certiorari would be granted. Since the petition was indeed granted,
albeit partially, respondent must comply with the condition to return the excess amount. To allow now respondent to
retain the excess money judgment would amount to his unjust enrichment to the prejudice of petitioner.

Unjust enrichment is a term used to depict result or effect of failure to make remuneration of or for property or benefits
received under circumstances that give rise to legal or equitable obligation to account for them. To be entitled to
remuneration, one must confer benefit by mistake, fraud, coercion, or request. Unjust enrichment is not itself a theory of
reconveyance. Rather, it is a prerequisite for the enforcement of the doctrine of restitution. 19 There is unjust enrichment
when:
1. A person is unjustly benefited; and
2. Such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another.
 G.R. Nos. 206844-45 July 23, 2013
COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (SENIOR CITIZENS PARTY-LIST),
represented herein by its Chairperson and First Nominee, FRANCISCO G. DATOL, Jr., Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 206982
COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (SENIOR CITIZENS), represented by its
President and Incumbent Representative in the House of Representatives, ATTY. GODOFREDO V. ARQUIZA, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

The Party list group named Senior Citizens signed an agreement pertaining to the term-sharing of their nominees to the
House of Representatives, dividing the Fixed 6 year term of an HOR representative depending on how many seats will
they be entitled to. Due to the Term Sharing agreement which is contrary to Section 7, Article VI of the 1987Constitution
(which imposes that there is a fixed term to hold public elective office) the registration and accreditation of SENIOR
CITIZENS under Party List System of Representation was cancelled. Two factions (Datol and Arquiza group) of the Senior
Citizen Fled separate petitionon contending that their right to due process was violated. The court ruled that the party was
deprived of due process.