METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM (MWSS), petitioner, vs. ACT THEATER , INC. (ACT) respondent G.R. No.

147076 / June 17, 2004 Callejo, Sr., J FACTS On September 28, 1988, four employees of ACT were apprehended by the Quezon City police for allegedly tamperng a water meter in violation of P.D. No 401, as amended by B.P. Blg 876, and were subsequently criminally charged before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 77. At mignight of the day following the said apprehension, the MWSS disconnected ACT's water supply on account of the meter tampering incident. ACT subsequently filed a civil case against MWSS before the same court on the ground that the water supply provider acted arbitrarily, whimsically and capricuously in cutting off the respondent's water service connection without prior notice, adversely affecting the health and sanitation of the theater company's patrons and in surrounding premises. The two cases were jointly tried in the same RTC. After due trial, the four employees were acquitted in the criminal case for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the civil case, the RTC again ruled in favor of ACT, ordering MWSS to pay the theater company P25,000 for compensatory damages and to return P200,000 earlier deposited by ACT for the restoration of its water services following its disconnection. The RTC also ordered MWSS to pay costs of suit and to pay ACT P5,000 as attorney's fees. Aggrieved, MWSS appealed the civil aspect of the aforementioned decision to the Court of Appeals. In justifying its act of disconnecting the water supply, MWSS relied upon Article 429 of the Civil Code, which provides that (t)he owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonable to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property. The appelate court, however, dismissed the appeal, justifying the award of damages, citing Article 19 of the Civil Code which states that (e)very person must, in the exercise of his rights x x x act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.'' In quoting the decretal portion of the RTC decision, the appelate court, however, erroneously typed P500,000 as attorney's fees when the same should only be P5,000. Thus, MWSS elevated the case to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse the CA decision affiriming the civil aspect of the RTC ruling. ISSUES: (1) Whether or not the Court of Appeals validly affirmed the RTC decision (2) Whether or not the Court of Appeals validly upheld the award of attorney's fees (3) Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly applied the provision of Article 19 of the New Civil Court without considering the applicable provision of Article 429 of the same code HELD

(1) There is no reason to deviate from the uniform findings of the RTC and the appellate court and that the petitioner's act of disconnecting the water supply was arbitrary, injurious and prejudicial to the respondent pursuant to Article 19 of the Civil Code (2) The amount of P500,000 as attorney's fees in the assailed CA decision was obviously a typographical error but it is nevertheless reasonable and warranted as attorney's fees may be awarded when a party is compelled to litigate or incur expenses to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act of the other party (3) Concededly, MWSS, as the owner of the utility providing water supply to certain consumers, including the respondent, had the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. However, the exercise of rights is not without limitations. Article 19 sets the norms for the exercise of one's rights. When a right such as that provided in Article 429 is exercised in a manner which discards the norms mentioned in Article 19 resulting in damage to another, a legal wrong is committed. In this case, MWSS failed to act with justice and give the respondent what is due to it when the petitioner unceremoniously cut off the respondent's water supply connection. The petition is denied.