Sergio Amonoy v. Sps.

Jose Guiterrez and Angela Fornilda

Facts
 This case had its roots in a specpro proceeding 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 Francisca
Catolos, Agnes Catolos, Asuncion Pasamba and Alfonso Formilda.
 The project of partition was submitted and approved and 2 of the lots were adjudicated to Asuncion
Pasamba and Alfonso Formilda. The attorney’s fees charged by Amonoy was P26,000.
o Pasamba and Formilda executed a deed of real estate mortgage on the 2 lots in favor of
Amonoy. But it was only after the taxes had been paid, the claims were settled and the
properties adjudicated when the estate was declared closed and terminated.
 Because the attorney’s fees were not paid, Amonoy filed for their foreclosure in a case. The heirs
opposed, contending that the attorney’s fees charged were unconscionable and that the agreed sum
was only P11,695.92. But judgment was rendered in favor of Amonoy requiring the heirs to pay.
o They still failed to pay. The auction sale from the foreclosure was held where Amonoy was the
highest bidder. Included in those sold was the lot on which sps. Guiterrez had their house.
 The heirs then filed a suit for the annulment thereof. A writ of possession was however granted by the
Court. But by the time the SC promulgated it, the respondent’s house had been demolished.
 Thus, a complaint for damages for the destruction of their house had been filed by respondents against
petitioner.
o RTC: dismissed. CA: set aside, ordered Amonoy to pay respondents P250,000 as actual
damages.

Issue & Ruling

WON petitioner is liable for damages. YES.
 Petitioner invokes Damnum absque injuria – damage resulting from the legitimate exercise of a
person’s rights is a loss without injury. 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.
o Petitioner argues that he was merely acting in accordance with the Writ of Demolition ordered
by RTC. This is wrong. Damnum absque injuria finds no application to this case.
o The records show that a TRO, enjoining the demolition of respondents’ house, was issued by
the Supreme Court. Petitioner did not heed the TRO of this Court.
 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. The act was tainted with bad faith.
o 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.
 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