9/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351

VOL. 351, FEBRUARY 15, 2001 731

Amonoy vs. Gutierrez

*
G.R. No. 140420. February 15, 2001.

SERGIO AMONOY, petitioner, vs. Spouses JOSE GUTIERREZ

and ANGELA FORNILDA, respondents.

Damages; Human Relations; Well settled is the maxim that 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.—
Well-settled is the maxim that 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. In other words, one who merely exercises
one’s rights does no actionable injury and cannot be held liable for damages.

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

732

732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Amonoy vs. Gutierrez

Same; Same; Abuse of Rights; Temporary Restraining Orders; Even if

the acts of a party may have been legally justified at the outset, their
continuation after the issuance of the TRO amounted to an insidious abuse
of his right—his acts constituted not only an abuse of a right, but an invalid
exercise of a right that had been suspended.—Although the acts of
petitioner may have been legally justified at the outset, their continuation
after the issuance of the TRO amounted to an insidious abuse of his right.
Indubitably, his actions were tainted with bad faith. Had he not insisted on
completing the demolition, respondents would not have suffered the loss
that engendered the suit before the RTC. Verily, his acts constituted not only
an abuse of a right, but an invalid exercise of a right that had been
suspended when he received the TRO from this Court on June 4, 1986. By
then, he was no longer entitled to proceed with the demolition.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174c17d9f23830907a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/9
9/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351

Same; Same; Same; The exercise of a right ends when the right
disappears, and it disappears when it is abused, especially to the prejudice
of others.—A commentator on this topic explains: The exercise of a right
ends when the right disappears, and it disappears when it is abused,
especially to the prejudice of others. The mask of a right without the spirit
of justice which gives it life, is repugnant to the modern concept of social
law. It cannot be said that a person exercises a right when he unnecessarily
prejudices another x x x. Over and above the specific precepts of positive
law are the supreme norms of justice x x x; and he who violates them
violates the law. For this reason, it is not permissible to abuse our rights to
prejudice others.“

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Mamaril, Arca & Associates for petitioner.
Romeo B. Igot Law Offices for private respondents.

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Damnum absque injuria. Under this principle, the legitimate

exercise of a person’s rights, even if it causes loss to another, does
not automatically result in an actionable injury. The law does not
prescribe a remedy for the loss. This principle does not, however,
apply when there is an abuse of a person’s right, or when the
exercise of this right is suspended or extinguished pursuant to a
court

733

VOL. 351, FEBRUARY 15, 2001 733

Amonoy vs. Gutierrez

order. Indeed, in the availment of one’s rights, one must act with
justice, give others their due, and observe honesty and good faith.

The Case

Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 145 of the Rules of

Court, assailing the April 21, 1999 Decision of the Court of
Appeals 2(CA) in CA-GR CV No. 41451, which set aside the
judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tanay, Rizal. The
RTC had earlier dismissed the Complaint for damages filed by
herein respondents against petitioner. The dispositive portion of the
challenged CA Decision reads as follows:

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174c17d9f23830907a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/9
9/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351

“WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is SET ASIDE, and in its stead

judgment is rendered ordering the defendant-appellee Sergio Amonoy to
pay the plaintiffs-appellants Bruno and Bernardina Gutierrez as actual
damages the sum of [t]wo [h]undred [f]ifty [tlhousand [p]esos
3
(P250,000.00).”
4
Likewise assailed is the October 19, 1999 CA Resolution, which
denied the Motion for Reconsideration.

The Facts

The appellate court narrated the factual antecedents of this case as

follows:

This case had its roots in Special Proceedings No. 3103 of Branch I of the
CFI of Pasig, Rizal, for the settlement of the estate of the deceased Julio
Cantolos, involving six (6) parcels of land situated in Tanay, Rizal. Amonoy
was the counsel of therein Francisca Catolos, Agnes Catolos, Asuncion
Pasamba and Alfonso Formilda. On 12 January 1965, the Project of
Partition submitted was approved and x x x two (2) of the said lots were
adjudicated to Asuncion Pasamba and Alfonso Formilda. The attor-

________________

1 Rollo, pp. 34-44. The CA Decision was penned by Justice Roberto A. Barrios, with the
concurrence of Justices Godardo A. Jacinto (Division chairman) and Renato C. Dacudao.
2 Rollo, pp. 83-87; written by Judge Gil P. Fernandez.
3 Rollo, p. 41.
4 Rollo, pp. 43-44.

