Case Analysis of

CALIFORNIA CLOTHING INC. and MICHELLE S. YBAEZ vs. SHIRLEY G. QUIONES

G.R. No. 175822
October 23, 2013
I. Identify the parties

Respondent Shirley G. Quiones, a Reservation Ticketing Agent of Cebu Pacific Air in Lapu
Lapu City, bought an item in Guess USA Boutique (owned by California Clothing, Inc.) at

Robinsons in Cebu City worth P2, 098.00 evidenced by a receipt issued by the store.
Hawayon is the store cashier who issued the official receipt.
Excelsis Villagonzalo is the Guess employee who followed and informed the respondent that she
failed to pay the item she got.
Michelle Ybaez , another employee, signed the demand letter sent to respondents employer.
California Clothing, Inc. and Ybaez are the petitioners in the case at bar.

II. Prior Proceedings

On June 20, 2003, the RTC rendered a Decision dismissing both the complaint and counterclaim
of the parties. The trial court concluded that the petitioners and the other defendants believed in
good faith that respondent failed to make payment.
The RTC likewise did not find it damaging for respondent when the confrontation took place in
front of Cebu Pacific clients, because it was respondent herself who chose the venue for
discussion. As to the letter sent to Cebu Pacific Air, the trial court also did not take it against the
Guess employees, because they merely asked for assistance and not to embarrass or humiliate
respondent. The RTC found no evidence to prove bad faith on the part of the Guess employees to

warrant the award of damages.

On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the RTCs decision. CA found preponderance of
evidence showing that they acted in bad faith in sending the demand letter to respondents
employer
The letter addressed to Cebu Pacifics director was sent not merely to ask for assistance for the
collection of the disputed payment but to subject her to ridicule, humiliation and similar injury
such that she would be pressured to pay. It found respondents possession of both the official
receipt and the subject black jeans as evidence of payment. CA held that petitioners are guilty of
abuse of right entitling respondent to collect moral damages and attorneys fees.
Petitioner California Clothing Inc. was made liable for its failure to exercise extraordinary
diligence in the hiring and selection of its employees; while Ybaezs liability stemmed from her

act of signing the demand letter sent to respondents employer. In view of Hawayon and

Villagonzalos good faith, however, they were exonerated from liability.

The Court of Appeals, reversed the decision of the trial court. Hence, the petition for certitiorari
before the Supreme Court.

III. Theories of the Parties

Petitioners theory- They claimed that instead of the cashier issuing the official receipt, it was the
invoicer who did it manually. There was miscommunication between the employees at that time.
And still, they have the right to make demand of payment of the items. Also, they insisted that
they have the right to verify if payments were really made.
Respondents theory-She claimed that she has paid all the items and the actions of the petitioners
in making demands, such as humilation in front of customers and officemates, were an abuse of
her rights.

IV. Objectives of the Parties.

The petitioners objective to have the payment of the items allegedly unpaid by the respondent.
Further, they moved for a counterclaim.
The respondents objective is have the Court to award her damages for she suffered anxiety,
sleepless nights, mental anguish and fright for the humilation she suffered.

V. Key Facts

that respondent was in possession of the item purchased from the shop, together with the official
receipt of payment issued by petitioners, the latter cannot insist that no such payment was made
on the basis of a mere speculation;

that petitioners act of sending a letter to respondents employer was overboard and obviously
imputing bad acts on the part of respondent; and

That respondent had no intention to evade payment because was not in a rush in leaving the shop
or the mall. The Guess employees did not have a hard time looking for her when they realized the
supposed non-payment.

VI. Issues

The Court takes as an issue that whether there is an abuse of rights.

The petitioner raises the issue that they have the legal right to collect such payment since there
was no payment made at all. And such actions are just measures to enforce such right.
The respondent on the otherhand raises the question that her right was abused. She suffered moral
and physical degradation hence she is entitled for damages.

VII. Holdings and Findings

The Court found out that the petitioners accused respondent not only did she fail to pay for the
jeans she purchased but that she deliberately took the same without paying for it and later
hurriedly left the shop to evade payment. These accusations were made despite the issuance of the
receipt of payment and the release of the item purchased. There was, likewise, no showing that
respondent had the intention to evade payment. Contrary to petitioners claim, respondent was not
in a rush in leaving the shop or the mall. This is evidenced by the fact that the Guess employees
did not have a hard time looking for her when they realized the supposed non-payment.
The Court appreciated the principle of abuse of rights. The elements of such are 1.) there is a
legal right or duty; 2.) the same is exercised in bad faith and 3.) the sole intent is prejudicing or
damaging another. It is evident that the actions is not only to ask for collection of the disputed
amount but to tarnish respondents reputation in the eyes of her employer and others.

VIII. Ratio Decedendi

The court based its decision in the principle of abuse of rights. 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. To malign respondent without substantial evidence and despite the latters possession of
enough evidence in her favor, is clearly impermissible. A person should not use his right unjustly
or contrary to honesty and good faith, otherwise, he opens himself to liability.

IX. Disposition

The High Court denied this petition and awards the moral damages to the respondent. The Court
posted that moral damages may be awarded whenever the defendant s wrongful act or omission is
the proximate cause of the plaintiffs physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury in
the cases specified or analogous to those provided in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.

Respondent clearly suffered defamation and humiliation and suffered extreme injury, especially
morally. Under the ratio decedendi, there was a clear abuse of rights. Petitioners acted beyond its
limits in enforcing their rights in prejudice of the respondent. Such prejudices and injuries can be
a ground for award of moral damages since they are given to ease the defendant s grief and
suffering. They should, thus, reasonably approximate the extent of hurt caused and the gravity of
the wrong done.

