Amonoy v.

Gutierrez
G.R. No. 140420, February 15, 2001
FACTS:
Amonoy was engaged as the counsel of Pasamba and Formilda for the
settlement of the estate. On January 20, 1965, Pasamba and Formilda executed a deed
of real estate mortgage on the said two lots adjudicated to them, in favor of Amonoy to
secure the payment of his attorney’s fees. But on August 6, 1969, after the taxes had
been paid, the claims settled and the properties adjudicated, the estate was declared
closed and terminated. When Pasamba and Formilda passed away, Formilda was
succeeded by the spouses Gutierrez. On January 21, 1970, Amonoy filed for the
closure of the two lots alleging the non-payment of attorney’s fees. The spouses denied
the allegation, but judgment was rendered in favor of Amonoy.

Amonoy then filed a motion for the demolition of structures in the said lot,
including the spouses’ house. On September 27, 1985, David Formilda petitioned to the
Supreme Court for a TRO for the suspension of the demolition, which was granted, but
the houses have already been demolished. A complaint for damages was filed by the
spouses Gutierrez. Such was denied by the RTC. However, on appeal, it was granted
by CA.

ISSUE:
Whether the CA erred in ruling that Amonoy was liable for damages to the
respondents. 

RULING:
No.

Amonoy invokes that it is well-settled that the maxim of damage resulting from
the legitimate exercise of a person’s rights is a loss without injury, damnum absque
injuria, for which the law gives no remedy, saying he is not liable for damages.

In the case, the principle of damnum absque injuria cannot be applied because
Amonoy abused his right and exercised his suspended and extinguished right to
demolish the respondent’s house.

Hence, he is liable for the damages incurred in his abusive exercise of a

suspended right.