 |
| Image credit: thenonconformer.wordpress.com |
"Abuse of Rights and its elements" "Law on Human Relations"
Shirley Quinones went to shop at the Guess USA Boutique and purchased a pair of jeans. She paid the item and was issued a receipt by the store's cashier. As she walked away a store employee went after her demanding to pay the item. She told the employee she already paid it and showed her the receipt of her purchase. As the store employee insisted she forgot to pay, respondent requested they meet at her office in Cebu Pacific which is only located at the same building to talk about the concern. The respondent claimed to have been humiliated when the store employee continued to demand payment in front of Cebu Pacific's clients and even wrote a letter to her employer and HRD of Robinson's narrating the incident for the purpose of canceling her credit card.
Respondent claimed to have suffered from anxiety, sleepless nights, mental anguish, serious apprehension, fright, moral shock and social humiliation.
The petitioner explained there was miscommunication between the employees regarding the payment made of the respondent. They alleged that they were polite in asking the respondent for some clarifications on the payment made on her items. The RTC ruled the petitioner acted in good faith believing the respondent failed to pay. The act of demanding payment is a mere exercise of their right with honest belief that no payment was made. It also finds the demand to pay made in front of Cebu Pacific's clients not damaging because it was the respondent's fault to continue their discussion at her office. The letters sent to the respondent's employee is likewise not damaging because the petitioners were merely asking assistance and not intended to humiliate or embarrass her.
The CA reversed the RTC decision. It finds bad faith when the petitioner wrote the letter to the respondent's employer who is not privy to their transactions and subjected the respondent to ridicule and humiliation. Moreover, the official receipt presented by the respondent suffice as proof of payment which does not warrant further investigation against her.
The petitioner now filed an appeal before the SC.
ISSUE
Is Quinones entitled to damages?
RULING
YES.
The complaint against the petitioners stem from the principle of abuse of rights.
As cited by the court in the case of Carpio v Valmonte, under the law on human relations, the victim of a wrongful act or omission, whether done negligently or willfully, is given a remedy or recourse to obtain relief from the damage or injury that the victim sustained.
Our civil law is also imbued not only with the principles of equity, but also of moral precepts that are designed with certain norms that come from good conscience that guides human conduct. One of these fundamental moral precepts is the abuse of rights under Article 19 of the Civil Code that has the following elements:
(1) there is a legal right or duty
(2) which is exercised in bad faith
(3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another
ARTICLE 19 of the Civil law requires that "a person must, in the exercise of a right or duty, act in good faith." Good faith is a state of mind which is manifested by the act of an individual. It consists of the intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another. Malice or bad faith implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity.
Any person who acted in bad faith thus will be liable for damages.
The court recognizes the right of the petitioners to make clarification from the respondent whether payment was made or not, however, the manner of such inquiry is not proper. The exercise of a right must be made in accordance to such purpose and must not be harsh.
The court also ruled that complementing Article 19 are the following:
SATISFY YOUR CRAVINGS. ORDER HERE!
Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
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.
Thus, the respondent is entitled to damages.
