Sergio Amonoy vs Spouses Jose and Angela Gutierrez

G.R. No. 140420 – 351 SCRA 73

Civil Law – Article 19 – Abuse of Rights – Damnum Absque Injuria

DOCTRINE:
Damages can be claimed whenever there is abuse of right or exercise of a suspended or
extinguished right.

FACTS:

In 1965, Atty. Sergio Amonoy represented Alfonso Fornilda in a partition case. Since Fornilda
had no money to pay, he agreed to make use of whatever property he acquires as a security for
the payment of Amonoy’s attorney’s fees which amounts to P27k. In July 1969, Fornilda died. A
month later, the property was finally adjudicated and Fornilda, through his heirs, got his just
share from the property in dispute. Fornilda was however unable to pay Amonoy. Hence,
Amonoy sought to foreclose the property in 1970. The heirs of Fornilda, the spouses Jose
Gutierrez and Angela Fornilda then sued Amonoy questioning the validity of his mortgage
agreement with Fornilda. It was their claim that the attorney’s fees he was collecting was
unconscionable and that the same was based on an invalid mortgage due to the existing attorney-
client relationship between him and Fornilda at the time the mortgage was executed.
The spouses lost in the trial court as well as in the Court of Appeals but they appealed to the
Supreme Court, docketed as G.R.No. L-72306. Meanwhile, in 1973, Amonoy was able to
foreclose the property. Amonoy was also the highest bidder in the public sale conducted in view
of the foreclosure. He was able to buy the property of Fornilda for P23k. But constructed on said
property was the house of the spouses Gutierrez.
Pending the spouses’s appeal with the Supreme Court, Amonoy was able to secure a demolition
order and so on May 30, 1986, Amonoy started demolishing the house of the spouses. But on
June 2, 1986, the Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the
demolition order. On June 4, 1986, Amonoy received a copy of the TRO. Finally, on June 24,
1989, the Supreme Court promulgated a decision in G.R.No. L-72306 where it ruled that the
mortgage between Amonoy and Fornilda is void, hence, Amonoy has no right over the property.
But by this time, the house of the spouses was already demolished because it appears that despite
the TRO, Amonoy continued demolishing the house until it was fully demolished in the middle
of 1987.
The spouses then sued Amonoy for damages. It is now the contention of Amonoy that he
incurred no liability because he was merely exercising his right to demolish (pursuant to the
demolition order) hence what happened was a case of damnum absque injuria (injury without
damage).

ISSUE: Whether or not Amonoy’s contention is correct.

HELD:

No. Amonoy initially had the right to demolish but when he received the TRO that right had
already ceased. Hence, his continued exercise of said right after the TRO was already unjustified.
As quoted by the Supreme Court: “The exercise of a right ends when the right disappears, and it
disappears when it is abused, especially to the prejudice of others.”
What Amonoy did is an abuse of right. Article 19, known to contain what is commonly referred
to as the principle of abuse of rights, sets certain standards which may be observed not only in
the exercise of one’s rights but also in the performance of one’s duties. These standards are the
following: to act with justice; to give everyone his due; recognizes the primordial limitation on
all rights: that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 and results in
damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held
responsible.
Clearly then, the demolition of the spouses’s house by Amonoy, despite his receipt of the TRO,
was not only an abuse but also an unlawful exercise of such right.

Prepared by: Aldrich Joseph J Navarro