ARDIENTE - v - SPS. PASTORFIDE

JOYCE V. ARDIENTE, PETITIONER, vs. SPOUSES JAVIER AND MA. THERESA PASTORFIDE, CAGAYAN DE ORO WATER DISTRICT AND GASPAR GONZALEZ,* JR., RESPONDENTS.

THIRD DIVISION, G.R. No. 161921, July 17, 2013, PERALTA, J.

Facts:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the CA. The CA Decision affirmed with modification the Decision of the RTC of Cagayan de Oro City while the CA Resolution denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.

Joyce V. Ardiente and her husband Dr. Roberto S. Ardiente are owners of a housing unit at Emily Homes, Cagayan de Oro City. Joyce Ardiente entered into a Memorandum of Agreement selling, transferring and conveying in favor of Ma. Theresa Pastorfide all their rights and interests in the housing unit at Emily Homes in consideration of ₱70,000.00. The Memorandum of Agreement carries a stipulation: "4. 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 four (4) years, Ma. Theresa's use of the water connection in the name of Joyce Ardiente was never questioned nor perturbed until 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 (COWD) to complain, Ma. Theresa was told that she was delinquent for three months. She paid the delinquent bills. On the same date, through her lawyer, she wrote a letter to the COWD to explain who authorized the cutting of the water line. COWD, through the general manager, Gonzalez, answered the letter that it was at the instance of Joyce Ardiente.

Ma. Theresa Pastorfide and her husband filed a complaint for damages against petitioner, COWD and its manager. In the meantime, Ma. Theresa Pastorfide's water line was only restored and reconnected when the trial court issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. The RTC rendered judgment in favor of Ma. Theresa Pastorfide. The Court is not swayed that the cutting off of the water supply of COWD and Gonzalez was because they were influenced by defendant Joyce Ardiente. It held that they were negligent too. Petitioner, COWD and Gonzalez filed an appeal with the CA. The CA ruled, with respect to petitioner, that she has a legal duty to honor the possession and use of water line by Ma. Theresa Pastorfide pursuant to their Memorandum of Agreement and that when petitioner applied for its disconnection, she acted in bad faith causing prejudice and injury to Ma. Theresa Pastorfide.  As to COWD and Gonzalez, the CA held that they failed to give a notice of disconnection and derelicted in reconnecting the water line despite payment of the unpaid bills by the respondent spouses Pastorfide.

COWD and Gonzalez filed a petition for review on certiorari with the SC. Based on technical grounds and on the finding that the CA did not commit any reversible error in its assailed Decision, the petition was denied. COWD and Gonzalez filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied with finality. Petitioner, on the other hand, timely filed the instant petition.

Issue: Whether or not Ardiente violated her legal duty to honor the possession and use of water line by Ma. Theresa Pastorfide pursuant to their Memorandum of Agreement.

Held: Yes.

Ruling:

Petitioner insists that she should not be held liable for the disconnection of respondent spouses' water supply, because she had no participation in the actual disconnection. However, she admitted in the present petition that it was she who requested COWD to disconnect the Spouses Pastorfide's water supply. It is true that it is within petitioner's right to ask and even require the Spouses Pastorfide to cause the transfer of the former's account with COWD to the latter's name pursuant to their Memorandum of Agreement. However, the remedy to enforce such right is not to cause the disconnection of the respondent spouses' water supply. The exercise of a right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it was established and must not be excessive or unduly harsh; there must be no intention to harm another. Otherwise, liability for damages to the injured party will attach. In the present case, 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 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. If such was petitioner's only intention, then she should have advised respondent spouses before or immediately after submitting her request for disconnection, telling them that her request was simply to force them to comply with their obligation under their Memorandum of Agreement. But she did not. What made matters worse is the fact that COWD undertook the disconnection also without prior notice and even failed to reconnect the Spouses Pastorfide’s water supply despite payment of their arrears. There was clearly an abuse of right on the part of petitioner, COWD and Gonzalez. They are guilty of bad faith.

The principle of abuse of rights as enshrined in Article 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.

In Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation v. Court of Appeals:  One of the more notable innovations of the New Civil Code is the codification of "some basic principles that are to be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings and for the stability of the social order." Foremost among these principles is that pronounced in Article 19. 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 the 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. But while Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the government of human relations and for the maintenance of social order, it does not provide a remedy for its violation. If the provision does not provide a remedy for its violation, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 of the Civil Code would be proper.

Petitioner, COWD and Gonzalez are solidarily liable. Instant petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.

Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.