Uypitching vs. Quiamco, G.R. No.

146322, December 6, 2006

Corona, J.:

Facts:
In 1982, respondent Ernesto Quaimco was approached by Juan Davalan, Josefino
Gabutero and Raul Generoso to amicably settle the civil aspect of a criminal case of robbery
filed by the former against them. They surrendered to him a red Honda XL-100 motorcycle and a
photocopy of its registration. The original certificate of registration was never given as the
motorcycle had been sold on installment basis to Gabutero by petitioner Uypitching in October
1981 and to secure its payment, the motorcycle was mortgaged to petitioner’s corporation.
When Gabutero could no longer pay the installments, Davalan assumed the obligation
and continued the payments. However, Davalan stopped paying the remaining installments and
told petitioner corporation’s collector, Wilfredo Veraño that the motorcycle had allegedly been
“taken by respondent’s men.”
26 January 1991, the petitioner accompanied by policemen tried to recover the
motorcycle. While the police and the clerk were talking, Uypitching uttered “Quiamco is a thief
of a motorcycle” inside Quiamco’s business establishment. Uypitching took the motorcycle
despite the clerk’s objection.
18 February 1991, Uypitching filed a criminal complaint for qualified theft and violation
of the Anti-Fencing Law against Quaimco. The latter moved for dismissal because the complaint
did not charge an offense as he had neither stolen nor bought the motorcycle. The complaint was
dismissed and denied Uypitching’s subsequent motion for reconsideration.
Quaimco filed an action for damages against the petitioners. He sought to hold the
petitioners liable for the following: (1) unlawful taking of the motorcycle; (2) utterance of a
defamatory remark (that Quaimco was a thief) and (3) precipitate filing of a baseless and
malicious complaint. These acts humiliated and embarrassed the respondent and injured his
reputation and integrity.
30 July 1994, the trial court rendered a decision against Uypitching. Petitioners’ acts were
found to be contrary to Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code. Hence, the trial court held
petitioners liable to respondent for P500,000 moral damages, P200,000 exemplary damages
and P50,000 attorney’s fees plus costs.
Petitioners appealed the RTC decision but the CA affirmed the trial court’s decision with
modification, reducing the award of moral and exemplary damages to P300,000 and P100,000,
respectively. Petitioners sought reconsideration but it was denied. Thus, this petition.

Issue:
WON the petitioners’ acts violated the law as well as public morals, and transgressed the
proper norms of human relations?

Ruling:
Yes, petitioner Uypitching violated the law as well as public morals, and transgressed the
proper norms of human relations as his actions was motivated with malice and ill will when he
called Quaimco a thief, took the motorcycle in an abusive manner and filed a baseless complaint
for qualified theft and violation of the Anti-Fencing Law as he knew or ought to have known as
he is a lawyer, that there was no probable cause at all for filing a criminal complaint for qualified
theft and fencing activity against the respondent. In this case, how the motorcycle was taken at
petitioners’ instance was not only attended by bad faith but also contrary to the procedure laid
down by law.
Article 19-20 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides,
Art. 19. 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.
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

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. As the petitioners never questioned the findings of
the RTC and CA that malice and ill will attended not only the public imputation of a crime to
respondent 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.
Therefore, the petition was denied by the RTC and affirmed by the CA. Triple costs
against petitioners, considering that petitioner Uypitching is a lawyer and an officer of the court,
for his improper behavior.