Amonoy v.

Guiterrez
Amonoy(petitioner) was a counsel of Alfonso Fornilda for the settlement of the estate of the deceased
Julio Cantolos involving 6 parcels of land in Rizal. When the partition was settled, P asked for his
attorneys fees. Fornilda secured his payment to pet by adjudicating the 2 lots in favor of petitioner.
However, the prop of the said lots were closed and terminated.
Amonoy filed for foreclosure before the Court of First Instance because Fornilda, who passed a way,
failed to pay the attorneys fees. The heir, Angela Guittierrez(respondent), contended that attorney fee
of 27,600 is unconscionable and should have only been P11,695. Judgment was rendered in favor of
Amonoy. The respondent failed to pay the fee, as consequence, the lots were sold at the public auction.
Amonoy was the highest bidder.
The respondents filed a case for annulment but was denied both by the CFI and CA. CFI issued a Writ of
Possession and Amonoys motion for demolition, the respondents are to vacate their lots and the
structures are to be demolished.
Respondents filed a case before the SC for a TRO. However, when the SC executed the order,
respondents house had already been destroyed.
Petitioner argued that he is not liable for the demolition of respondents house. He maintains that he
was merely acting in accordance with the Writ of Demolition ordered by the RTC
WON Pet abuse his rights?
No.
When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with norms enshrined 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 respondents house by petitioner, despite his receipt of the TRO, was not
only an abuse but also an unlawful exercise of such right. In insisting on his alleged right, he wantonly
violated this Courts Order and wittingly caused the destruction of respondents house.
Bellis v. Bellis