22. St.

Louis Realty Corp vs CA 133 SCRA 179

Facts:
St. Louis Realty caused to be published with the permission of Arcadio S. Arcadio (but without
permission of Doctor Aramil) in the issue of the Sunday Times of December 15, 1968 an advertisement
“WHERE THE HEART IS” misrepresenting the house of Doctor Conrado J. Aramil belonged to Arcadio S.
Arcadio. The same advertisement appeared in the Sunday Times dated January 5, 1969. Doctor Aramil a
neuropsychiatrist and a member of the faculty of the U. E. Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Hospital, noticed the
mistake. On that same date, he wrote St. Louis Realty a letter of protest.
In response, St. Louis Realty’s in charge for advertisement called Dr. Aramil and offered apologies.
However, no rectification or apology was published. It was only when Dr. Aramil demanded for damages did
St. Louis Realty published in the issue of the Manila Times of March 18, 1969 a new advertisement with the
Arcadio family and their real house. But it did not publish any apology to Doctor Aramil and an explanation of
the error. On March 29, Dr. Aramil filed his complaint for damages. St. Louis Realty published in the issue of
the Manila Times of April 15, 1969 the following "NOTICE OF RECTIFICATION" in a space 4 by 3 inches.
Both the trial and appellate courts found that there was a violation of Dr. Aramil’s right to privacy
under Art. 26, Civil Code. The Appellate Court reasoned out that St. Louis Realty committed an actionable
quasi-delict under articles 21 and 26 of the Civil Code because the questioned advertisements pictured a
beautiful house which did not belong to Arcadio but to Doctor Aramil who, naturally, was annoyed by that
contretemps.
Issue:
Whether or not the case at bar is covered by Art. 26 of the Civil Code.
Ruling:
Yes, it is covered. St. Louis Realty's employee was grossly negligent in mixing up the Aramil and Arcadio
residences in a widely circulated publication like the Sunday Times. To suit its purpose, it never made any
written apology and explanation of the mix-up. It just contented itself with a cavalier "rectification ".
Persons, who know the residence of Doctor Aramil, were confused by the distorted, lingering
impression that he was renting his residence from Arcadio or that Arcadio had leased it from him. Either way,
his private life was mistakenly and unnecessarily exposed. He suffered diminution of income and mental
anguish.