Grand Union Supermarket v.

Espino
G.R. No. L-48250 – December 28, 1979
J. Guerrero

Topic: Human Relations Torts – Public humiliation

Petitioners: Grand Union Supermarket Inc. and Nelia Fandino
Respondents: Jose Espino Jr., and The Honorable Court of Appeals

Summary: Espino was in South Supermarket with his wife, when he put an item in his breast pocket
because he did not want it to get lost in his wife’s grocery cart. He saw a friend and conversed with
said friend, so he forgot about the item in his pocket. After paying for the items his wife bought, he
proceeded to exit the supermarket when a guard stopped him and asked him about the item in his
pocket. Things happened afterwards which hugely embarrassed Espino, so he filed a complaint against
the supermarket and one of its employees. He asserted that he was treated like a shoplifter and a
criminal. The Court found that the employee did indeed treat him that way and so he was entitled to
moral damages and atty’s fees.

FACTS:
 August 22, 1970: Espino was in South Supermarket in Makati with his wife and two daughters
o While his wife was shopping, he browsed around the other parts of the market – found a
“cylindrical rat tail” file, because of its tiny size, he decided to put it in his breast pocket
and not in his wife’s cart (a good part of the object was still seen from the breast pocket)
o Espino and his wife then saw the maid of the latter’s wife and engaged in a conversation
o At the check-out counter, the couple paid for their expenses which amounted to P77.00,
but Espino forgot about the item in his pocket
o By the exit of the supermarket, a security guard approached Espino and said, “Excuse me
sir, I think you have something in your pocket which you have not paid for”
 Espino apologized and head toward the cashier to pay
 Guard stopped him and led him toward the rear of the supermarket, guard said
that this was the procedure of the supermarket when they are apprehended
 While Espino was being directed to the rear of the supermarket, a group of
customers saw what was happening
o Espino was then ushered into a cubicle, where a man told him to make a brief statement
about what happened in an “incident report”
 Espino narrated the story about him getting the rat tail file and then forgetting
about putting it in his breast pocket because he talked to his aunt’s helper
o The guard then took Espino back inside the supermarket where his wife was waiting
 The pair were then directed to a desk near the main entrance where a woman was
seated, Nelia Fandino
 Fandino then said, “Ano, nakaw nanaman ito?” – she then read the incident
report that Espino wrote
 Espino then explained and narrated the incident, to which Fandino replied, “That
is all they say, the people whom we caught not paying for the goods say… they
all intended to pay for the things that are found to them.”
 Espino objected and declared that he is a regular customer
 Espino then gave a P5.00 bill and said that he wanted to pay for the item which
cost P3.85  Fandino got the bill and said “We are fining you P5.00”
 Espino objected because he was being treated like a common criminal 
Fandino said that the P5.00 will be given as an incentive to the guards who
apprehended him
  While all this was happening, the other customers in the store were staring and
were listening to what was happening
 At the trial, Espino said, “I felt as though I wanted to disappear into a hole on the ground”  he
added that although his first instinct was to go back to the supermarket that night to throw rocks
at its glass windows, reason prevailed over passion and he thought that justice should take its due
course
o During the trial, when the incident report was shown, Espino also added that when he
signed the “incident report”, only a brief statement of facts was written thereon, the ff.
additions were made after:
 SUBJECT: “Shoplifting”
 ACTIONS TAKEN: “Released by Mrs. Fandino after paying the item.”
 REMARKS NOTED: “Guard Ebreo requested Guard Paunil to apprehend
subject shoplifter”
 CFI: Dismissed the complaint
 CA: Reversed and set aside the judgment of the CFI, and granted moral, exemplary and
attorney’s fees to Espino

