Banaria V Banaria 2020
Banaria V Banaria 2020
Banaria V Banaria 2020
~upreme Ql:ourt
fl!lanila
FIRST DIVISION
DECISION
This resolves the petition for review on certiorari' filed under Rule 45
2
of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to review the Decision dated
October 15, 2014 of the Honorable Com1 of Appeals (Special First Division)
Designated additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier per Raffle dated April 22,
2019.
1
Rollo, p. 17-33 .
Penned by Associate Justice Samue l H. Gaerlan (now a Member of the Court), with Associate .Justices
Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (also now a Member of the Court); id. at 34-49.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 217806
The Antecedents
The instant petition arose from the Complaint filed by respondents for
Damages with the RTC of Quezon City against petitioner.
The act.ion for damages of respondents stemmed from the alleged bad
faith, malice, and deliberate failure of Adelaida to keep her word and honor
th
her promise to bring Pascasio to his 90 birthday celebration held on
February 22, 2004. Such special event was prepared by the respondents and
the non-appearance of Pascasio during the event allegedly caused loss and
injury to the respondents.7
Adelaida promised respondents that she will try her best to attend the
birthday celebration in the evening after going to Tarlac. 8
On February 13, 2004, Reina and Gracia Severa, who are both
residing in the United States, arrived in the country to attend the bi1ihday
celebration of their father. They were able to visit their father and Adelaida
in their home on February 14 and 15, 2004. Adelaida promised them during
th
their visit that Pascasio would be present in his scheduled 90 birthday
celebration.9
Id.
9
Id. at 36.
JO Id.
11
Id. at 37.
12 Id.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 217806
Eventually, the RTC rendered its May 23, 2011 Decision, which
ordered petitioner to pay the respondents' travel expenses, actual damages,
moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. The fallo 14 of the
decision reads:
SO ORDERED.
13
Id.
14
fd. at 38.
15
Id. at 48-49.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 217806
factual and legal basis; b) the amount of moral damages awarded for ALL
the plaintiffs-appellees is REDUCED to a fixed amount of Php300,000.00;
c) the amount of exemplary damages awarded in favor of the plaintiffs-
appellees is REDUCED to Php30,000.00; and d) the amount of attorney's
fees awarded to plaintiffs-appellees is likewise REDUCED to phpS0,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
The Issues
The petitioner anchors her prayer for the reversal of the October 15,
2014 Decision and the April 14, 2015 Resolution based on the following
issues:
Petitioner contends that she did not commit any violation under
Article 19 of the Civil Code by alleging that the testimonies of the
respondents were pure sunnises and conjectures. Aside from that, petitioner
avers that respondents failed to prove bad faith, malice and ill motive on her
part. Because of this, petitioner posits that there can be no award of actual,
moral and exemplary damages under the principle of damnum absque
injuria or damage without injury since her legal right was not exercised in
bad faith and with no intention to injure another.
Article 19 of the Civil Code provides that every person in the exercise
of his rights and in the performance of his duties must act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. The principle
embodied in this provision is more commonly known as the "abuse of right
principle." The legal consequence should anyone violate this fundamental
Decision 6 G.R. No. 217806
While Article 19 of the New Civil Code may have been intended as a
mere declaration of principle, the "cardinal law on human conduct"
expressed in said article has given rise to certain rules, e.g., that where a
person exercises his rights but does so arbitrarily or unjustly or performs his
duties in a manner that is not in keeping with honesty and good faith, he
opens himself to liability. The elements of an abuse of rights under Article
19 are: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith;
(3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. 17
16
50 1 Phil l53, 166 (2005).
17
Metroheights Subdivision Homeowners Association, Inc. v. CMS Construction and Development
Corp., G .R. No. 209359, October 17, 20 18.
18
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden v. Reyes, 492 Phil 6 15, 627 (2005).
Decision 7 G.R. No . 217806
Glaring is the fact that long before the scheduled date of Pascasio's
th
90 birthday celebration, Adelaida was already informed about the event. As
early as February 2003 or a year before the scheduled event, Adelaida was
already reminded of the event by the respondents to which she confirmed
Pascasio's attendance. Even though Adelaida alleges that she was not privy
to any birthday celebration for Pascasio, the fact remains that she was
continuously informed and reminded about the scheduled event. She even
contributed PS,000.00 for the costs.
Actual damages are compensation for an injury that will put the
injured party in the position where he/she was before the injury. They pertain
to such injuries or losses that are actually sustained and susceptible of
measurement. Except as provided by law or stipulation, a party is entitled to
adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss as is duly proven. Basic
is the rule that to recover actual damages, not only must the amount of loss
be capable of proof; it must also be actually proven with a reasonable degree
of ce1iainty, premised upon competent proof or the best evidence
obtainable. 19
19
International Container Terminal Services v. Chua, 730 Phil. 475,489 (2014).
20
l ee v. People, G.R. No. 205746 (Notice), April 3, 201 3.
21
Japan Airlines v. Simangan, 575 Phil. 359, 377 (2008).
22
Air France v. Gil/ego, 653 Phil. 138, 153 (20 I0).
Decision 9 G.R. No. 217806
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
.PERALTA
Associate Justice
Decision 10 G.R. No. 217806
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the wiiter of the opinion of ,
.PERALTA
stice