[5] California Clothing Inc. and Ybanez v. Quiñones 1.

1. Quinones, a Reservation Ticketing Agent of Cebu Pacific Air in Lapu Lapu

G.R. No. 175822 | Oct. 23, 2013 | Article 21 | Gp City, went inside the Guess USA Boutique at the second floor of Robinson's
Department Store (Robinson's) in Cebu City
PETITIONER: California Clothing Inc, Michelle Ybanez 2. She decided to purchase the black jeans worth P2,098.00. She allegedly
RESPONDENTS: Shirley Quinones paid to the cashier evidenced by a receipt issued by the store
3. While she was walking through the skywalk connecting Robinson's and
SUMMARY: Mercury Drug Store (Mercury) where she was heading next, a Guess
Quinones bought black pants worth PhP2,980 from the Guess USA Botique employee approached and informed her that she failed to pay the item she
inside Robinson’s Department Store in Cebu City. Shortly after her purchase got
she was approached by a Guess employee informing her that she failed to 4. She, however, insisted that she paid and showed the employee the receipt
purchase the pants. She requested that they meet in the Cebu Pacific Office, issued in her favor. She then suggested that they talk about it at the Cebu
there she was humiliated by the Guess employees in front of the clients of Cebu Pacific Office located at the basement of the mall. She first went to Mercury
Pacific and demanded payment. On the same day, a letter was given by the then met the Guess employees as agreed upon
Guess employees to the Director of Cebu Pacific Air, CebuPac Office in
5. When she arrived at the Cebu Pacific Office, the Guess employees allegedly
Robinsons, and the Human Resource Depatment of Robinsons which damages
the reputation of the Repondent. The petitioner argues that their actions were an subjected her to humiliation in front of the clients of Cebu Pacific and
exercise of their rights, however the Court decided that the exercise of rights repeatedly demanded payment for the black jeans. They supposedly even
should be done in good faith and DENIED the petition. searched her wallet to check how much money she had, followed by another
argument
The principle of abuse of rights under Article 19 of the Civil Code is present in 6. On the same day, the Guess employees allegedly gave a letter to the
the case. Initially, there was nothing wrong with petitioners asking respondent
Director of Cebu Pacific Air narrating the incident, but the latter refused to
whether she paid or not, however, that respondent was in possession of the item
purchased from the shop, together with the official receipt possession of the receive it as it did not concern the office and the same took place while
item purchased from the shop, together with the official receipt, the latter Quinones was off duty. Another letter was allegedly prepared and was
cannot insist that no such payment was made on the basis of a mere speculation. supposed to be sent to the Cebu Pacific Office in Robinson's, but the latter
Their claim should have been proven by substantial evidence in the proper again refused to receive it. Quinones also claimed that the Human Resource
forum. Here, California merely presented speculations. Under the abuse of Department (HRD) of Robinson's was furnished said letter and the latter in
rights principle found in Article 19 of the Civil Code, a person must, in the fact conducted an investigation for purposes of canceling Quinones’
exercise of legal right or duty, act in good faith. He would be liable if he instead
Robinson's credit card
acted in bad faith, with intent to prejudice another. The elements of abuse of
rights were enumerated as follows: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) which is 7. Quinones filed a complaint for damages against the petitioners, California
exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.” Clothing, Inc., Excelsis Villagonzalo (invoicer), Imelda Hawayon (cashier)
The elements stated are complete in the present case. and Michelle S. Ybañez (signed the letter), alleging that due to the incident,
  she suffered physical anxiety, sleepless nights, mental anguish, fright,
DOCTRINE: To malign respondent without substantial evidence and despite serious apprehension, besmirched reputation, moral shock and
humiliation. She demanded payment for moral, nominal, and exemplary
the latter's possession of enough evidence in her favor, is clearly impermissible.
damages, as well as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.
A person should not use his right unjustly or contrary to honesty and good faith, 8. California Clothing stated that they approached the respondent to clarify
otherwise, he opens himself to liability. The exercise of a right must be in whether or not payment was made and that they approached and talked to
accordance with the purpose for which it was established and must not be the respondent in a gentle and polite manner. They explained that there was
excessive or unduly harsh. a miscommunication between the cashier and the invoicer and that the latter
thought the item was paid already but realized it wasn’t yet thats why she
ran after the customer. As counterclaim they also want damages.
FACTS: 9. RTC: dismissed both the complaint and counterclaim stating that from the
evidence presented, there was good faith that respondent failed to make
 payment. Considering that no motive to fabricate a lie could be attributed to 1. The principle of abuse of rights under Article 19 of the Civil Code is present
the Guess employees, they merely exercised a right under the honest belief in the case. Respondent complained when petitioners embarrassed her and
