UYPITCHING v.

QUIAMCO

FACTS:

In 1982 Quiamco was approached by Davalan, Gabutero and Generoso to amicably settle the civil aspect of a
criminal case for robbery filed by Quiamco against them. They surrendered to him a red Honda XL-100 motorcycle and
a photocopy of its certificate of registration. Respondent asked for the original copy but the three never went to see him
again. The motorcycle was left parked on an open space inside respondent’s business establishment, visible and
accessible to the public.

Turns out, the he motorcycle had been sold on installment basis to Gabutero by Petitioner Corporation, managed
by petitioner Atty. Ernesto Ramas Uypitching. Remaining installments were left unpaid and the collector of the petitioner
were told that respondent’s men took the motorcycle.

Nine years later, Uypitching, accompanied by policemen went to Avesco (respondent’s establishment) to
recover the motorcycle. Uypitching paced back and forth uttering “Quiamco is a thief of motorcycle”. After having
unable to locate respondent, and upon instruction of Quiamco with the objection of the cashier, the policemen took the
motorcycle.

Uypitching filed a case for qualified theft and violation of Anti-Fencing Law. Respondent moved for dismissal
because the complaint did not charge an offense as he had neither stolen nor bought the motorcycle. Respondent filed for
damages against petitioners for unlawful taking of the motorcycle, utterance of defamatory remarks & filing of baseless
and malicious complaint.

RTC- Petitioners acts were contrary to Art. 19 and 20 of the Civil Code. CA affirmed but reduced the amount.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners are liable for damages for violating Art.19 and 20.

RULING: As they never questioned the findings of the RTC and CA that malice and ill will attended not only the public
imputation of a crime to respondent14 but also the taking of the motorcycle, petitioners were deemed to have accepted the
correctness of such findings. This alone was sufficient to hold petitioners liable for damages to respondent.

Petitioner as a lawyer should have known there was no probable cause for filing the criminal complaints. While
petitioners have a right to recover their mortgaged vehicle, they blatantly disregarded the lawful procedure (civil action
to recover possession or obtain judicial foreclosure) for the enforcement of its right, to the prejudice of respondent.
Petitioners’ acts violated the law as well as public morals, and transgressed the proper norms of human relations.

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.

There is an abuse of right when it is exercised solely to prejudice or injure another. 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. Liability for damages to the injured party will attach.