ISSUES + HELD:
1. W/N South Supermarket can be held liable under Articles 21 and 2219 of the Civil Code – YES
 The evidence shows that the plaintiff had absolutely no intention to steal the file, the totality of
the facts and circumstances as found by the CA points to the conclusion that Espino did not
intend to steal the file and that his act of picking up the file from the open shelf was not criminal
nor done with malice
o Espino placed the item in his breast pocket, with a good portion of it still exposed
o He paid for his wife’s expenses amounting to P77.00
o He was with family  this negated any criminal intent on his part to steal
o When Espino was approached by the guard, he immediately apologized and offered to
pay right away
o The details in the “incident report” was an instant and contemporaneous explanation of
the incident
 In addition, Espino’s personal circumstances do not suggest that he would have the propensity to
steal
o Graduate of Mechanical Engineer from U.P. Class of 1950
o Employee of P&G
o Honorably discharged from PH army
o Phil. Govt. pensionado of the US for 6 months
o Author of published articles in the Manila Sunday Times and Phil. Free Press
o Son of late Jose Maria Espino, retired Minister of DFA
 While there is no hard-and-fast rule as to what act or combination of acts constitute the crime of
shoplifting – it must be stressed that it should be adjudged on a case-to-case basis
o Attendant facts and circumstances should be considered in its entirety and not from any
single fact or circumstance from which to impute the stigma of shoplifting on any person
 That Espino was falsely accused of shoplifting is evident
o The “incident report” established the opinion, judgment or thinking of the management
upon Espino’s picking up of the file
o The SC also affirms the CA ruling that Fandino’s remark of “ano nakaw nanaman ito”
was offensive to Espino’s dignity and defamatory to his character and honesty
o The admission of Fandino that she got the P5.00 as a fine to give as incentives to the
guards also showed that she branded Espino as a thief
 o Testimony of one of the guards:
 He said that management told them to bring the suspected customers to the
public area so that other customers would see what happens to people who steal
in order that they may be embarrassed and so that the customers who did steal
will not repeat it again
 The false accusation charged against Espino sufficiently rendered Petitioners liable for damages
under Art. 19 and 21 in relation to Art. 2219
o Petitioners willfully caused loss or injury to Espino in a manner that was contrary to
morals, good customs or public policy
o It is against morals, good customs and public policy to humiliate, embarrass and
degrade the dignity of a person.
o Everyone must respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors and other persons, and one must act with justice, give everyone his due and
observe honesty and good faith (YAZZZ)

2. W/N the damages awarded by the CA are proper – Some yes, some no
 Espino is entitled to moral damages, but not at P75,000 which was awarded by the CA
o While no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate,
liquidated or exemplary damages may be awarded, such damage, except liquidated ones,
is left to the discretion of the court according to the circumstances of each case
o In the case at bar, it was Espino’s own forgetfulness in checking out the item and paying
for it that started the chain of events which led to his embarrassment and humiliation,
thereby causing him mental anguish, wounded feelings and serious anxiety
o Moreover, the many people present was simply a matter of coincidence because the
supermarket was a public place, not deliberately sought or called by management to
witness  the Court cannot believe that the Supermarket would intentionally parade
Espino for humiliation since the business’ success depends on good will of the buying
public
 JBL Reyes once expressed in the case of Pangasinan Trans. V. Legaspi: “the purpose of moral
damages is essential indemnity or reparation, both punishment or correction… not intended to
enrich a complainant at the expense of a defendant… it is aimed at restoration.”
o The Court estimated that Espino should be awarded P5,000 in moral damages
 On exemplary damages:
o The CA awarded P25,000  the SC however, said that the award is unjustified
o Exemplary damages are awarded for wanton acts, that they are penal in character, granted
not by way of compensation but as punishment to the offender and as a warning to others
o Petitioners acted in good faith trying to protect their property – a right which the law
accords to them
o The petitioners acted upon probable cause in stopping and investigating Espino
 In light of the reductions made on the moral and exemplary damages, the SC also reduced the
award of Atty’s fees from P5,000 to P2,000

RULING: “IN VIEW THEREOF, the judgment of the CA is hereby MODIFIED…”