that no payment was made. insisted that she did not pay for the black jeans despite the issuance of an
a. The RTC likewise did not find it damaging for respondent when
official receipt in her favor
the confrontation took place in front of Cebu Pacific clients,
because it was respondent herself who put herself in that situation 2. Initially, there was nothing wrong with petitioners asking respondent
by choosing the venue for discussion.  whether she paid or not, however, that respondent was in possession of the
b. As to the letter sent to Cebu Pacific Air, the trial court also did not item purchased from the shop, together with the official receipt possession
take it against the Guess employees, because they merely asked for of the item purchased from the shop, together with the official receipt, the
assistance and not to embarrass or humiliate respondent.  latter cannot insist that no such payment was made on the basis of a mere
c. In other words, the RTC found no evidence to prove bad faith on speculation
the part of the Guess employees to warrant the award of damages.
3. Their claim should have been proven by substantial evidence in the proper
10. CA (important): reversed and set aside the RTC decision stating that there
was preponderance of evidence showing that they acted in bad faith in forum. Here, California merely presented speculations
sending the demand letter to respondent’s employer. It found respondent’s 4. Under the abuse of rights principle found in Article 19 of the Civil Code, a
possession of both the official receipt and the subject black jeans as person must, in the exercise of legal right or duty, act in good faith. He
evidence of payment would be liable if he instead acted in bad faith, with intent to prejudice
a. The letter addressed to Cebu Pacific’s director was sent to another. Good faith refers to the state of mind which is manifested by the
respondent’s employer not merely to ask for assistance for the acts of the individual concerned. It consists of the intention to abstain from
collection of the disputed payment but to subject her to ridicule,
taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another. Malice or
humiliation and similar injury such that she would be pressured to
pay bad faith, on the other hand, implies a conscious and intentional design to
b. Considering that Guess already started its investigation on the do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity
incident, there was a taint of bad faith and malice when it dragged 5. The elements of abuse of rights were enumerated as follows: (1) there is a
respondent’s employer who was not privy to the transaction. The legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole
letter contained not only a narrative of the incident but accusations intent of prejudicing or injuring another. The elements stated are
as to the alleged acts of respondent in trying to evade payment complete in the present case
c. The petitioners are guilty of abuse of right entitling respondent to
6. First, petitioners continued to insist that there was no payment made when
collect moral damages and attorney’s fees
d. California Clothing Inc. was made liable for its failure to exercise respondent already presented the black jeans with the original receipt.
extraordinary diligence in the hiring and selection of its Second, they accused the respondent that not only did she fail to pay for the
employees; while Ybañez’s liability stemmed from her act of black jeans but she intentionally stole it and quickly left the shop. Third, the
signing the demand letter sent to respondent’s employer. In view letters sent to the respondent’s employer was not only intended to ask for
of Hawayon and Villagonzalo’s good faith, however, they were assistance in collection of the payment but also to ruin the respondent’s
exonerated from liability reputation and were purely accusatory and without substantiation
7. The exercise of rights is subject to limitations. Thus, it must be in
ISSUE:
accordance with the purpose of its establishment and not abused
1. Whether petitioners acted in bad faith which results to the award of
8. To malign respondent without substantial evidence and despite the latter's
moral damages and attorney’s fees to Quiñones. YES, petitioners acted
possession of enough evidence in her favor, is clearly impermissible. A
in bad faith and the award for moral damages and attorney’s fees to
person should not use his right unjustly or contrary to honesty and good
respondent was proper. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’
faith, otherwise, he opens himself to liability. The exercise of a right must
decision.
be in accordance with the purpose for which it was established and must not
be excessive or unduly harsh. In this case, petitioners obviously abused their
RATIO:
rights
 9. Complementing the principle of abuse of rights are the provisions of
Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code which read:
a. Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or
negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for
the same
b. Article 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to
another in a manner that is contrary to morals or good customs, or
public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage
10. Respondent was awarded P50,000.00 as moral damages and P20,000.00 as
attorney’s fees

RULING: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of

merit. The Court of Appeals Decision is AFFIRMED.