734

734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Amonoy vs. Gutierrez

ne/s fees charged by Amonoy was P27,600.00 and on 20 January 1965

Asuncion Pasamba and Alfonso Formilda executed a deed of real estate
mortgage on the said two (2) lots adjudicated to them, in favor of Amonoy
to secure the payment of his attorney’s fees. But it was only on 6 August
1969 after the taxes had been paid, the claims settled and the properties
adjudicated, that the estate was declared closed and terminated.
“Asuncion Pasamba died on 24 February 1969 while Alfonso Fornilda
passed away on 2 July 1969. Among the heirs of the latter was his daughter,
plaintiff-appellant Angela Gutierrez.
“Because his attorney’s fees thus secured by the two lots were not paid,
on 21 January 1970 Amonoy filed for their foreclosure in Civil Case No.
12726 entitled Sergio Amonoy vs. Heirs of Asuncion Pasamba and Heirs of
Alfonso Fornilda before the CFI of Pasig, Rizal, and this was assigned to
Branch VIII. The heirs opposed, contending that the attorney’s fees charged
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174c17d9f23830907a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/9
9/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351

[were] unconscionable and that the agreed sum was only P11,695.92. But on
28 September 1972 judgment was rendered in favor of Amonoy requiring
the heirs to pay within 90 days the P27,600.00 secured by the mortgage,
P11,880.00 as value of the harvests, and P9.645.00 as another round of
attorney’s fees. Failing in that, the two (2) lots would be sold at public
auction.
“They failed to pay. On 6 February 1973, the said lots were foreclosed
and on 23 March 1973 the auction sale was held where Amonoy was the
highest bidder at P23,760.00. On 2 May 1973 his bid was judicially
confirmed. A deficiency was claimed and to satisfy it another execution sale
was conducted, and again the highest bidder was Amonoy at P12,137.50.
“Included in those sold was the lot on which the Gutierrez spouses had
their house.
“More than a year after the Decision in Civil Case No. 12726 was
rendered, the said decedent’s heirs filed on 19 December 1973 before the
CFI of Pasig, Rizal[,] Civil Case No. 18731 entitled Maria Penano, et al. vs.
Sergio Amonoy, et al., a suit for the annulment thereof. The case was
dismissed by the CFI on 7 November 1977, and this was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals on 22 July 1981.
“Thereafter, the CFI on 25 July 1985 issued a Writ of Possession and
pursuant to which a notice to vacate was made on 26 August 1985. On
Amonoy’s motion of 24 April 1986, the Orders of 25 April 1986 and 6 May
1986 were issued for the demolition of structures in the said lots, including
the house of the Gutierrez spouses.

735

VOL. 351, FEBRUARY 15, 2001 735

Amonoy vs. Gutierrez

“On 27 September 1985 the petition entitled David Fornilda, et al. vs.
Branch 164 RTC IVth Pasig, Deputy Sheriff Joaquin Antonil and Atty.
Sergio Amonoy, G.R. No. L-72306, was filed before the Supreme Court.
Among the petitioners was the plaintiff-appellant Angela Gutierrez. On a
twin Musiyun (Mahigpit na Musiyon Para Papanagutin Kaugnay ng
Paglalapastangan, and Musiyung Makahingi ng Utos sa Pagpapapigil ng
Pagpapagiba at Pananagutin sa Paglalapastangan) with full titles as fanciful
and elongated as their Petisyung (Petisyung Makapagsuri Taglay and
Pagpigil ng Utos), a temporary restraining order was granted on 2 June 1986
enjoining the demolition of the petitioners’ houses.
“Then on 5 October 1988 a Decision was rendered in the said G.R. No.
L-72306 disposing that:

“WHEREFORE, Certiorari is granted; the Order of respondent Trial Court, dated 25

July 1985, granting a Writ of Possession, as well as its Orders, dated 25 April 1986
and 16 May 1986, directing and authorizing respondent Sheriff to demolish the
houses of petitioners Angela and Leocadia Fornilda are hereby set aside, and the
Temporary Restraining Order heretofore issued, is made permanent. The six (6)

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174c17d9f23830907a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/9
9/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351

parcels of land herein controverted are hereby ordered returned to petitioners unless
5
some of them have been conveyed to innocent third persons.”

