476 Phil. 486
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
WHEREFORE, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the four (4) above-named Accused are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged.[3]Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed the civil aspect of the aforesaid decision to the CA. The appellate court, however, dismissed the appeal. According to the CA, the court a quo correctly found that the petitioner’s act of cutting off the respondent’s water service connection without prior notice was arbitrary, injurious and prejudicial to the latter justifying the award of damages under Article 19 of the Civil Code.
In Civil Case No. Q-88-768...SO ORDERED.[4]
- Ordering defendant MWSS to pay plaintiff actual or compensatory damages in the amount of P25,000.00; and to return the sum of P200,000.00 deposited by the plaintiff for the restoration of its water services after its disconnection on September 23, 1988;
- Defendant’s counterclaim for undercollection of P530,759.96 is dismissed for lack of merit;
- Ordering defendant MWSS to pay costs of suit;
- Ordering defendant MWSS to pay plaintiff the amount of P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees;
- Making the mandatory injunction earlier issued to plaintiff Act Theater, Inc. permanent.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEAL[S] VALIDLY AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN RESOLVING THE PETITIONER’S APPEAL;Preliminarily, the petitioner harps on the fact that, in quoting the decretal portion of the court a quo’s decision, the CA erroneously typed P500,000 as the attorney’s fees awarded in favor of the respondent when the same should only be P5,000. In any case, according to the petitioner, whether the amount is P500,000 or P5,000, the award of attorney’s fees is improper considering that there was no discussion or statement in the body of the assailed decision justifying such award. The petitioner insists that in cutting off the respondent’s water service connection, the petitioner merely exercised its proprietary right under Article 429 of the Civil Code.II
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS VALIDLY UPHELD THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES;III
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEAL[S] CORRECTLY APPLIED THE PROVISION OF ARTICLE 19 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE APPLICABLE PROVISION OF ARTICLE 429 OF THE SAME CODE.[5]
Art. 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For 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.A right is a power, privilege, or immunity guaranteed under a constitution, statute or decisional law, or recognized as a result of long usage,[6] constitutive of a legally enforceable claim of one person against the other.[7]
Art. 19. 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.When a right is exercised in a manner which discards these norms resulting in damage to another, a legal wrong is committed for which actor can be held accountable.[9] In this case, the petitioner failed to act with justice and give the respondent what is due to it when the petitioner unceremoniously cut off the respondent’s water service connection. As 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 latter’s water services, this was done only a few hours before the actual disconnection. Upon receipt of the notice and in order to ascertain the matter, Act sent its assistant manager Teodulo Gumalid, Jr. to the MWSS office but he was treated badly on the flimsy excuse that he had no authority to represent Act. Act’s 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. As a consequence thereof, Act had to contract another source to provide water for a number of days. Plaintiff-appellee was also compelled to deposit with MWSS the sum of P200,000.00 for the restoration of their water services.[10]There is, thus, no reason to deviate from the uniform findings and conclusion of the court a quo and the appellate court that the petitioner’s act was arbitrary, injurious and prejudicial to the respondent, justifying the award of damages under Article 19 of the Civil Code.