Case Analysis of People vs Escober

G.R. No. L-69564
January 29, 1988
I. Identify the parties

The accused-appellants in this case are Juan Escober, Macario Punzalan Jr., Peter Doe,
Richard Doe and Juan Doe, who were charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide

before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

The aggrieved parties in the case are the spouses Vicente and Lina Chua. Their two minor

children, Irvin and Tiffany, were killed on the occasion of the robbery.
Escober was then a Security guard at Bee Seng Electrical Supply at Joyce St. Grace
Village, Balintawak, Quezon City,owned by the spouses Chua. Also, one of the alleged
co-conspirators is Amadeo Abuyen alias Roberto Alorte who was formerly a co-security

guard of appellant Juan Escober at the same corporation.

Abuyen together with respondent Punzalan went to the above said company. Escober
recognized Abuyen so he let him get inside the compound. After several minutes,
gunshots were heard. Thereafter, Abuyen and Punzalan fled, followed by Escober.

II. Prior Proceedings

Information was filed against the respondents but the alleged mastermind Abuyen was
able to escape.
Respondents were convicted before the Regional Trial Court of the crime of robbery with
homicide and both were sentenced to suffer the extreme penalty of death.
The trial court pointed out circumstances where community of criminal design exists.
One is that, it is the opening of the gate of the compound and volunteering the
information that he was not hit was just a ritual to avoid suspicion

III. Theories of the Parties

In this petition, the People claimed that the actions of Escober are indicators that he has the prior
knowledge of the plot of Abuyen and Punzalan, and that Escober is a principal by indispensable

cooperation since he was the one who opened the gate for Abuyen.
Escober asserts that he was under an irresistible force when Abuyen pointed a gun. Because of
this, Escober was not able to prevent the crime. When Abuyen and company were about to
escape, he fired shots and even told Mrs. Chua that he was not hit. It is his contention that his acts
are indications of his innocence and that he has no prior knowledge of the crime.

Punzalan claims that during his custodial investigation, he was forced to make statements and
answer questions of the investigators without his full understanding of his constitutional rights
and assistance of a counsel during custodial investigation. Likewise, he asserts that he has no
knowledge about the evil plan of Abuyen.

IV. Objectives of the Parties.

Peoples objective is to have the Court convinced that the respondents are guilty of the
crime of robbery with homicide and face the appropriate penalties thereof.
The respondent Escobers objective is have the Court declared him as innocent of the
crime committed by Abuyen and Punzalan.

V. Key Facts

The key facts that were advanced by the Court are that the respondents act of opening
the gate of the compound is an innocent getsure and not a crime at all.
The key facts advanced by the People are that the act of opening the gate of Escober to
Abuyen upen seeing him in the eyehole after the latter knocked once indicates his guilt
and knowledge of the crime to be committed. Also, the gun shot was just a ritual to avoid
suspicion and the phrase I was not shot was just a deviation of what real transpired.
The key fact advanced by Escober is that his act of opening the gate was just a friendly
gesture which is common in treating a friend.His pursuit to the perpetrators indicates that
he is not a co- conspirator of the offenders.

VI. Issues

The Court takes as an issue that whether there exist a community of design that will lead
to conviction and liability of all respondents for the crime of robbery with homicide.
The people raise the issue that Escober and Punzalan are cohorts and both principals in
the commission of robbery with homicide against the Chuas.
The respondent Escober on the otherhand raises the question that he is ignorant of the
plan hence he cannot be made liable for the acts committed by Abuyen and Punzalan.

VII. Holdings and Findings

The court held that the act of opening a gate upon hearing a knock is by itself an innocent
gesture. In the case at bar, Escober opened the gate at the knock of the alleged
mastermind Amadeo Abuyen were to be believed, the same would not constitute
sufficient and convincing proof that Escober had knowledge of the nefarious plan.
Further, the Court held that the prosecutions theory that the gun firing incident was a
mere ritual in avoidance of suspicion is holding waters. To allow him to be shot by a gun

is too risky as a riual for he might get killed. Escobers unilateral offer of the information
that he was not hit does not prove either that he was a co- conspirator. It was but natural
that he would want to inform and assure his superior who is presumed to be concerned
with his safety and well- being.
The Court held in case of Punzalan that the latter knew of such plan. It is incredible that
his companions would fetch him on the pretext of drinking spree and just bring him along
to the scene of the crime, thereby risking another eyewitness to the perpetration thereof.
The Court hold the rule of law that the rule is whenever a homicide has been committed
as a consequence of or on the occasion of a roberry, all those who took part as principals
in the commission of the robbery are also guilty as principals in the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide
unless it clearly appeared that they endeavored to prevent homicide.

VIII. Ratio Decidendi

The Court anchored its decision on the principle of justice and fairness. It held that the
fact that the accused was at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission is not, by itself,
sufficient to establish his criminal liability. To hold the accused guilty as co-principal in the crime
charged, the existence of conspiracy between the accused and the actual killers, must be shown,
and the same degree of proof required for establishing the crime is required to support a finding
of the presence of the conspiracy, i.e., it must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the
commission of the crime itself. Convictions can never rest on mere suspicions, however, grave
and serious.
IX. Disposition
The decision dated January 10, 1984 in Criminal Case No. Q-22896 of the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City was set aside. Accused-appellant Juan Escober was acquitted of the crime
of Robbery with Homicide and his immediate release from confinement is ordered, unless
detained for some other crimes. Accused- appellant Macario Punzalan, Jr.was found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt as principal in the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide and was
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victims in
the amount of P60, 000,00.