But by the time the Supreme Court promulgated the above-

mentioned Decision, respondents’ house had already been
destroyed, supposedly in accordance with a Writ of Demolition
ordered by the lower court.
Thus, a Complaint for damages in connection with the
destruction of their house was filed by respondents against petitioner
before the RTC on December 15,1989.
In its January 27, 1993 Decision, the RTC dismissed
respondents’ suit. On appeal, the CA set aside the lower court’s
ruling and ordered petitioner to pay respondents P250.000 as actual
damages. Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which
was also denied.
6
Hence, this recourse.

________________

5 Rollo, pp. 35-37.

6 The case was deemed submitted for resolution on July 21, 2000, upon receipt by
this Court of respondents’ Memorandum signed by Attys.

736

736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Amonoy vs. Gutierrez

The Issue
7
In his Memorandum, petitioner submits this lone issue for our
consideration:

“Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in deciding that the
8
petitioner [was] liable to the respondents for damages.“

The Court’s Ruling

The Petition has no merit.

Main Issue:
Petitioner’s Liability

Well-settled is the maxim that damage resulting from the legitimate

exercise of a person’s rights is a loss without injury—damnum
9
absque injuria—for which the law gives no remedy. In other words,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174c17d9f23830907a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/9
9/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351

one who merely exercises one’s rights does no actionable injury and
cannot be held liable for damages.
Petitioner invokes this legal precept in arguing that he is not
liable for the demolition of respondents’ house. He maintains that he
was merely acting in accordance with the Writ of Demolition
ordered by the RTC.
We reject this submission. Damnum absque injuria finds no
application to this case.
True, petitioner commenced the demolition of respondents’
house on May 30, 1986 under the authority of a Writ of Demolition
issued by the RTC. But the records show that a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO), enjoining the demolition of respondents’

________________

Romeo B. Igot and Liberato F. Mojica. Filed earlier was petitioner’s

Memorandum, signed by Attys. Gelacio C. Mamaril and Roberto B. Arca.
7 Rollo, pp. 180-210.
8 Ibid., p. 192. Upper case used in the original.
9 Custodio v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 483, February 9, 1996; China Banking
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 231 SCRA 472, March 28, 1994; Saba v. Court of
Appeals, 189 SCRA 50, August 24, 1990; Ilocos Norte Electric Company v. Court of
Appeals, 179 SCRA 5, November 6, 1989; Auyong Hidn v. CTA, 59 SCRA 110,
September 12, 1974.

737

VOL. 351, FEBRUARY 15, 2001 737

Amonoy vs. Gutierrez

house, was issued by the Supreme Court on June 2, 1986. The CA

also found, based on the Certificate of Service of the Supreme Court
process server, that a copy of the TRO was served on petitioner
himself on June 4, 1986.
Petitioner, however, did not heed the TRO of this Court. We
agree with the CA that he unlawfully pursued the demolition of
respondents’ house well until the middle of 1987. This is clear from
Respondent Angela Gutierrez’s testimony. 10The appellate court
quoted the following pertinent portion thereof:

“Q. On May 30, 1986, were they able to destroy your house?
A. Not all, a certain portion only.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. Was your house completely demolished?
A. No, sir.
Q. How about the following day?

