Ardiente v.

Pastorfide
G.R. No. 161921. July 17, 2013
Peralta, J.

Facts:
Joyce V. Ardiente (petitioner) and her husband Dr. Roberto Ardiente are
owners of a housing unit at Cagayan de Oro. Joyce Ardiente entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement with Ma. Theresa Pastorfide (respondent). It states
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 4 years, Ma.
Theresa’s use of the water connection in the name of Joyce Ardiente was never
questioned nor perturbed. 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 to complain. A certain Mrs. Madjos told Ma. Theresa that she was
delinquent for three 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.
Ma. Theresa paid the delinquent bills on March 15, 1999. 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. On March 18, 1999, COWD, through the
general manager, (respondent) Gaspar Gonzales, 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, Ma. Theresa Pastorfide and her husband filed a
complaint for damages against petitioner.
Petitioner on the other hand 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.

Issues:
1. What is the principle of abuse of rights as enshrined in Art. 19 of the Civil
Code?
2. Is the principle of abuse of rights applicable in the present case?

Ruling:
1. The principle of abuse of rights as enshrined in Art. 19 of the Civil Code
provides that every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and
observe honesty and good faith.
2. Yes, the principle of abuse of rights is applicable in the present case.
According to Art. 19 of the Civil Code, that every person must, in the
exercise of their performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone
his due, and observe honesty and good faith. The 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 did not advise respondent spouses before or telling
them that their request was simply to force them to comply with their
obligation under their Memorandum of Agreement but she did not.