METROPOLITAN WATERWORS AN! SEWERAGE S"STEM, petitioner, vs. ACT THEATER, INC., respondent. Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari filed by the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS, seeking to reverse and set aside the !ecision " dated #anuary $", %&&" of the Court of 'ppeals in C'().*. C+ ,o. -.-.", which affirmed the civil aspect of the !ecision % dated May -, "//0 of the *egional 1rial Court of 2ue3on City, Branch 00, directing the petitioner MWSS to pay the respondent 'ct 1heater, 4nc. damages and attorney5s fees. 1he present case stemmed from the consolidated cases of Criminal Case ,o. 2(./( %6"% entitled People of the Philippines v. Rodolfo Tabian, et al., for violation of 7residential !ecree (7.!. ,o. 6&", as amended by Batas 7ambansa Blg. .08, and Civil Case ,o. 2(..(08. entitled Act Theater, Inc. v. Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage Syste. 1he two cases were 9ointly tried in the court a !"o as they arose from the same factual circumstances, to wit: ;n September %%, "/.., four employees of the respondent 'ct 1heater, 4nc., namely, *odolfo 1abian, 'rmando 'guilar, 'rnel Concha and Modesto *uales, were apprehended by members of the 2ue3on City police force for allegedly tampering a water meter in violation of 7.!. ,o. 6&", as amended by B.7. Blg. .08. 1he respondent5s employees were subse<uently criminally charged (Criminal Case ,o. 2(./(%6"% before the court a !"o. ;n account of the incident, the respondent5s water service connection was cut off. Conse<uently, the respondent filed a complaint for in9unction with damages (Civil Case ,o. 2(..(08. against the petitioner MWSS. 4n the civil case, the respondent alleged in its complaint filed with the court a !"o that the petitioner acted arbitrarily, whimsically and capriciously, in cutting off the respondent5s water service connection without prior notice. !ue to lack of water, the health and sanitation, not only of the respondent5s patrons but in the surrounding premises as well, were adversely affected. 1he respondent prayed that the petitioner be directed to pay damages. 'fter due trial, the court a !"o rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: 4n Criminal Case ,o. 2(./(%6"% W=>*>?;*>, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the four (6 above(named 'ccused are hereby 'C2@411>! of the crime charged. $ 4n Civil Case ,o. 2(..(08. ... ". ;rdering defendant MWSS to pay plaintiff actual or compensatory damages in the amount of 7%-,&&&.&&A and to return the sum of 7%&&,&&&.&& deposited by the plaintiff for the restoration of its water services after its disconnection on September %$, "/..A %. !efendant5s counterclaim for undercollection of 7-$&,0-/./8 is dismissed for lack of meritA $. ;rdering defendant MWSS to pay costs of suitA 6. ;rdering defendant MWSS to pay plaintiff the amount of 7-,&&&.&& as attorney5s feesA -. Making the mandatory in9unction earlier issued to plaintiff 'ct 1heater, 4nc. permanent. S; ;*!>*>!. 6
'ggrieved, the petitioner appealed the civil aspect of the aforesaid decision to the C'. 1he appellate court, however, dismissed the appeal. 'ccording to the C', the court a !"o correctly found that the petitioner5s act of cutting off the respondent5s water service connection without prior notice was arbitrary, in9urious and pre9udicial to the latter 9ustifying the award of damages under 'rticle "/ of the Civil Code. @ndaunted, the petitioner now comes to this Court alleging as follows: 4 2 W=>1=>* ;* ,;1 1=> =;,;*'BB> C;@*1 ;? '77>'BCSD +'B4!BE '??4*M>! 1=> !>C4S4;, ;? 1=> *>)4;,'B 1*4'B C;@*1 4, *>S;B+4,) 1=> 7>1414;,>*5S '77>'BA 44 W=>1=>* ;* ,;1 1=> =;,;*'BB> C;@*1 ;? '77>'BS +'B4!BE @7=>B! 1=> 'W'*! ;? '11;*,>E5S ?>>SA 444 W=>1=>* ;* ,;1 1=> =;,;*'BB> C;@*1 ;? '77>'BCSD C;**>C1BE '77B4>! 1=> 7*;+4S4;, ;? '*14CB> "/ ;? 1=> ,>W C4+4B C;!> W41=;@1 C;,S4!>*4,) 1=> '77B4C'BB> 7*;+4S4;, ;? '*14CB> 6%/ ;? 1=> S'M> C;!>. - 7reliminarily, the petitioner harps on the fact that, in <uoting the decretal portion of the court a !"o5s decision, the C' erroneously typed 7-&&,&&& as the attorney5s fees awarded in favor of the respondent when the same should only be 7-,&&&. 