Uypitching vs. Quiamco

ERNESTO RAMAS UYPITCHING and RAMAS UYPITCHING SONS, INC., petitioners,
vs.
ERNESTO QUIAMCO, respondent.

G.R. No. 146322
December 6, 2006

FACTS:

Respondent Ernesto C. 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. The motorcycle had been sold on installment basis to Gabutero by petitioner Ramas Uypitching Sons, Inc., a family-­owned corporation managed by petitioner. To secure its payment, the motorcycle was mortgaged to petitioner 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 that the motorcycle had allegedly been “taken by respondent’s men.”

Thereafter, petitioner accompanied by policemen to recover the motorcycle. 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.”

Petitioner filed a criminal complaint for qualified theft and/or violation of the Anti-­Fencing Law against respondent. Respondent moved for dismissal because the complaint did not charge an offense as he had neither stolen nor bought the motorcycle. The Office of the City Prosecutor dismissed the complaint. Respondent filed an action for damages against petitioners. He sought to hold the petitioners liable for acts humiliated and embarrassed the respondent and injured his reputation and integrity.

The RTC ruled that petitioner was motivated with malice and ill will when he called respondent a thief, took the motorcycle in an abusive manner and filed a baseless complaint for qualified theft and/or violation of the Anti-­Fencing Law. Petitioners appealed the RTC decision but the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioners’ acts violated the law as well as public morals, and transgressed the proper norms of human relations

HELD:

Yes. Petitioners’ acts violated the law as well as public morals, and transgressed the proper norms of human relations. No doubt, petitioner corporation, acting through its co-­petitioner Uypitching, blatantly disregarded the lawful procedure for the enforcement of its right, to the prejudice of respondent. The basic principle of human relations, embodied in Article 19 of the Civil Code, 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.

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.

Petitioners themselves in fact described their action as a “precipitate act.” Petitioners were bent on portraying respondent as a thief. In this connection, we quote with approval the following findings of the RTC, as adopted by the CA:

There was malice or ill-­will in filing the complain because petitioner Atty. Uypitching 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 respondent. Petitioner had no personal knowledge that respondent stole the motorcycle in question. He was merely told by his bill collector that Dabalan will no longer pay the remaining installment(s) for the motorcycle because the motorcycle was taken by the men of respondent. The absence of probable cause necessarily signifies the presence of malice

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, they should indemnify him.

HELLO!
You can help law students and barristas by contributing to our collection. Please upload your case digests, reviewers or other relevant materials HERE.

For attribution or removal, contact us.