PRINCIPLE OF ABUSE OF RIGHT: A PERSON SHOULD NOT USE HIS RIGHT UNJUSTLY OR

CONTRARY TO HONESTY AND GOOD FAITH, OTHERWISE HE OPENS HIMSELF TO LIABILITY

There is an abuse of right when it is exercised solely to prejudice or injure another. The exercise of a
right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it was established and must not be excessive or
unduly harsh; there must be no intention to harm another. Otherwise, liability for damages to the injured
party will attach (Ernesto Ramas Uypitching and Ramas Uypitching Sons, Inc. vs. Ernesto
Quiamco, G.R. No. 146322, December 6, 2006).
PRINCIPLE OF ABUSE OF RIGHT: A PERSON SHOULD NOT USE HIS RIGHT UNJUSTLY OR
CONTRARY TO HONESTY AND GOOD FAITH, OTHERWISE HE OPENS HIMSELF TO LIABILITY

Ernesto Ramas Uypitching and Ramas Uypitching Sons, Inc. vs. Ernesto Quiamco
G.R. No. 146322, December 6, 2006
CORONA, J.

FACTS:
Davalan, Gabutero and Generoso approached Ernesto Quiamco, respondent, to amicably settle the civil
aspect of a criminal case for robbery filed by Quiamco against them. They surrendered to him a
motorcycle with the photocopy of its certificate of registration. No original copy of the certificate was
given. It turned out later that the said motorcycle had been sold on installment basis to Gabutero by
petitioner Ramas Uypitching Sons, Inc., a family-owned corporation managed by petitioner Atty. Ernesto
Uypitching. To secure its payment, the motorcycle was mortgaged to the petitioner corporation and when
Gabutero could no longer pay, Davalan assumed the obligation. However, Davalan stopped paying the
remaining installments and told petitioner corporation’s collector that the motorcycle had allegedly been
"taken by respondent’s men." Nine years later, petitioner, accompanied by policemen, went to
respondent’s business establishment, where the motorcycle was parked in an open space, to recover it.
The leader of the police team talked to the clerk in charge and asked for respondent. While the police
team leader and the clerk were talking, petitioner paced back and forth inside the establishment uttering
"Quiamco is a thief of a motorcycle." Unable to find the respondent, the policemen, on petitioner’s
instruction and over the clerk’s objection, took the motorcycle.

Thereafter, petitioner filed a criminal complaint for qualified theft and/or violation of the Anti-Fencing Law
against respondent. The complaint was dismissed. Respondent, then, filed an action for damages
against petitioners. The RTC ruled that petitioner should be liable since he was motivated with malice
and ill will when he called respondent a thief, took the motorcycle in an abusive manner and filed a
baseless criminal complaint. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. Hence, this petition. Petitioners
claimed that they should not be held liable for petitioner corporation’s exercise of its right as seller-
mortgagee to recover the mortgaged vehicle as its right to foreclose on the mortgage in case of default.

ISSUE:
Should petitioners be held liable for damages despite the claim that their action is merely exercise of
their right as seller-mortgagee to foreclose mortgage in case of default?

HELD:
Yes, petitioners should be held liable. The basic principle of human relations, embodied in Article 19 of
the Civil Code, provides that “every person must in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of
his duties, act with justice, give every one his due, and observe honesty and good faith”. Article 19, also
known as the "principle of abuse of right," prescribes that a person should not use his right unjustly or
contrary to honesty and good faith, otherwise he opens himself to liability. It seeks to preclude the use
of, or the tendency to use, a legal right (or duty) as a means to unjust ends. There is an abuse of right
when it is exercised solely to prejudice or injure another. The exercise of a right must be in accordance
with the purpose for which it was established and must not be excessive or unduly harsh; there must be
no intention to harm another. Otherwise, liability for damages to the injured party will attach.

In this case, the manner by which the motorcycle was taken at petitioners’ instance was not only attended
by bad faith but also contrary to the procedure laid down by law. Considered in conjunction with the
defamatory statement, petitioners’ exercise of the right to recover the mortgaged vehicle was utterly
prejudicial and injurious to respondent. On the other hand, the precipitate act of filing an unfounded
complaint could not in any way be considered to be in accordance with the purpose for which the right
to prosecute a crime was established. Thus, the totality of petitioners’ actions showed a calculated
design to embarrass, humiliate and publicly ridicule respondent. Petitioners acted in an excessively
harsh fashion to the prejudice of respondent. Contrary to law, petitioners willfully caused damage to
respondent. Hence, petitioners should indemnify him.