You are on page 1of 3

ARDIENTE VS PASTORFIDE

FACTS
[Herein petitioner] Joyce V. Ardiente and her husband Dr. Roberto S. Ardiente are owners of a
housing unit at Emily Homes, Balulang, Cagayan de Oro City. On June 2, 1994, Joyce Ardiente entered
into a Memorandum of selling, transferring and conveying in favor of [respondent] Ma. Theresa
Pastorfide all their rights and interests in the housing unit at Emily Homes in consideration of
P70,000.00. The Memorandum of Agreement carries a stipulation: That the water and power bill of the
subject property shall be for the account of the Second Party (Ma. Theresa Pastorfide) effective June 1,
1994." For four (4) years, Ma. Theresa's use of the water connection in the name of Joyce Ardiente was
never questioned nor perturbed ) until on March 12, 1999, without notice, the water connection of Ma.
Theresa was cut off. Proceeding to the office of the Cagayan de Oro Water District (COWD) to complain,
a certain Mrs. Madjos told Ma. Theresa that she was delinquent for three (3) months corresponding to
the months of December 1998, January 1999, and February 1999. Ma. Theresa argued that the due date
of her payment was March 18, 1999 yet. Mrs. Madjos later told her that it was at the instance of Joyce
Ardiente that the water line was cut off. On March 15, 1999, Ma. Theresa paid the delinquent bills. On
the same date, through her lawyer, Ma. Theresa wrote a letter to the COWD to explain who authorized
the cutting of the water line. , COWD, through the general manager, [respondent] Gaspar Gonzalez, Jr.,
answered the letter dated March 15, 1999 and reiterated that it was at the instance of Joyce Ardiente
that the water line was cut off. Aggrieved, on April 14, 1999, Ma. Theresa Pastorfide [and her husband]
filed a complaint for damages against petitioner, COWD and its manager Gaspar Gonzalez.
ISSUE: WON the petitioner and the private respondent acted in bad faith and therefore liable for
damages.
RULING: YES.
It is true that it is within petitioner's right to ask and even require the Spouses Pastorfide to
cause the transfer of the former's account with COWD to the latter's name pursuant to their
Memorandum of Agreement. However, the remedy to enforce such right is not to cause the
disconnection of the respondent spouses' water supply. 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.15 Otherwise, liability for damages to the injured party will attach.16 In
the present case, intention to harm was evident on the part of petitioner when she requested for the
disconnection of respondent spouses water supply without warning or informing the latter of such
request. Petitioner claims that her request for disconnection was based on the advise of COWD
personnel and that her intention was just to compel the Spouses Pastorfide to comply with their
agreement that petitioner's account with COWD be transferred in respondent spouses' name. If such
was petitioner's only intention, then she should have advised respondent spouses before or
immediately after submitting her request for disconnection, telling them that her request was simply to
force them to comply with their obligation under their Memorandum of Agreement. But she did not.
What made matters worse is the fact that COWD undertook the disconnection also without prior notice
and even failed to reconnect the Spouses Pastorfides water supply despite payment of their arrears.
There was clearly an abuse of right on the part of petitioner, COWD and Gonzalez. They are guilty of bad
faith.

GRAND UNION SUPERMARKET VS ESPINO, JR.
FACTS:
Jose J. Espino. Jr., a civil engineer and an executive of Procter and Gamble Philippines, Inc,
together with his wife and two daughters went to shop at South Supermarket in Makati. Finding a
cylindrical "rat tail" file which he needed for his hobby, he picked it up and held it fearing it might get
lost because of its tiny size. While shopping, they saw the maid of Jose's aunt so as he talked, he placed
the rat tail in his breast pocket partly exposed. At the check-out counter, he paid for their purchases
worth P77 but forgot to pay the file. As he was exiting the supermarket, he was approached by Guard
Ebreo regarding the file in his pocket. He quickly apologized saying "I'm Sorry" and he turned towards
the cashier to pay. But, he was stopped and instead was brought to the rear of the supermarket when
he was asked to fill out an Incident Report labeling him as "Shoplifter". His wife joined him since he was
taking so long and they were brought to the first checkout counter where Ms. Nelia Santos-Fandino's
desk was. She made a remark: "Ano, nakaw na naman ito". Jose told Ms. Fandino that he was going to
pay for the file because he needed it but she replied "That is all they say, the people whom we cause not
paying for the goods say... They all intended to pay for the things that are found to them." Jose
objected stating he is a regular customer of the supermarket. He gave P5 to pay for the P3.85 cost of the
file but Ms. Fandino said the P5 was his fine which will be rewarded to the guard. People were staring at
them. He took the file and paid the file at the nearest checkout counter with P50 and got out as fast as
they could. His first impulse was to go back to the supermarket that night to throw rocks at its glass
windows. But reason prevailed over passion and he thought that justice should take its due course. He
filed against Grand Union Supermarket et al. founded on Article 21 in relation to Article 2219 of the New
Civil Code and prays for moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney s fees and 'expenses of litigation,
costs of the suit and the return of the P5 fine.
CFI: dismissed
CA: reversed and granted damages of P75,000 by way of moral damages, P25,000 as exemplary
damages, and P5,000 as attorney's fee
ISSUE: W/N Grand Union Supermarket should be liable for public humiliation founded on Article 21 in
relation to Article 2219 of the New Civil Code.
RULING. YES. Grand Union Supermarket ordered to pay, jointly and severally moral damages P5,000 and
P2,000 as and for attorney's fees; and to return the P5 fine.
Jose did not intend to steal the file and that is act of picking up the file from the open shelf was not
criminal nor done with malice or criminal intent for on the contrary, he took the item with the intention
of buying and paying for it.
Personal Circumstances of Espino, Jr:
Graduate Mechanical Engineer from U.P. Class 1950, employed as an executive of Proctor &
Gamble Phils., Inc., a corporate manager in charge of motoring and warehousing therein; honorably
discharged from the Philippine Army in 1946; a Philippine government pensionado of the United States
for six months; member of the Philippine veterans Legion; author of articles published in the Manila
Sunday Times and Philippines Free Press; member of the Knights of Columbus, Council No. 3713; son of
the late Jose Maria Espino, retired Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs at the Philippine Embassy
Washington.
Jose was falsely accused of shoplifting is evident. Fine branding him as a thief which was not
right nor justified the mode and manner in which he was subjected, shouting at him, imposing upon him
a fine, threatening to call the police and in the presence and hearing of many people at the Supermarket
which brought and caused him humiliation and embarrassment, sufficiently rendered the petitioners
liable for damages under Articles 19 and 21 in relation to Article 2219 of the Civil Code. It is against
morals, good customs and public policy to humiliate, embarrass and degrade the dignity of a person.
Everyone must respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and
other persons (Article 26, Civil Code). His forgetfulness led to his embarassment and humiliation thereby
causing him mental anguish, wounded feelings and serious anxiety. His act of omission contributed to
the occurrence of his injury or loss and such contributory negligence is a factor which may reduce the
damages that private respondent may recover (Art. 2214, New Civil Code). Moreover, that many people
were present and they saw and heard the ensuing interrogation and altercation appears to be simply a
matter of coincidence in a supermarket which is a public place and the crowd of onlookers, hearers or
bystanders was not deliberately sought or called by management to witness private respondent's
predicament.
Grand Union Supermarket acted in good faith in trying to protect and recover their property, a
right which the law accords to them. - eliminate the grant of exemplary damages.

You might also like