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174c17d9f23830907a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/9
9/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351

A. It was completely demolished.“

xxx xxx xxx
Q. Until when[,] Mrs. Witness?
A. Until 1987.
Q. About what month of 1987?
A. Middle of the year.
Q. Can you tell the Honorable Court who completed the
demolition?
11
A. The men of Fiscal Amonoy.“

The foregoing disproves the claim of petitioner that the demolition,

which allegedly commenced only on May 30, 1986, was completed
the following day. It likewise belies his allegation that the
demolitions had already ceased when he received notice of the TRO.
Although the acts of petitioner may have been legally justified at
the outset, their continuation after the issuance of the TRO
amounted to an insidious abuse of his right. Indubitably, his ac-

________________

10 CA Decision, pp. 6-7; rollo, pp. 39-40.

11 TSN, February 12, 1991, pp. 14-15.

738

738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Amonoy vs. Gutierrez

tions were tainted with bad faith. Had he not insisted on completing
the demolition, respondents would not have suffered the loss that
engendered the suit before the RTC. Verily, his acts constituted not
only an abuse of a right, but an invalid exercise of a right that had
been suspended when he received the TRO from this Court on June
4, 1986. By then, he was no longer entitled to proceed with the
demolition.
A commentator on this topic explains:

“The exercise of a right ends when the right disappears, and it disappears
when it is abused, especially to the prejudice of others. The mask of a right
without the spirit of justice which gives it life, is repugnant to the modern
concept of social law. It cannot be said that a person exercises a right when
he unnecessarily prejudices another x x x. Over and abeve the specific
precepts of positive law are the supreme norms of justice x x x; and he who
violates them violates the law. For this reason, it is not permissible to abuse
12
our rights to prejudice others.“

13
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174c17d9f23830907a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/9
9/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351
13
Likewise, in Albenson Enterprises Corp. v. CA, the Court discussed
the concept of abuse of rights as follows:

“Article 19, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle

of abuse of rights, sets certain standards which may be observed not only in
the exercise of one’s rights but also in the performance of one’s duties.
These standards are the following: to act with justice; to give everyone his
due; and to observe honesty and good faith. The law, therefore, recognizes
the primordial limitation on all rights: that in their exercise, the norms of
human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed. A right, though by
itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless
become the source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner
which does not conform with norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in
damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the
wrongdoer must be held responsible x x x.“

Clearly then, the demolition of respondents’ house by petitioner,

despite his receipt of the TRO, was not only an abuse but also an
unlawful exercise of such right. In insisting on his alleged right, he

________________

12 Alicia Gonzales-Decano, Notes on Torts and Damages, p. 97.

13 217 SCRA 16, 24-25, January 11, 1993, per Bidin, J.

739

VOL. 351, FEBRUARY 15, 2001 739

Amonoy vs. Gutierrez

wantonly violated this Court’s Order and wittingly caused the

destruction of respondents’ house.
Obviously, petitioner cannot invoke damnum absque injuria, a
14
principle premised on the valid exercise of a right. Anything less or
beyond such exercise will not give rise to the legal protection that
the principle accords. And when damage or prejudice to another is
occasioned thereby, liability cannot be obscured, much less abated.
In the ultimate analysis, petitioner’s liability is premised on the
obligation to repair or to make whole the damage caused to another
by reason of one’s act or omission, whether done 15
intentionally or
negligently and whether or not punishable by law.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the appealed
Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

Melo (Chairman), Vitug, Gonzaga-Reyes and Sandoval-

Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment affirmed.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174c17d9f23830907a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/9
9/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 351

Notes.—The victorious party in an election case cannot be

indemnified for expenses which he has incurred in an electoral
contest in the absence of a wrongful act or omission or breach of
obligation clearly attributable to the losing party, and if any damage
had been suffered by the former due to the execution of judgment
pending appeal, that damage may be said to be equivalent to
damnum. absque injuria. (Malaluan vs. Commission on Elections,
254 SCRA 397 [1996])
One who makes use of his own legal right does no injury, and if
damage results from a person’s exercising his legal rights, it is
damnum absque injuria. (Pro Line Sports Center, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, 281 SCRA 162 [1997])

________________

14 Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 176 SCRA 778,
August 25, 1989.
15 Occena v. Icamina, 181 SCRA 328, January 22, 1990.

740

740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Amonoy vs. Gutierrez

The principle of abuse of rights stated in Article 19 of the Civil

Code departs from the classical theory that “he who uses a right
injures no one“—the modern tendency is to depart from the classical
and traditional theory, and to grant indemnity for damages in cases
where there is an abuse of rights, even when the act is not illicit; The
absence of good faith is essential to abuse of right. (Sea Commercial
Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 319 SCRA 210 [1999])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174c17d9f23830907a8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/9