4n any case, according to the petitioner, whether the amount is 7-&&,&&& or 7-,&&&, the award of attorney5s fees is improper considering that there was no discussion or statement in the body of the assailed decision 9ustifying such award. 1he petitioner insists that in cutting off the respondent5s water service connection, the petitioner merely eFercised its proprietary right under 'rticle 6%/ of the Civil Code. 1he petition is devoid of merit. 'rticle 6%/ of the Civil Code, relied upon by the petitioner in 9ustifying its act of disconnecting the water supply of the respondent without prior notice, reads: 'rt. 6%/. 1he owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to eFclude any person from the en9oyment and disposal thereof. ?or this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonable to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property. ' right is a power, privilege, or immunity guaranteed under a constitution, statute or decisional law, or recogni3ed as a result of long usage, 8 constitutive of a legally enforceable claim of one person against the other. 0 Concededly, the petitioner, as the owner of the utility providing water supply to certain consumers including the respondent, had the right to eFclude any person from the en9oyment and disposal thereof. =owever, the eFercise of rights is not without limitations. =aving the right should not be confused with the manner by which such right is to be eFercised. . 'rticle "/ of the Civil Code precisely sets the norms for the eFercise of one5s rights: 'rt. "/. >very person must, in the eFercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with 9ustice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. When a right is eFercised in a manner which discards these norms resulting in damage to another, a legal wrong is committed for which actor can be held accountable. / 4n this case, the petitioner failed to act with 9ustice and give the respondent what is due to it when the petitioner unceremoniously cut off the respondent5s water service connection. 's correctly found by the appellate court: While it is true that MWSS had sent a notice of investigation to plaintiff( appellee prior to the disconnection of the latter5s water services, this was done only a few hours before the actual disconnection. @pon receipt of the notice and in order to ascertain the matter, 'ct sent its assistant manager 1eodulo )umalid, #r. to the MWSS office but he was treated badly on the flimsy eFcuse that he had no authority to represent 'ct. 'ct5s water services were cut at midnight of the day following the apprehension of the employees. Clearly, the plaintiff(appellee was denied due process when it was deprived of the water services. 's a conse<uence thereof, 'ct had to contract another source to provide water for a number of days. 7laintiff( appellee was also compelled to deposit with MWSS the sum of 7%&&,&&&.&& for the restoration of their water services. "&
1here is, thus, no reason to deviate from the uniform findings and conclusion of the court a !"o and the appellate court that the petitioner5s act was arbitrary, in9urious and pre9udicial to the respondent, 9ustifying the award of damages under 'rticle "/ of the Civil Code. ?inally, the amount of 7-&&,&&& as attorney5s fees in that portion of the assailed decision which <uoted the fallo of the court a !"o5s decision was obviously a typographical error. 's attorney5s fees, the court a <uo awarded the amount of 7-,&&& only. 4t was this amount, as well as actual and compensatory damages of 3 7%-,&&& and the reimbursement of 7%&&,&&& deposited by the respondent for the restoration of its water supply, that the C' affirmed, as it eFpressly stated in its dispositive portion that Gfinding no cogent reason to reverse the appealed !ecision which is in conformity with the law and evidence, the same is hereby '??4*M>!.G "" 1he award of 7-,&&& as attorney5s fees is reasonable and warranted. 'ttorney5s fees may be awarded when a party is compelled to litigate or incur eFpenses to protect his interest by reason of an un9ustified act of the other party. "% WHERE#ORE, the petition is !ENIE!. 1he !ecision of the Court of 'ppeals dated #anuary $", %&&" in C'().*. C+ ,o. -.-." is A##IRME! in toto.